The Madness Of Attorney Jill Clark, Part Two Of At Least Three, But Who Knows? Nicole Yzaguirre Faces Relatively Minor Charges For Allegedly Aiding And Abetting Forgery, Clark Files Bats*** Crazy Federal Case Which Is Soon Settled, But Filings Put Oh-So-Juicy Facts In Front Of This Blogger, Which Wasn't Hard To Predict, Now Was It?

Stock photo, (so-called "Walmart" at Forward Operating Base Gardez, Afghanistan) blog post by John Hoff

Nicole Yzaguirre (DOB 8/28/90) doesn't have much of a criminal record, not yet. A search of online court records shows a single conviction for "Seatbelt--Driver And Passenger Must Use." But now Nicole is caught up in messy allegations over aiding and abetting a forgery at Walmart, where she used to work. This relatively minor allegation--keep in mind, it was merely an allegation of "aiding and abetting," not an allegation of forgery ITSELF--fell into the hands of "loon lawyer" Jill Clark, who literally made a federal case out of it.

If the Clark family had a coat of arms, it would be a mole standing in front of a mountain, fat arms outstretched triumphantly, as though to say, "Look what I made!"

Now the messy specifics of what happened, actually or allegedly, can be found online through a simple search of the name "Nicole Yzaugirre," which turns up this federal court Memorandum Opinion and Order, click here. If this matter had just stayed in district court, the details would require a lot more work to access.

Nicole is the daughter of Terry Yzaguirre, an anti-NoMi revitalization blogger who pours scorn and criticism upon this blog and others involved in NoMi's neighborhood revitalization movement, though she doesn't even live in North Minneapolis but Powderhorn in SOUTH Minneapolis.

Meanwhile, both her sons (Jerome and Eric Yzaguirre) are convicted drug runners, click here.

Terry's attorney is Jill Clark, the go-to attorney for...

...filing pointless, harassing lawsuits against figures in the North Minneapolis revitalization movement, including but certainly not limited to

1.) "Mayor of Crazy Town" Al Flowers versus City Councilman Don Samuels, over allegations of "assault by deliberate backwards toe stepping" (Failed) 

2.) Level Three Sex Offender Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer versus Michael "Kip" Brown (Failed) (And also, Failed) 

3.) The "True JACC" lawsuit over control of the Jordan Area Community Council (Epic Fail, the fat lady has nothing left to sing about but attorney fees) 

The connection between Nicole Yzaguirre and Jill Clark is, obviously, Nicole's mother. So now it appears Nicole is a big girl and can file stuff in court through Jill Clark, just like mommy.

Nicole used to work at Walmart in Bloomington and good for her, it's better than being a stripper. Nicole hadn't worked there long, however, and was still in her probationary period when trouble came to the happy land of the big box store.

Documentation For This Story, As Follows

The story of Nicole's arrest, the subsequent civil suit, and its settlement can be found in the online memorandum order, click here, as well as Clark's complaint on behalf of Nicole and an answer filed by the defendant, a police officer named Eric Norling, as well as a settlement document. (Dismissal with Prejudice, referencing fact the parties have "settled")

Clark's complaint and Norling's answer, as well as the  Dismissal with Prejudice document are documents in my possession, provided by a source. The status of Nicole's charges for allegedly aiding and abetting a check forgery can be found by accessing online court info. The case is 27-CR-12-5524. (See my correction providing clearer descriptions of the documents, in comments below)

However, the case only comes up in a search for criminal cases handled by Jill Clark, and not a search for Nicole Yzaguirre. Being a prolific user of the online courts records database, I have noticed this particular quirk before. The information will find its way under Nicole's name eventually.

As of today, Nicole has an omnibus hearing pending for May 25. The charges have not been dismissed. The "settlement" in federal court was not a settlement that favored either party, but an "everybody walks away and pays their own lawyer fees" settlement for a b.s. lawsuit that shouldn't have been filed in the first place.

The most fair recitation of facts can be found in the settlement order, (Correction, online Memorandum Order) summarized as follows.

New Employee, Bad Check 

On June 7, 2010, Nicole Yzaguirre was working at the MoneyCenter at Walmart in Bloomington, MN. (Court writes "Wal-Mart" throughout, I am using my preferred spelling) On that date, suspect James Bulger and a suspect identified only as "L.A." went to Walmart to cash a forged United States Treasury Check. The check was originally made payable to Kristina Campbell in the amount of $674 but had been altered to be made payable to "James O. Bulger" in the amount of $3,674.

Nicole had never seen Bulger before but had been introduced to the individual known as L.A. by a mutual friend, Markita Seahorn, a few months earlier.

Bulger and L.A. went to the MoneyCenter area of the store, and L.A. observed from a short distance away as Bulger approached Nicole's cash lane to cash the forged check. Bulger signed the back of the check, handed the check and his ID to Nicole, and typed in his social security number on the keypad while Nicole typed in Bulger's state ID number and the amount of the check. Nicole handed over $3,674 and Bulger left the store with LA.

Plaintiff did not notice anything suspicious about the check at the time Bulger handed it over to her (according to Nicole's deposition) but then looked at it further, thought it didn't quite look right, and "left it out so (she) could show her manager right away and let him figure it out." After showing her manager the check, he turned it over to loss prevention. Nicole was fired the next day because she was still in her probationary employment phase and the forged check was greater than $100. But then, incredibly, Nicole was told to reapply in 60 days.

Here, I wish to insert criticism of the management of that particular Walmart. It's somebody's probationary period and you put them in the MONEY CENTER? Cashing checks for, like, thousands of dollars? Why on earth wouldn't you put a new employee on the cash registers, ringing up bags of pork rinds and chia pets, hopefully not forgetting the big boxes of Diet Cola and lawn seed on the bottom of the cart before you entrust them with check cashing responsibilities? As Napoleon Dynamite put it so well: Uh! IDIOT!

As if that wasn't stupid enough, management provides this little insight into Walmart procedures. Just reapply in 60 days.

On the day of her termination for cashing the fake check, Plaintiff obtained L.A.'s cell phone number from Seahorn and sent him a text message, indicating she was going to call the police on him because "he was with that person cashing the fake check...and I got fired because of that."

L.A. sent a text message in response that he knew where Nicole lived and he would kill her. The court document says Plaintiff never reported L.A. to the police. Presumably, around the time of her firing Nicole never helpfully provided the phone number of L.A. to Walmart loss prevention or explained how she knew L.A., from the introduction by Markita Seahorn.

Not exactly employee of the month, here.

Detective Norling And The Secret Service Enter The Picture

It was the same day of the check cashing incident, July 7, when the defendant Eric Norling became involved. Norling is a detective for the Bloomington Police Department. Upon examination of the check, he knew just exactly what the facts were. He wasn't going to let those two (Bulger and L.A.) escape justice. After all, Norling makes a living off the people's taxes. (Click here for "Take The Money And Run" by the Steve Miller Band)

It was some time later, August 20, when Norling and OMG United States Secret Service Agent Richard Grossheim arrested Bulger for check fraud. Bulger made a statement to police in which he said L.A. told him to approach a particular teller because she was his "inside connection."

Norling contacted Walmart to determine the identity of the teller. Walmart identified Nicole Yzaguirre and helpfully added that while she'd been initially terminated, she'd been rehired and would be working the following week.

On August 27, Norling and Secret Service Agent Grossheim interviewed the plaintiff at Walmart. They asked Nicole how she knew the person who was with Bulger. Nicole volunteered that she knew him through Markita Seahorn and she'd texted him afterward because "he pretty much cost me my job."

Because Plaintiff did not have the phone number for Seahorn or the individual with Bulger, Norling asked Nicole to come to the Bloomington Police Department to produce her cell phone records. Nicole's claim that Norling just took her phone from her hand without consent and searched it can be found in a footnote.

By the 30th, three days later, Nicole still hadn't found her way to the police station. Norling contacted Nicole and told her she needed to come to the Bloomington Police Department at 12:30 the following day "for a formal booking process, though she was not charged with a crime, yet, and she would be immediately released."

This is where Jill Clark enters the picture and molehills become mountains. Clark contacted Norling and told him he should not contact Nicole. Clark sent a memorandum documenting the conversation "in which she claimed to assert Plaintiff's right to remain silent and plaintiff's right to counsel."

The word "claimed" is interesting. One can't help but note when the memo was sent, Nicole hadn't been arrested YET.

Norling still waited for the scheduled time to see if Nicole would turn up. It was two hours after the scheduled time--slack enough even if Nicole had been quite tardy in turning up--that Norling decided to head over to Walmart and arrest her for "probable cause forgery and have her booked at the police department."

The Walmart Walk Of Shame

Norling entered the Walmart break room where "not employee of the month" Nicole was taking a 15 minute break, asked her to stand up, put handcuffs on her, and explained he was arresting her. Nicole claims that Norling specifically said he was arresting her for not coming to the 12:30 meeting, NOT for forgery. Norling then walked Nicole out through the store, out to the front where the police car was waiting.

Nicole's complaint bitches much about this humiliating episode. I am not aware of any law that says the police must go out of their way to "preserve the sensitive feelings of the accused," for example, by going out the back way, etc. Indeed, one sees cop shows on television where CAMERA CREWS tag along. Nicole also claims Norling said there were "pending charges" when no charges were pending.

Of course, the phrase "pending charges" is a somewhat ambiguous term. "Pending" means something is coming, but it's not here, yet. Since Nicole does in fact face charges as of this moment stemming from the check cashing incident, wouldn't it be ACCURATE in late August 2011 to say charges are "pending," which is to say, "coming but not here, yet"? Charges did, after all, come. In any case, Nicole was suspended from her employment at Walmart. Try as hard as I might, I am unable to see any unfairness in that.

After arrest, Nicole indicated she wanted an attorney and did not make a statement. She was photographed, fingerprinted, and released. The order notes Nicole has not yet been charged. That was true when the order was written in late December 2011. However, it appears charges came in February of this year, based upon online court info.

The Defendant in this case, Eric Norling, tried to get a motion for summary judgment. It was denied. However, subsequently the federal case was dismissed with prejudice (meaning it can't be filed again) with both sides walking away with nothing. The order for dismissal was March 20, 2012. This was some time after charges were filed against Nicole in February. So now Nicole has NO FEDERAL LAWSUIT, charges pending, and the system has "got her number." A minor case has been transformed into a spectacle.

BEHOLD THE MADNESS OF ATTORNEY JILL CLARK!!!!

The actual complaint of Nicole Yzaguirre, written by Clark, provides some other snippets of info and insight. For example, Clark never mentioned "Walmart" or the "MoneyCenter" but made vague reference to a "big box store" where Nicole was working in the "financial department."

The complaint mentioned that Norling began to contact Nicole's mother, Terry Yzaguirre, asking for phone records and text messages. Clark claims when she spoke to Norling and mentioned Nicole invoking her 5th and 6th Amendment rights, Norling hung up on her. (Compare with other lawsuit concerning Eric Yzaguirre's circumstances, where Clark sued a woman known only as "Jessica" who hung up on Clark)

The complaint also mentions that Norling spent time talking to individuals at the store, and Nicole was "not privy to that conversation." In the car after Nicole's "Walmart walk of shame," Norling reportedly told Nicole, "you are grown enough to be able to call on your own and tell me you were not coming or to reschedule." (Clark's complaint puts a needless hyphen in "reschedule.") Norling also reportedly said, "You are grown enough to deal with me directly and not through your Mom or an attorney."

Supposedly, Norling tried to get Nicole to talk to him without an attorney. Nicole was put in a locked jail cell, very similar to the sort of cells she will be occupying for longer periods of time if she's found guilty of the charges PENDING against her.

Norling reportedly made comments like, "Did you think I was going to let this go, that I wasn't going to come find you?" and also, "I was trying to keep this private, but now it's going to be public and everyone is going to know."

(Johnny Northside asks: Police detective? Or eerie prophet? And let's not forget how far into the future he can look for "pending charges.")

Nicole claims she can't return to work due to the "humiliating and malicious custodial arrest" inside her workplace, the "big box store" not actually named in the complaint, but it's the Walmart in Bloomington.

US Treasury Check Altered By "Whiting Out"

Norling's answer provides other additional informative tidbits. The check at issue was reportedly altered by "whiting out" the name on the check and adding the name "James Bulger." I can't help but wonder if "whiting out" refers to a somewhat clever criminal bleaching process for checks or if Nicole actually cashed a check altered by the use of white out, something a 5th Grader would probably be smart enough to know was forged. An actual peek at the actual check would be highly informative in determining "What are we expected to believe about Nicole's purported innocence?" The facts seem to make clear this was a UNITED STATES TREASURY CHECK, the kind with a picture of the Statue of Liberty printed by our government, not the kind of check from your checkbook you can wash in acetone and easily alter.

According to Defendant Norling's answer, "Bulger and L.A. went to the Walmart Money Center with the forged check and LA pointed to a particular teller, later identified as...Nicole Yzaguirre, because L.A. had arranged for her to accept the forged check." The answer mentions how both Bulger and Nicole Yzaguirre have been charged in the incident and "these felony criminal charges are currently pending in Hennepin County District Court."

Note the understated sentence and the use of the word "pending." Nice.

In Conclusion, "Careless, Negligent And Unlawful"

This sentence near the conclusion of Norling's answer seems to sum things up pretty well:

"The answering party alleges any injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiff were caused by, due to and the result of the careless, negligent and unlawful conduct on the part of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's fault was greater than any fault of any other person and, therefore, this answering party is not liable to the Plaintiff."

James Otis Bulger, DOB 4/21/1969

Naturally, I wanted to dig into the background of James O. Bulger, who was arrested in the check cashing scheme, and check his background.

Here is his rap sheet. Not all of these represent CONVICTIONS, but plenty of them do.

27-CR-94-071086
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
08/15/1994
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Southdale
Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed
ASSAULT IN THE 5TH DEGREE
ASSAULT IN THE 5TH DEGREE

19-T0-97-072141
B5OR098884
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
10/07/1997
- Dakota-Apple Valley
Non- Traffic Misdemeanor
Converted Closed
WORTHLESS CHECK

19-T0-98-059433
FC98059433
FC98059433
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
06/03/1998
- Dakota-Apple Valley
Non- Traffic Misdemeanor
Converted Closed
OBSTRUCT LEGAL PROCESS
POSS OF DRUG PARAPHERNALA

19-K3-98-002062
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
09/01/1998
Dakota-Hastings - Criminal/Traffic/Petty
Misdemeanor
Converted Closed
GM INTERFERENCE 911 CALL
ASSAULT 5TH DEGREE

27-CR-01-078754
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
09/21/2001
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown
Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed
CONTROLLED SUB CRIME 3RD DEG-SALE

27-CR-03-021002
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
03/26/2003
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown
Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed
CONTROLLED SUB CRIME 5TH DEG-POSSESSION

27-CR-04-011348
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
02/20/2004
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown
Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed
LOITER W/INT NARCOTICS
POSSESS DRUG PARAPHENELIA IN PUBLIC

27-CR-05-063461
1050465671
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
10/03/2005
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown
Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed
TRESPASSING

27-CR-05-078556
1050187291
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
12/08/2005
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown
Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed
TRESPASSING

27-CR-06-036303
106617424
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
05/30/2006
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown
Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed
TRESPASSING

27-CR-07-022041
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
04/06/2007
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown
Crim/Traf Mandatory
Under Court Jurisdiction
LOITER WITH INTENT TO BUY/SELL NARCOTICS

27-CR-08-9180
1080428541
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
02/22/2008
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown
Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed
Trespassing

27-CR-09-24400
1090181759
1090181759
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
05/15/2009
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown
Crim/Traf Mandatory
Closed
Loiter with intent to solicit any act prohibited by law
Possession of drug paraphernalia

27-CR-11-15672
BULGER, JAMES OTIS
04/21/1969
05/19/2011
Hennepin Criminal/Traffic/Petty Downtown
Crim/Traf Mandatory
Under Court Jurisdiction
Drug Possession-5th Degree

I have not turned up any criminal record for Markita Seahorn.

In Summary, Nicole Sure Sounds Guilty To Me, But That's For The System To Decide

Due to filing a premature, and most likely baseless lawsuit against a police officer, now it's probably going to be Clark's argument that the system is "retaliating" against Nicole Yzaguirre by prosecuting Nicole for the crime the system was trying so hard to arrest her for in the first place. Meanwhile, every kind of nasty troll crawls from the virtual woodwork and breathes threats for this blogger publishing these facts. It's not hard to figure out where that kind of thing originates.

Three thousand dollars is a lot of money, more so in a tough economy. If I were responsible for cashing that check, I would SCRUTINIZE IT CLOSELY. Furthermore, I would be more suspicious if some friend-of-a-friend were the one approaching me to cash the check, the other friend "hanging by," emotions flitting across his face: fear, eagerness, worry, GREED, dark hopefulness, and undeniable craving for those yummy roasted chickens you can usually get in the Walmart food section for around $5.99.

And if I were a NEW EMPLOYEE ON PROBATIONARY STATUS with this check in my hand?

Oh, my word, how careful I would be.

And then there's the question of how this United States treasury check was altered and successfully cashed. These checks have security features, click here for details. You'd have to be STUPID, CRAZY OR IN ON THE FRAUD to cash an altered treasury check. I mean, is that Nicole's defense? Because there is some evidence her whole family is off its rocker.

Can't wait to see how this plays out! If the prosecutors drop the ball on this one, I won't hesitate to call them out by name.

(This would be, of course, an attempt "to procure favorable government action.")