What is Fraud: Part 5

Continuing the series “What is Fraud?” (go to that category on this blog for earlier posts), and continuing the ‘badges of fraud,’ the next ‘badge’ is:

false statements as to consideration

False statements in consideration points up the false promise, or the way in which the fraud is going to con the victim out of their property.

In the example of the person who comes to the door claiming to be selling shoes (then takes your money and the shoes never arrive), the ‘false statement as to consideration’ is the con man’s statement that he will send the shoes. If he knew he was never going to send the shoes, if that was just a false promise to get your money, that is a badge of fraud.

Let’s take another example. If a court demands a filing fee to “file” a case. Then it takes your money (much more than the price of most shoes – let’s say $550), but intends never to have the case ruled upon by judge(s), that is a false promise as to consideration. You believe that by filing your case and paying the filing fee that the court will rule on the case. (Your justification for believing that will be discussed in later posts.)

Your money is taken based on the belief that your case will be heard. The court had an opportunity to, but failed to disclose that the case would never be heard. In that situation, the fraud is by silence (you are not told that there is a shadow system that sidelines cases, and you are not told that case your case has been sidelined – when that occurs), and by gesture (the clerk nods and receives the papers and the money, implying you have filed a ‘case’ or motion, or writ).

You leave, having paid your money (not to mention the time and attorney fees already spent on the paperwork), believing the false statement as to consideration: that your case will be ruled upon by a judge(s).

In this situation, the failure, the refusal to tell you before you pay your money that the case is not going to be decided by judge(s), is a false statement – by omission – as to consideration.

May 16, 2013. No derivative works are authorized by copyright holder(s).

Full disclosures demanded from Lorie S. Gildea and Staff

I have spoken with Rita DeMeules, MN Supreme Court Commissioner.  I am aware that she reports directly to Lorie S. Gildea.  I am also aware of documents purporting to be ‘orders’ in In re Clark, that state at the bottom, that Gildea “took no part” in the decision.   How am I to believe that is true?  When the staff report to her?

Full disclosures are demanded, by end of business day Thursday, May 16, 2013, including but not limited to:

1) all involvement of Gildea in In re Clark;

2) a list of all meetings regarding In re Clark that were not held in the courtroom including who was in attendance and what was discussed;

3) a list of all meetings regarding In re Clark that did not involve the full Court and including who was in attendance and what was discussed;

4) why the recusal motion filed by Clark July 2012 was not considered and decided by the full court (from talking to DeMeueles, it sounds like there is some “docket” that motions and other matters must be placed on, and that staff decide what will be placed there, and why – why isn’t the public told that what we file can be sidelined by staff?  And how am I to believe, under those conditions, that staff did not do what Gildea, their supervisor, wanted them to do?)

5) whether the motion to change status of email evidence filed February 2012 was considered and decided by the full Court, and if not – why not.

Look, this is just for starters.  I am going to have MANY MORE questions.

May 14, 2013.  No derivative works are authorized by copyright holder(s).

What is Fraud: Part 4

This continues the series, What is Fraud?  (Go to the “What is Fraud?” category on this blog for earlier posts.)  Fraud can be proven using what are known as the ‘badges of fraud.’

Badges of fraud. A circumstance or other fact accompanying a transfer of property that the courts recognize as an especially reliable indicator of the transferror’s actual intention to hinder, delay, or defraud [] in making the transfer.  It is defined as a fact tending to throw suspicion upon a transaction, and calling for an explanation.

Above is the first part of the definition from Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Ed., West Publishing Co., 1990).  In a situation where numerous badges of fraud are observed, fraud is inferred.  I will, in later posts, discuss the badges of fraud, and give them some context.

Re-blogged from jillclarkspeaks, fixed in a tangible medium and posted May 13, 2013.  No derivatives works are authorized by copyright holder(s).

What is an Attorney: Part 4

This series has been discussing the various definitions of the word “attorney.”  Here is Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of Advocate:

Advocate.  One who assists, defends, or pleads for another. One who renders legal advice and aid and pleads the cause of another before a court or a tribunal, a counselor.  A person learned in the law, and duly admitted to practice, who assist his client with advice, and pleads for him in open court.  An assistant, adviser; a pleader of causes.

(Sixth Ed., West Publishing Co., 1990).  Advocate appear in various types of matters including domestic abuse cases (where they are common).

May 12, 2013.  No derivative works are authorized by copyright holder(s).

What is an Attorney: Part 2

This is the second in a series of posts about the definition of “attorney.”  See Part 1 in the series on this blog.

Power of attorney.  The instrument by which authority of one person to act in place and stead of another as attorney in fact is set forth.

Many people use the term ‘power of attorney’ to describe the document that transfers power.  Some use the term ‘power of attorney’ to describe the person (and that is not wrong as long as the meaning is clear), but the term is ‘attorney in fact.’  That term describes the person who accepts the grant of power.

The term ‘attorney in fact’ is often used to differentiate from the term ‘attorney at law.’

The above defintion is from Black’s Law Dictionary (Sixth Ed. West Publishing Co. 1990). I like to use that reference, because it is a hard-bound book. Sometimes I glimpse a related definition on the same page, and realize its relevance to my search. That is something we have lost in the digital environment.

You are not required to go to law school to act as an attorney in fact (that is, to exercise the power of attorney).  You are not required to have a state law license or be admitted to any court.

Common uses are a son accepts power of attorney over his aging mother’s finances.  Or perhaps someone has to leave the state for work and does not expect to return for years, and they grant power of attorney to a friend to sell their house.  Each aspect of the control by the one who accepts the power (the attorney in fact), must be described in the power of attorney document.  Those who accept the grant, are required to stay within the boundaries of the grant.

For example, if a mother gave her son authority to sell her house, but not to shut down her businesses, the son must be careful not to affect the businesses in the way he exercises the power.

The leaving friend would not want to learn, for example, that in addition to selling the house, the attorney in fact terminated the lease at the retirement center, a place where the leaving friend felt her father would be safe.

This is an important aspect of the law, one that affects many lives.  Stay tuned for Part 3 of this series.

May 9, 2013.  No derivative works are authorized by copyright holder(s).

What is Fraud: Part 1?

This series of posts discusses the important topic – what is fraud?

An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right.

The above is one sentence from the defintion of fraud from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, West Publishing Co., 1990 (emphasis added).  Later posts will cover such topics as manifestations of fraud, actionable fraud, and the badges of fraud.

May 8, 2013.  No derivative works are authorized by copyright holder(s).

May 8, 2013.  No derivatives works are authorized by copyright holder(s).

Public data is supposed to be public

I am concerned about recent events.

I received an email that indicated it was from Carla Heyl.  She has indicated in the past to me that she is a lawyer who works in Minnesota Court Administration.

The Heyl email stated that another contract to ‘digitize’ and destroy public court data was ‘recently’ signed.  I am not sure the date of the signing, but I’m concerned it could have been after I raised the alarm about the destruction of public documents, and the resulting lack of integrity of court data.

That data belongs to the public.  We do not want to risk loss of integrity.

Stop.

Now.

Lorie Gildea: the buck stops with you

Report card for the Minnesota state courts:  Part 1

The FY2012-FY13 Priorities & Strategies for Minnesota’s Judicial Branch – under the administration of Chief Justice Lorie S. Gildea, claims to have the following Vision, Mission and Core Values.  (Do you notice that those are the buzz words from the corporate 90’s?  Gildea is not only a decade behind the times, now the courts are using corporate speak!)

Lorie S. Gildea wrote a “Letter from the Chief Justice.”  She endorsed the “vision” stated below and she is accountable for it.  Lori Gildea, if you want to be in elected office, you need to respond to questions from the public and criticisms of your administration.

What follows is part 1 – one sentence from the supposed “Vision” together with the Report Card from the Public.  Subsequent parts of this post will discuss other sentences from this document.

“The general public and those who use the court system will refer to it as”	Grade from the General Public – those who use the court system…
Accessible	F There are huge impediments to access for “average” people, without political buddies, ties to law enforcement, employed by government or a big corporation. We cannot “access” your system. We cannot e-file. We cannot e-serve. We cannot file hard copy documents. We cannot access our own files that you supposedly hold in trust for us, either the paper or digital version. We do not feel safe in your courthouses.
Fair	F Your system is fraught with cronyism, cases are not decided on the law but based on the personal whims or agendas of judge, or clerks, or staff. And when a member of the General Public – someone who uses the court system – tries to talk about these problems, you put them in jail, call them crazy, call them conspiracy nuts, and you protect the wrong-doers.
Consistent	F The law is not followed.  The  procedural rules are not followed.  Instead, you have secret “policies” that the General Public never authorized, that we cannot access, that judges even have trouble locating, and that are not consistently enforced. Lawyers and parties who know judges, or who clerked for your courts, who are public employees, or who are with a law firm with political ties, they don’t have to follow the rules or the law.  They can file things late, make email motions. Criminal prosecutors can withhold evidence and produce evidence in the middle of a trial. But the General Public, we get strung up by our toes if someone contends that a filing was 45 minutes late.  Or that we did not read the mind of the  judge or did not cross a T or dot an “i.”
Responsive	F You are not responsive to the true needs of the General Public, the emergencies we raise.  When our safety is at risk, when our homes are in jeopardy, when our children are in danger, when our rights are trampled – you are too busy, or you want to push things out a couple of months…and then you leave at 4:30. Lorie Gildea, you won’t even come out of your office to respond to the General Public.  Are you too busy?  Do you need to leave at 4:30? But insiders can get  instantaneous, ex parte access and decisions.
Free of discrimination	F This is in the “don’t know whether to laugh or cry” department. The General Public is hereby removing from you permission to use words like “equal access,” and “justice.”  Don’t you dare use those words for your publicly-paid PR campaign.  We are taking those words back. Lorie Gildea, you better find a thesaurus becuase you are not permitted to use those words any more. And no more publicly-paid “proclamations” read to jurors.  You want jurors to know who you are, you have to try cases!  And you need to pay for your own campaign!
Independent	F You have PARTNERS in the Executive Branch and the Legislature.  You won’t tell us who they are.  You have “justice system partners.”  You won’t tell us who they are. You let Mark Thompson store JUDICIAL BRANCH records in Minneapolis City Hall, and the County jail! You let executive branch agencies access court computer data – you encourage it!  You let political cronies see confidential juvenile data and perpetrate political agendas. Madison would roll over in his grave.
Well-managed	F Your systems don’t work. Your systems cause harm. You don’t follow the Minnesota Constitution. You make it up as you go along, granting yourselves power.  You strip the General Public of the power we ceded to government. You spent $40 million and climbing on an electronic data management system, which does not manage data, does not preserve data.  And you shredded original court records.  One hundred years of public-paid history. Don’t tell us you don’t have space for the paper.  Forty million dollars would buy an entire warehouse! You spend from the Judicial Branch budget, $40 million and climbing, even though a statute says it’s owned by the State. You have sacrificed that which make the courts – courts – in the name of “efficiency.”  But you are not efficient.

I continue to remark on how other states appear to be investigating, disciplining and prosecuting judges more frequently than does Minnesota. And, I continue to wonder why Minnesota major media refuses to report about evidence of judicial misconduct.

Take this example from Pennsylvania. Philly.com reported that Supreme Court Justice Joan Melvin was convicted last month of theft of services, conspiracy and misappropriation of state property. According to that news outlet, a jury determined that Melvin conducted political activity on taxpayer time, and used public resources to help further Melvin’s campaigns for the high court in 2003 and 2009.

Philly.com story address is here (you can cut and paste it into your browser, because for reasons that are unclear the link function on this blog appears not to be working):
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/harrisburg_politics/House-members-ready-resolution-for-impeachment-proceedings.html

Philly.com says Melvin is suspended without pay. Now the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Comittee can launch an investigation and determine whether to impeach her.

Pennsylvania’s last impeachment was in 1994 (according to the above story).

Minnesota has NEVER impeached a judge. Although Minn. Const. Art. VIII, Sec. 1 gives impeachment powers to the Minnesota Senate,

Section 1. IMPEACHMENT POWERS. The house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment through a concurrence of a majority of all its members. All impeachments shall be tried by the senate.

The Legislature has never adopted procedures for such impeachment process. I happen to know that Minnesota’s judicial reform activists have been pointing this out for years. The Legislature still has not done anything. I guess that means the only process that judges get – is that set forth in the Constitution itself: “No person shall be tried on impeachment before he has been served with a copy thereof at least 20 days previous to the day set for trial.”  (Art. VIII, Sec. 4).

Twenty days’ notice. That’s it.  Those are your procedures, judges. I guess we’ll have to go forward with that.

Minnesota Legislature, what’s going on over there?  The public wants to know why no Minnesota judge has EVER been impeached.  As some people know, impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office.  It does mean to investigate, make an allegation, and perhaps hold a trial.  Why has that process never occurred in Minnesota?

Now, you aren’t seriously going to tell me that there has never been any judicial misconduct in Minnesota, are you?  I mean, no one believes that PR any more.

I sent the below letter to the Legislature (copies for every member were hand delivered) in 2011. I never received any indication that any legislator wanted to dialogue about it, to obtain more information – even though I pointed out that I had transcripts in my office.

May 2011 letter re Martha Holton Dimick as bad recommendation for judge

Not only did I not receive any communication from the Legislature, I received nothing from the Governor’s office.  And Martha Holton-Dimick was appointed judge.

The Public really deserves an answer:  what is going on with these judicial “appointments?”  I mean, it can’t be about who is most qualified to be a judge.

The Public deserves answers to these questions.

Don’t start packing your boxes yet!

I had an ear-opening conversation with the “Appointments Coordinator” of the Minnesota Governor’s Office yesterday.

I requested copies of all endorsements or recommendations of David Lillehaug for the supposedly open seat on the MN Supreme Court.

The response was funny (in the I-don’t-know-whether-to-laugh-or-cry department):  he said that it is the POLICY of the Governor’s Office not to release those.

I said, I don’t want to be rude, but I don’t really care what the POLICY is.  (I want the information so I can participate in my democracy. )

He said, “we like to encourage the free flow of information.”  (If that’s not verbatim, it’s very close.)

I said, did you hear what you just said?  I would like the free flow of information!

He stared to get more guarded, and cagey and eventually he had to “go” but wanted my name.

Hmmm.

But here’s the kicker.

I asked to see what Governor Dayton SIGNED to appoint Lillehaug.  He said nothing has been signed yet, that that will not occur until some small group of people (which he would NOT name ) decides when the “effective date” is.

So…press conference…press releases…media coverage BUT IT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET!  (Minnesota major media – do you research anything before you post stories?)

Lillehaug has NOT been appointed, not according to what I was told yesterday.

Now, that’s OK by me.  The more I learn, the more I believe that seat needs to go up for election.  (You know, a real election, where people vote, and the votes are actually counted, tabulated, and reported according to the law.)

Elections are how the People REFORM their government.

And I was also glad to have someone speak some truth about the process, acknowledging that a small group of people is making these decisions.  Not the law, not the constitution.  A small group of people.

I wonder who that could be.

The Appointments Coordinator did acknowledge that Lillehaug would be in this small group.  He said we are going to “allow” Justice Anderson to serve until the end of May.

Wow.

Mr. Lillehaug, you might not want to pack your boxes yet.

Even according to the Governor’s office – you have not been appointed.

And no small group of people gets to make these decisions.  Certainly not some shadow group – where the People are not even told who they are.

I mean, c’mon.