Creative stock photo, this guy helped fix my teeth in Afghanistan and did a great job despite, er, primitive conditions, blog post by John Hoff
This will only hurt a little.
I'm just kidding. Actually, I have no idea how much it will hurt...
Acting at lightning speed by the standard of any American judicial proceeding, let alone a State Supreme Court, Minnesota's highest court issued an order yesterday compelling troubled attorney Jill Clark to submit to examination by a medical expert to be appointed by judicial referee Judge Siebel. (Click on previous highlighted portion for a PDF of the order)
The court said the record before it raises "substantial questions" regarding Clark's ability to competently represent clients or assist in her own defense. The medical expert to be appointed by Seibel will be directed to conduct an examination that will "include but not be limited to issues of (Jill Clark's) mental health." Any records Clark submits as part of the proceeding are to be sealed and not released to members of the public.
Judicial referee Seibel is to make and report his findings on or before December 26. The findings are to be wrapped in a big red bow to serve as a Christmas gift to the decent people in North Minneapolis who have been harassed for years by Clark's frivolous lawsuits. Kidding. But not really.
Tactfully rephrasing Clark's verbal assertions (click here for YouTube video) that she had PTSD from judges shouting at her and had been "falsely imprisoned" in the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, the high court said "Clark stated her medical condition was different than what she thought it was back in June."
Johnny Northside blog predicts 1.) Clark will eventually be placed on disability inactive status, 2.) In response to this order, Clark and/or her lawyer will file something asserting a Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure and refusing to submit to the appointed medical examiner, 3.) The same filing will state Clark's medical records are not safe because "the public" doesn't include counsel for the Lawers' Board, who might then give the documents to judges like my best friend in the whole world (who I have never actually met) Judge Zimmerman, who will then give the documents to Johnny Northside.
Only they don't, because the documents Clark is whining about came off PACER. Do judges send me "dear Johnny" emails directing me to go and look at PACER and asking when we're going to get together for a drinky winky in chambers? I'm not saying.
In closing, allow me to add: How many Jill Clarks does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
No lightbulb can possibly be as screwy as Jill Clark.