MINNESOTA JUDICIAL REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Government Corruption Crisis - Judicial "Kids for Cash" Program

2011-04-10T04:47:00.000-07:00

!

!
The Minnesota "Kids for Cash" Program involves the Family Divorce Courts.

Rather than make rulings in the best interests of the family or children, Judges purposely make rules to maximize income to the County received for "managing" child support payments.

Joint physical custody does not work for Minnesota Judges, because then neither Parent pays child support and the County does not get a piece of the action.

Want your child support reduced because of a change in economic situation? No way, because the County gets a percentage of the money and if they reduce your child support, you reduce income to the County.

2 Parents with an amicable divorce want to handle the child support themselves? Not a chance, no money in that arrangement for the County.

Thought debtor's Prison was outlawed, not for child support. People are routinely thrown in jail for not paying child support, even if caused by the loss of a job.

And once the Government started profiting from taking a percentage of child support, they put more teeth in the law by making it possible to take away driver's licenses. [(It is ironic how the government can take away your driver's license for child support or not submitting to a sobriety test, but Judges and Lawyers don't lose their law licenses summarily for malpractice of the law) No, I have never had my DL pulled for DWI or child support]

Our public schools indoctrinate us with the propaganda that Judges are wise people with integrity that make decisions based in the rule of law.

The reality is that Judges view WE THE PEOPLE as a herd and their only interest is how best to manage the herd for profit.

And if you have ever dared to criticize the Government or Judicial System, you are they will deprive you of justice as punishment for exercising your First Amendment Rights.

J Edgar Hoover:

The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.

!

Is our State Attorney General not acting to prosecute the corruption in our Minnesota Judiciary because she also is receiving "tips" to look the other way?

Those were my thoughts.

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

TellMyPolitician

Minnesota Injustice: True Court Horror Cases - With Names

Minnesota US Federal District Court to Determine if US Constitution is worth the paper it is written on

2011-03-28T03:32:00.000-07:00

For the 6th year now, a loose coalition of Minnesota Citizens and groups have asked to present testimony and evidence of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary to the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees. This with the intent of then getting the Legislature to pass bills to reform the Minnesota Judiciary.

For 5 of those 6 years, the Democrats held the majority in both houses. This year the Republicans hold the majority in both houses but appear to be engaging in the same old tactics.

The first amendment of the US Constitution Provides:

"Congress shall make no law..... abridging.... Right to Petition the Government for redress of Grievances."

In this litigation I have moved for a Writ of Mandamus ordering the Minnesota Legislature to hear testimony and evidence of Systemic Corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. (Please read the attached Memorandum of Law to how fundamental this right to petition our government is to any Representative Republic)

The Proposed Order for the Writ and the accompany Memorandum of Law are attached at the end of this article.

Hundreds of your fellow Minnesota Citizens have tried to exercise their Constitutional Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances before the Minnesota House and Judiciary Committees for years. The Chairpersons for these Committees have denied our Right to Petition and acted offended that we have even asked. For years Citizens and groups in this coalition have been cajoled, misled, attacked, demonized and discredited.

In 2009 we held this unofficial ad hoc meeting on Minnesota Judicial Corruption.The video evidence of this unofficial AD Hoc hearing (as opposed to an official hearing because the Minnesota Legislative Judicial Committees would not hear our Petitions) can be found as video here http://t.co/RvJjOf1 and here http://t.co/facu3gP Also here in the left column http://bit.ly/2zyif (see attached affidavit, exhibits and linked videos)

I trust that in watching them you garner two facts.

1) The people testifying are normal, credible, next door neighbor, type folks;
2) The people testifying have some very compelling evidence and testimony of Judicial Corruption and Abuse of Power.

Why would your Minnesota Government refuse to honor these folks 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for redress of Grievances?

I allege it is because they have something to hide. Refusing to hear evidence of judicial corruption is part and parcel of covering up the ongoing corruption and abuse of power in the Minnesota Judiciary.

“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.”- J Edgar Hoover

Again, review the video tape of the 2009 unofficial Ad hoc Committee meeting on Judicial Corruption. I understand the desire to not want to believe how corrupt our judiciary is, but the facts are before you.

"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."-- John Hay, (1872)

Again, ask yourselves why for 6 years the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees would refuse to honor our Constitutional Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances? What must they have to hide?

Censorship and Propaganda are some of the tactics of Tyrants in the Minnesota Judiciary and Government.

But that strategy can be challenged in the age of the internet. As I wrote in the previous article, First Principles, People Are Equal Under Natural Law.

As you will recall from that article:

The fundamental understanding our US Founding Fathers had in drafting our constitution, is People under Natural Law have free will, and are not virtuous by nature. Therefore, governments must be constructed in anticipation of the nature of man. Acting on this knowledge, our Founding Fathers built into our Government and Constitution, various checks and balances.

Amongst these checks and balances were transparency and accountability. All of our problems today emanate from the slow, persistent rolling back of the checks and balances, transparency and accountability our Founding Fathers built into our Government and Constitution.

And so with transparency and accountability in mind, I inform my fellow Minnesota Citizens that I have been unable to get the transcripts from the untying matter.

Judge Yunker, at the direction of the Minnesota Judiciary, fixed a case in which I was the Plaintiff so I would recognize only the smallest of financial remuneration, yet my reputation would be destroyed. This was in retaliation for my 20 years of political dissent in trying to expose the corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. The unaltered Transcripts will show how Judge Mary Yunker colluded with others to fix this case to my detriment.

The allegedly criminally corrupt Judge Mary Yunker refuses to produce the transcripts I have requested.

I call upon the Judge Yunker to produce these transcripts from on or about 12/29/2010 and 01/07/2011.
If Judge Yunker produces the transcripts I will post them here on the internet for all to see.
If Judge Yunker produces the actual transcripts, you the reader will see how judges fix court cases.
If Judge Yunker produces an altered document, we will have yet one more instance of confirmed alteration of transcripts.

So I am calling on Judge Yunker to participate in the process that the Founding Fathers prescribed for combating corruption and guarding against tyranny.

Send me the transcripts so that my fellow Minnesota Citizens can know your true nature.

And if I am lying about your alleged criminal acts Judge Yunker sue me to shut me up.

It is too much to hope that your fellow judges will speak to you about the necessity of you resigning.

And the Corruption is so systemic, that persons and Government Departments charged with overseeing the Minnesota Judiciary, like the Board of Judicial Standards say the Legislature did not give them the authority to deal with Judges fixing Court Cases.

And the FBI directs me to the Board of Judicial Standards, which said Board says the do not have the power. (The Minnesota AG is part of the Problem)

My fellow Minnesotans, does it make any sense that there are no State or Federal agencies charged with investigating allegations of Obstruction of Justice through Court Case Fixing by Judges?

Judge Yunker, please provide the transcripts so the entire state can know your true nature.
If you have nothing to hide, why won't you provide the transcripts.

I can see no way that the Federal Judge can deny the Writ of Mandamus, but most assuredly he will try. 6 years is plenty of notice. But you, my fellow citizens will find out at almost the same time as me, whether the US Minnesota District Court thinks of the US Constitution and Right to Petition the Government for redress as the Cornerstones of our Representative Constitutional Republic or merely instruments of indoctrination and propaganda that can be easily be ignored and discarded by our Government when they find them inconvenient.

In closing, my fellow Minnesota Citizens, let us hope that the weapon of transparency prescribed by the Founding Fathers has the desired effect.

Let us hope hope that the light of day begins to send the cockroaches scurrying for cover.

If I have time, next weekend i will write articles delineating how the Courts fix cases in two case I am away of. I will also write about how any attorney you hire is more loyal to the judge, than he is to you your client and postulate my reasons of why this is so.

I write this article, as I do all of my articles, with the same intent of Thomas Payne. I seek know leadership role, I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own "Common Sense"

Those were my thoughts.

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

TellMyPolitician

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Don Mashak and

First National Repossessors, Inc., Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM

Plaintiffs,

Vs.

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court,

Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist,

Diana Longrie, Lee Wolfgram,

Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull,

John and Jane Doe(s),

Defendants.

The above-entitled matter came before Judge John R. Tunheim on the motion for a Write of Mandamus (the State Defendants) (Docket #15).

Based upon the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) To ensure that the interests of the Governed and Governed remain the same, and to provide the transparency and accountability the Founding Fathers intended as a check and balance on the power of Government, the Court grants a Writ of Mandamus ordering the entire Minnesota Legislature to hold and attend hearings for the presentation of testimony and evidence of systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. Said hearings to last up to 5 days (9 hours each day prorated) before the session ends this spring 2011.

2) Further, going forward, the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees shall be required annually to hold joint hearings for up to 5 days (9 hours per day prorated) to allow citizens to present evidence and testimony of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary upon the request by any 5 citizens.

3) All of this transparency and accountability being necessary to counteract the nature of man which the Founding Fathers planned for and warned us of.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated:____________, 2011 __________________________________

JUDGE JOHN R. TUNHEIM

United States District Court

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Don Mashak and

First National Repossessors, Inc., Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM

Plaintiffs,

Vs.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court,

Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist,

Diana Longrie, Lee Wolfgram,

Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull,

John and Jane Doe(s),

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Don Mashak with his company 1^st National Repossessors, Inc. have brought this complaint which essentially establishes the State of Minnesota and the several other Defendants are engaged in a criminal conspiracy.

For more than 20 years, Plaintiff Mashak has sought Reform in the Minnesota Judiciary resulting from threats of retaliation escalating to death threats (witness tampering) in the wrongful repossession vehicles from 150-200 innocent Minnesota families. (see attached affidavit, exhibits and linked videos)

For more than 5 years now a loose coalition of Minnesota Citizens and organizations have sought to exercise their Constitutional 1^st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for redress of Grievances. (see attached affidavit, exhibits and linked videos)

These grievances being with the Corruption within the Minnesota Judiciary, the Citizens of the State of Minnesota have sought to give evidence and testimony to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

Their requests have repeatedly been unconstitutionally denied by the Chair persons of said committees. These chairpersons have cited rules of the Minnesota Legislature which give them absolute control over the agenda of their committees. These rules are unconstitutional in that they clear abridge the 1^st Amendment Right of the People to Petition the Government for redress of grievances. (see attached affidavit, exhibits and linked videos)

In March 2009, after years of being denied their right to present evidence and testimony of Minnesota Judicial corruption, this loose association of Citizens held an unofficial Ad hoc conference on Judicial Corruption was held. This hearing was held to present evidence and testimony exposing corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary and in support of a bill that was then known as Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability Bill HR 1632. (see attached affidavit, exhibits and linked videos)

The video evidence of this unofficial AD Hoc hearing (as opposed to an official hearing because the Minnesota Legislative Judicial Committees would not hear our Petitions) can be found as video here http://t.co/RvJjOf1 and here http://t.co/facu3gP Also here in the left column http://bit.ly/2zyif (see attached affidavit, exhibits and linked videos)

What is worse, is that the Minnesota Judiciary has retaliated against Plaintiff Mashak for attempting to exercise his Right to Petition the Government for redress of Grievances.

The Minnesota Judiciary has retaliated by denying Plaintiff Mashak full, fair, unbiased equitable and just adjudication of litigation in which Plaintiff Mashak is a Plaintiff. Plaintiff Mashak has been denied Discovery, Depositions, amended complaints and hearing dates, etc. to address these issues. This is Litigation in State Courts against two former employees who stole property from both Plaintiffs, embezzled money etc while Plaintiff Mashak was out of the Country on vacation. Desperate to avoid prosecution, Defendant Meeks-Hull alleged various baseless allegations of a sexual nature. Plaintiff Mashak took and passed a polygraph test. (see attached affidavit, exhibits and linked videos)

The Court refused to allow Plaintiffs to depose Defendants and hampered Discovery because they knew Defendant Meeks-Hulls allegations were false. However, the Court machinations to frustrate Discovery and evidence were intentional acts in an attempt to demonize and discredit Plaintiff Mashak for daring to exercise his Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. The Government’s SLAPPS-like (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) activities are far more egregious that the SLAPPS decried by the courts in Gordon v. Marrone, a 1992 New York case. (see attached affidavit, exhibits and linked videos)

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On July 4, 1776, our Country’s Founders adopted a famous statement of principles and list of grievances, declaring that:

"In every state of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

King George III’s crowning wrong, in the end, was his indifference: Those who revolted felt they had no other recourse. In building a new democracy, the Founders avoided the king’s mistake by guaranteeing political receptiveness to public concerns.

In a Representative Republic, public participation is the cornerstone of the system; it is a bedrock principle that connects government to the governed. It legitimizes the system and helps to make government accountable.

The 1^st Amendment of the United States Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law……abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By virtue of the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law.

Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings (see substantive due process), so judges - instead of legislators - may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty

The Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances was one of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers built into our Constitution and government.

From the Cato Letters Numbers 59-60 approximately:

“man’s freedom is given by God, and that all men are equal in His sight. Men, having been given free will, are not virtuous by nature and, acknowledging their imperfections, create governments so that they may live in safety and harmony together...”

And verbatim:

The only secret therefore in forming a free government, is to make the interests of the governors and of the governed the same, as far as human policy can contrive. Liberty cannot be preserved any other way. Men have long found, from the weakness and depravity of themselves and one another, that most men will act for interest against duty, as often as they dare. So that to engage them to their duty, interest must be linked to the observance of it, and danger to the breach of it. Personal advantages and security, must be the rewards of duty and obedience; and disgrace, torture, and death, the punishment of treachery and corruption.

From the Federalist Papers Number 51:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

The Founding Fathers believed that some of the best means of assuring the interests of the Governors and the Governed remain the same is through checks and balances and transparency and accountability.

Free Speech, Free Press and Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, were among the instruments the Founding Fathers provided the Citizens to ensure and maintain transparency and Accountability.

The intent of the Founding Fathers was to prevent the abuse of WE THE PEOPLE by a tyrannical government that ignored the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Through transparency and accountability enabled by Free Speech and the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, the interests of the Governed and the Governed remain closely aligned. And by these same processes, accountability for corruption and treachery is also enabled and enhanced.

Clearly, the Right to Petition the Government for redress of grievances is not a right that can be ignored nor alienated from WE THE PEOPLE. The Founding Fathers intended for Government to be Transparent and Accountable to counteract the nature of individuals. To deny the Citizens the Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances is diametrically opposed to the Transparency and Accountability the Founding Fathers intended.

Plaintiff Mashak and all Minnesota Citizens who were unconstitutionally denied their right to petition the government for redress of grievances through the offering of evidence and testimony of abuse of power and corruption of the Minnesota Judiciary through the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees, should immediately be given that opportunity.

ARGUMENT

In United Mine Workers of America v. Illinois State Bar Association (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court exalted the right to Petition as "among the most precious liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights" and implicit in "the very idea of government." The Court had earlier affirmed the right to engage in such activity; it thus deemed it a fundamental liberty, protected against encroachment by federal, state and local governments.

The following cases also speak to the importance the Supreme Court places upon the Right to Petition and also, the illegality of retaliating against citizens for lawfully exercising their Right to Petition. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985) | California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) | United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657 (1965) | Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) | United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954) | Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939)

For about 20 years, Plaintiff Mashak has sought to petition the Government for redress of grievances. All of his original requests from 20 years ago were denied. (This original Petition relating to witness tampering and death threats to Plaintiff Mashak from employees of 1^st National Bank of Anoka which subsequently was bought Norwest Bank, NA, involving the wrongful repossession of vehicles from 150-200 innocent Minnesota Families– More about of this will come in later pleadings) And after a couple years, Plaintiff Mashak just gave up trying to be heard. (see attached affidavit, exhibits and linked videos)

About 6 years ago, a group of Minnesota Citizens began requesting that they be able to present evidence of Corruption to the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

The Chairs of these committees refused. They cited the rules of the Minnesota Legislature that gave the Chair persons absolute control of the agenda of their Committees.

Clearly, the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees were the correct Government bodies to seek Redress of their Grievances with the Minnesota Judiciary.

Clearly, it is unconstitutional for the Minnesota House and Senate to write rules allowing the Judicial Committee Chair-persons to refuse any Minnesota Citizens Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. This is an unconstitutional abridgement of the Right to Petition. The U.S. Supreme Court has incorporated the petition clause of the First Amendment as part of the 14th Amendment’s guarantees against the states. The petition clause applies equally to state and local governments and protects petitions directed to the judicial, executive and legislative branches.

As we all understand that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to protect WE THE PEOPLE from the Governed through transparency, it is clear on its face that the intent of Legislature in writing the rules abridging the Right to Petition for redress of Grievances was intended to aid, abet and conspire to protect the criminal practices of the Minnesota Judiciary.

Further, it is clear on its face that the act by each House and Senate Judiciary Chairperson to abridge the Right to Petition and prevent the presentation of evidence and testimony of Corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary was again an act to prevent discovery of the criminal activities of the corrupt organization.

Plaintiff Mashak’s life has been destroyed by two separate instances of Minnesota Judicial corruption. As the Right to Petition provides immunity to in SLAPSS actions as in Gordon v. Marrone, a 1992 New York case, Plaintiff Mashak must be granted protection from SLAPPS-style activities by the Government itself.

Having paid the price in full, Plaintiff Mashak seeks to expose the Corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary by Petitioning the Minnesota Legislature for Redress of Grievances. Further, it is necessary to give all other Minnesota Citizens who have been denied the same constitutional right, the opportunity to present testimony and evidence of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

The Minnesota Legislature has intentionally, maliciously and unconstitutionally denied Plaintiff Mashak’s and hundreds, if not thousands, of other State Citizens’ Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances. They did this by writing laws and rules that unconstitutionally abridged the 1^st Amendment Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances.

The Minnesota Legislature has done this in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy which cause the interests of the Governors to be different from the interests of the Governed.

The Minnesota Judiciary has intentionally, maliciously, unlawfully and unconstitutionally retaliated against Plaintiff Mashak for lawfully exercising his Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. The acts of the Minnesota Judiciary in attempting to “fix” a case in which Plaintiff Mashak began as a Plaintiff, was solely to demonize and discredit Plaintiff Mashak and were intended to further the interests of the criminal conspiracy.

In Closing, our country is on the brink of collapse. Many are confused over the myriad of issues and afflictions compromising our country. Most Citizens are overwhelmed when trying to chart a course back to strength and prosperity.

Plaintiff Mashak is not. The single most effective and quickest way to restore the health and vitality of our Representative Constitutional Republic is to restore the transparency and Accountability our Founding Fathers acknowledged were necessary to prevent Governors from giving into their nature and incorporated into our Constitution and Government at its Founding.

In the Interest of restoring America to its former greatness, this Court must set the tone by reinstating the transparency and accountability the Founding Fathers intended. And its 1^st Order should be to require the entire Minnesota Legislature to hear the petitions for redress of grievances by WE THE PEOPLE in the form of testimony and evidence of systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

CONCLUSION

The Right to Petition the Government for redress of grievances is guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Minnesota Legislature and the Chairpersons of the Respective Judiciary Committees had no authority to abridge the Petitioning the Government for redress of grievances in the form of presenting testimony and evidence. In fact, abridgement of this Right is prohibited by the 1^st Amendment.

To ensure that the interests of the Governed and Governed remain the same, and to provide the transparency and accountability the Founding Fathers intended as a check and balance on the power of Government, this Court must grant a Writ of Mandamus ordering the entire Minnesota Legislature to hold and attend hearings for the presentation of testimony and evidence of systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. Said hearings to last up to 5 days (9 hours each day prorated) before the session ends this spring 2011.

Further, going forward, the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees shall be required annually to hold joint hearings for up to 5 days (9 hours per day prorated) to allow citizens to present evidence and testimony of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary upon the request by any 5 citizens.

All of this transparency and accountability being necessary to counteract the nature of man which the Founding Fathers planned for and warned us of.

More importantly, this air of transparency and accountability shall lead to the revitalization of our State and Country. Such revitalization resulting from a Government’s business being conducted in the light of day.

Dated: March 25, 2011 __________________________________

Don Mashak (personally and as owner) 612-723-7780

1^st National Repossessors, Inc.

POB 231

Albertville, MN 55301

s/ Don Mashak

Minnesota Injustice: True Court Horror Cases - With Names

Minnesota Judicial Code Red - You Can't Handle the Truth!

2011-03-26T16:09:00.000-07:00

This is a teaser excerpt from an article I wrote on Examiner.com:

"From the move, "A Few Good Men" we learned of an alleged military tradition. According to the legend, when a military officer wants someone to do something counter to the standing rules, they create a verbal code name for it and it is never committed to paper and it is only spoken discreetly about in trusted company.

In this film, a "Code Red" was an order to administer sever physical punishment upon another soldier in violation of the rules. The intention being to get a lackadaisical or incompetent soldier to shape up and in this particular case to get them the subject soldier to quit whining and complaining over the heads of his superiors.

In "A Few Good Men", the Code Red goes wrong because the target of the Code Red dies of an undisclosed underlying pre-existing medial condition... And the cover up, is on until....

Colonel Nathan Jessep roars "You can't handle the truth" [video clip]

As you watch the video clip, please take note of the arrogant attitude Colonel Jessup has in ruthlessly rationalizing and justifying his actions and perspective of reality. If you get a chance to watch the movie, pay heed to duplicity, machinations and subversive methods the film portrays. [movie] Note how those opposed to the conspiracy are offered Quid Pro Quo consideration, threatened, sacrificed, demonized and/or discredited. Your Corrupt Minnesota Judiciary displays the same sanctimonious attitude and utilizes the same heavy handed tactics when law abiding citizens confront them about their corruption and abuse of power.

That having been said, "Can YOU Handle the Truth?"

For a couple of years now, I have espoused the existence of a Minnesota Judicial Code Red.

Have you ever wondered why all those Incumbent Judges in Minnesota almost never have an opponent?..."

To read the rest of the article for free Click here -> Examiner.com

Those were my thoughts.

Don Mashak

The Cynical Patriot

http://twitter.com/dmashak

TellMyPolitician

Minnesota Injustice: True Court Horror Cases - With Names

Can you spare 10 minutes a day to save our Country from the Brink of Collapse?

2011-03-23T06:11:00.000-07:00



	10 Minutes a Day Fellow Countrymen, lend us your ears, eyes, and fingers for just 10 minutes a day. Will you donate 10 minutes a day to play an important role in fixing our country? A little frustrated with relatively few volunteers, I have decided that spoon-feeding little bits of help might work better. Starting now, I will send this 10 Minutes a Day email on a regular basis. Each day will provide one project that asks for 10 minutes of your time. Please give us 10 minutes, or go to the bottom of this or any of the 10 Minute emails, and unsubscribe. Project #1: Join the Cause -- "Support the Constitution, Bill of Rights, & Honesty in Government." Go to the Cause Home Page and join. If you are a Facebook member, it takes 15 seconds. If you aren't, please register; you don't have to give up any data that you don't wish to share. Make stuff up if you like. We hope you will use your real name, but if you need to use an alias, go for it. Once you have joined, invite friends to join. Cause.com makes this simple. You can invite up to 75 Friends a day judt by holding your cursor over the first checkbox that appears and clicking as fast as you can 75 times. It takes maybe 60 seconds. You've still got 8 1/2 minutes to donate. So, take this link and paste it into an email in your email program. Address the email to yourself. Enter this title or one of your own: My Friends, May I ask for 1m Minute of Your time. Then open your email address book. and insert the names of your friends in the blind carbon copy (bcc) field. You can do up to 100 at a time in most email programs. If you have more than 100 firends, just do as manys eparate emails as you need to hit everyone. If you finish in less than 10 minutes, sit back, relax, and think happy thoughts! With your help, we ARE going to buid a network of over 1,000,000 people who will change America for the MUCH BETTER! All we need is 10 minutes of your time. For more information, see www.LawlessAmerica.com and www.GetAGripAmerica.us. All the best, Bill Windsor bill@LawlessAmerica.com

TellMyPolitician

Posted by:

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

Minnesota Injustice: True Court Horror Cases - With Names

My Country Is Bleeding: How Judicial Corruption Is Killing America

LawlessAmerica.com - Next Government Corruption Crisis Conference Sunday March 20, 2011

2011-03-18T15:49:00.000-07:00

LawlessAmerica.com Newsletter

	March 18, 2011 Special Guest on Sunday Elena Sassower of the Center for Judicial Accountability will be our guest on Sunday's Online TV Show. She has been fighting judicial corruption for over 20 years, and she is highly-regarded as one of the pioneers of such efforts. Please read today's story. This Week's Efforts I have been quiet this week as I have been busy on so me personal court filings due on Monday. I have spent every spare moment working on building the database of organizations, websites, and bloggers focused on battling government corruption. I now have over 1,000. I believe getting as many of these as possible to affiliate is the step we must take before we move very far. We need far more volunteers than we have now, and these passionate groups and people could provide that..as well as exceptional exposure for GRIP and for their sites. Special thanks to Art, Mother Inferior, and Condor for helping on the affiliate effort. Threats and Troublemakers I have received a number of threats this week. We've had people trying to mess up the Lawless America website. I have asked two people to find another cause to support. They don't support what we are doing (go figure), and one of them wanted to occupy as much air time as possible with his never-coming-up-for-air tirade on an Article V Convention. Board Needed We need to get good people to volunteer for the various Volunteer positions posted in our Forum. Then we can elect a Board to provide leadership to this effort. Then we can spread the threats around. :-) Just kidding. SUNDAY MEETING 5PM -7PM ET Go to http://shovio.com to listen, get a headset and read the instruction to participate. Your Subscription: Change your subscription

Posted by:

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

TellMyPolitician

Chaos Theory, Rank & File Wisconsin Public Employees & True Grassroots TEA Party

2011-03-15T05:54:00.000-07:00

The following is an except from an article I wrote on Examiner.com:

"From now until the 2012 elections, I am going to write a series of articles with the express purpose of trying to get the average reader to "think outside of the box" At the same time, I hope I am up to the task of keeping the subject matter entertaining. Before the next election occurs, it is my hope to get WE THE PEOPLE aka the Common person aka the General Public to experience a paradigm shift in their thinking with regard to politics and voting.

Ultimately, I want to change your perception of reality to one that reflects your own true thought processes. This as opposed to the your current perception of reality induced by the propaganda, censorship and duplicity of America's Major Media, Entertainment Industry, Big Business and our own alleged political leaders. All this with the goal of having you vote your own mind, rather than vote in the manner your Government and major media have manipulated you to.

That having been said....

I was first introduced to Chaos theory in college. It was one of those hazy late night philosophical discussions we often had in college.

FREE WILL vs CHAOS THEORY

In America, during our youthful years of public education we are indoctrinated with a belief that everything we choose to do is a matter of free will. If I choose to turn left, kick a can, drink water, blow off class, cast a vote or any act you can think of, we are taught to believe we had the ability aka free will, to choose to do something else. Turn Right, not drink, not skip class, not vote. We are taught that every action we take is fully within our personal control and we make our choices of our own free will.

Chaos Theory (Determinism) states that no matter what we do, we have no choice... we have no free will. According to Chaos Theory, so many external factors have acted upon you that you have no choice but to do what ever action you have done. Your choice has been predetermined by a multitude of previously occurring, external influences.

Being much younger then, of course I knew it all and immediately dismissed this proposed Chaos Theory as psycho-babble. Yet, almost half a life time later, I am willing to consider chaos theory as a viable explanation of certain political events and attitudes.

WISCONSIN PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

My personality is that of an analytical driver. I gather facts and make decisions. It has been my life’s presumption that the vast majority of people also act out of reason and logic.
It escapes me by what logic Rank and File Wisconsin Public Employees do not recognize..."

Continue reading for free on Examiner.com: Chaos Theory,Rank & File Wisconsin Public Employees & True Grassroots TEA Party - Minneapolis Independent | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-minneapolis/chaos-theory-wisconsin-public-employees-and-justice-minnesota#ixzz1GJLiEqpL

Those were my thoughts.

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

LawlessAmerica - 2nd Government Corruption Crisis Conference Today March 6, 2011

2011-03-06T04:25:00.000-08:00

LawlessAmerica.com

To All US Citizen Patriots:

I will now issue a regular newsletter that will automatically be sent to everyone who has registered at www.LawlessAmerica.com.

Government Corruption Crisis Conference This Sunday

The Second Government Corruption Crisis Conference is scheduled for Sunday March 6, 2011 from 5 to 7 pm EST.

The Conference will be conducted online using Shovio technology.

This week, we will have a much more productive discussion because I will be raising specific issues and asking for direct responses only.

Please plan to join us ....

The Government Corruption Crisis Conference will be held TODAY

2011-02-27T07:16:00.000-08:00

! Sunday, February 27 from 5 to 7 pm Eastern Time!

Watch it by registering and logging in at www.shovio.com or click on this link and page down to the bottom of the page:

http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php/news/71-plans-for-battle-government-corruption-dishonesty/146-government-corruption-crisis-conference

IF THE LINKS DONT WORK CUT AND PASTE THEM IN YOUR BROWSER URL ADDRESS BOX AND

HIT ENTER

Some Instructions for Participating

If you just want to watch, simply click on the arrow on the TV screen on the link above. You do not have to do anything else to watch and listen.

There are other options if you want to participate.

If you have a webcam, you will be seen on the broadcast when you speak, if I select you after you make a request. Anyone can call in and just talk (no camera). Please register http://www.shovio.com/en/register/?affId=LawlessAmerica so you will be all set for the conference. You must register and login to be able to participate by text, audio, or video.

When you are logged in, you will see five icons below the TV screen:

Thumb -- Click on this to become a fan of the broadcast.

Q? -- Click on this to send a private question or message to me.

Lips -- Click on the lips to request to be on the broadcast. You can be heard (like on the radio) if your computer has a microphone and you have a headset. You can be seen and heard if you have a webcam and a headset. REMEMBER: You cannot have your computer speakers on if you are on the broadcast because they will cause feedback.

Person icon -- Click for Profile.

Group icon -- Chat with a group of viewers.

You will also see a text window with the word "Send" to the right. Enter public comments or questions here, and they will scroll on the TV screen.

I will also try to check email during the show, so if you want to send me an email, please do.

Please join us!

Bill

William M. Windsor

bill@billwindsor.com

Office: 770-578-1094

Freedom isn't Free

Those were my thoughts.

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

Minnesota Injustice: True Court Horror Cases - With Names

This is how the Minnesota Judiciary System Fixes Court Cases

2011-02-23T20:51:00.000-08:00

It is the strategy of many governments to demonize and discredit political dissent.

Should you doubt this I encourage you to read about the FBI, COINTELPRO and Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. here

For 24 years I have of attempted to bring reform and transparency to the Minnesota Judicial System.

Our Minnesota State Government and Court System consider this an act of Political dissent.

I am the target and victim of an operation to demonize and discredit me because cause of my exercise
of my Constitutionally protected 1st Amendment Right to Petition our Government for Redress of Grievances.

To demonstrate one method our Government has used to demonize and discredit me, I provide to you this transcript of my Motion to Remove Judge Mary Yunker for Bias.

I am one of the Plaintiffs in this matter. I have been denied full, fair, equitable, unbiased and just adjudication of the matter at hand. After almost 2 years of litigation and the expense of more than $16000 dollars, I have been denied all depositions and the ability to amend my complaint to reflect additional claims. Only on the last day of discovery, did I receive the most insignificant answers to some discovery. I fear this litigation will end in another exercise of "Might Make Right" and "How much justice can you afford?"

The long and the short of this is that 2 former employees quit my employment while I was out of the country on vacation. They stole company property with the intent of starting their own repossession company. They embezzled money, destroyed records and made up stoies in an attempt to steal my clients. 3 times after they said they had no company property in their possession, they returned company property, the last time to an attorney.

Upon being caught, the defendants made various wild allegations of a sexual nature against me. I am told that such allegations are pretty common as a means to try to assert a defense and muddy the water.

This litigation should have been a straight forward, done and over matter.

I took and passed a polygraph. I demanded the opportunity to deposition my accusers.
I wanted to amend my complaint to include claims for the false allegations, but was not allowed to.

But the Courts have decided to use this allegation to demonize and discredit me to thwart my efforts at judicial reform and to punish me for daring to believe in the Right Provided to me in the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the adjudication of Justice is boring. Points i think demonstrate the Courts Bias and Inconsistency may be too nuanced for you to understand. All I can do is simply demonstrate the Courts inconsistencies and failure to follow its own rules. I can only hope that the reader comes to realize the court has not operated fairly and justly. And then hope that you can deduce from this that I am the victim of our governments deliberate attempts to demonize and discredit me. Perhaps if you consider the following point

     1) Why would I be denied the opportunity deposition the Defendants if they would repeat the allegations under oath?
     2) Why would I not be allowed to subpoena the identies of persons that posted duragatory information on the internet, if the allegation were true and would serve to corroborate the allegation?
   3) Why would 4 different attorneys that I hired refuse to Notice the Defendants for Depositions?
     4) Why would the last attorney wait until 10 days after the Discovery period to try to amend the complaint to add the additional causes of action I requested from the beginning;
   5) A September 16, 2010 hearing was canceled. I say it was to prevent reconciling discovery issues and amending the complaint. The Judge says my attorney canceled it without my permission. My attorney says the Judge canceled the hearing. If nothing untoward happened why are my former attorney and the Judge passing the buck?
   6) Why did Judge Yunker invent the term "Suspensed Motions" which is not a term that i have found any attorney to be familiar with nor does it occur in MN Rules of Civil Procedure nor the MN Rules of General Procedure in an attempt to keep evidence off the Record?
     7) Is it fair and equitable that Judge Yunker refused to set any hearing in person or by teleconference to resolve discovery issues and/or amend the Complaint for the last two and a half months of discovery?

I encourage you to read the attached transcript so that you may know all the injustices i have suffered at the hands of the Minnesota Judiciary.

I allege the following:

Because the Minnesota Judiciary controls the discipline and licenses of Minnesota Attorneys, Minnesota Attorneys are more loyal to the Judges they appear before than they are to you their client (Why do you think they call Public Defenders, Public Pretenders?)

Judges in Minnesota are allowed to take tips which common persons like you and I would call bribes. In many case, the outcome of your case is decided by the Judge, before the first time you are in Court. The Judge "telegraphs" to the attorneys what outcome they want and the attorneys use the equivalent of smoke and mirrors to allow the judge to reach the conclusion the judge wants.

The method of fixing cases is generally achieved by attorneys by either controlling what evidence gets on the record or my making "legal" mistakes which allow the judge to rule against you. Because most of us trust the attorney that we pay lots of money to and because most of us are unaware of the law, we don't even realize our case is being fixed.

I have been fighting to understand how the corruption takes place for 24 years. For the last 4 years, I have been fighting to put forth reforms to bring transparency and accountability to the Minnesota Judiciary.

In reading the attached transcript, I hope to expose the nature of much of the corruption that exists in the Minnesota Judiciary. At the same time, hope that I enlighten each of you as to the as to the absolute
necessity of Judicial Reform in Minnesota.

FREEDOM IS NOT FREE

I have paid the price for speaking out against Judicial Corruption in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Judiciary have chose to use the false accusations of my former employees to destroy me to maintain their own power. At every opportunity I could expose the fraudulent nature of my former employees accusations, I have been thwarted.
.
My business is in ruins. My house is in foreclosure. My health is devastated. After spending $16000 on attorneys I cannot afford to be represented at the trial. A trial at which my maximum award by the jury can be $101.00.

This is representative of the evil nature of Minnesota's Judiciary.
The Powers that be in the Minnesota Judiciary laugh smugly behind closed doors at the destruction that they have brought to my life.

I have no criminal record save a speeding ticket and my life has been laid waste for daring to speak of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. If they can do this to me, they can do this to any of you.

The failure of your elected officials and the Minnesota Judiciary to act swiftly to address and correct the injustice I have suffered should be the final bit of evidence you need to render your judgment of the Minnesota Judiciary. I assert that your elected officials endorse and support the Judicial Corruption in Minnesota and recognize the problem of corruption in Minnesota Government is systemic.

I urge you to contact your elected officials and demand reform of the Minnesota Judiciary before
you or someone you care about finds themselves in front of the evil, corrupt and unaccountable Minnesota Judiciary.

And should your elected official whine that they don't have time for anything but the budget deficit, perhaps you should take the time to join Justice in Minnesota.

I have educated you as to the nature of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. The price for doing so has been exacted upon me by the powers that be.

I humbly and respectfully ask that you not let all the life dreams that i have sacrificed to bring you this enlightenment, not go for naught.

DEMAND JUDICIAL REFORM IN MINNESOTA.
DO NOT LET THEM TAKE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTED FOR JUDGES IN MEANINGFUL, CONTESTED ELECTIONS AWAY FROM YOU.

I leave you with this quote before you read the transcript and oral argument exhibits....

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.

Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.—Dietrich Bonhoeffer "

Those were my thoughts

Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,

Don Mashak

The Cynical Patriot

[If I have time, I will post the actual written Motion to Remove Judge Yunker for Bias and the releated exhibits]

TellMyPolitician

Minnesota Injustice: True Court Horror Cases - With Names

Page 1

1 STATE OF MINNESOTA                                                                             DISTRICT COURT

2 COUNTY OF ISANTI TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

3

4 -----------------------------------------------------------

5 Don Mashak, 1st National                                          ) COURT HEARING
Repossessors, Inc.,                                                        )
6                                                                     Plaintiffs, ) Court File No. 30-CV-09-248
                                                                                      )
7 vs.                                                                               )
                                                                                      )
8 Dannette L. Meeks-Hull,                                             ) February 4, 2011
Michael Hull,                                                                  ) 3:00 p.m.
9                                                                                    )
                                                                   Defendants. )
10 -----------------------------------------------------------

11

12

13

14 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing

15 before the Honorable Mary A. Yunker, District Court

16 Judge, at the Sherburne County Government Center, City

17 of Elk River, Minnesota.

18

19

20 APPEARANCES:

21 DON MASHAK, the Plaintiff, appeared pro se.

22

23

24 COURT REPORTER: Jennifer S. Sati, RMR, CRR, CBC, CRI
(763) 241-2831

25

Page 2

1 (WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were duly

2 had:)

3

4 THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Mashak. You

5 may certainly step to counsel table.

6 MR. MASHAK: Could I have the bailiff give you

7 this? You had asked for it.

8 THE COURT: Certainly. Please feel free to be

9 seated, Mr. Mashak. Mr. Mashak, are you prepared to

10 proceed?

11 MR. MASHAK: In just one moment, Your Honor.

12 Okay.

13 THE COURT: We will call Don Mashak and First

14 National Repossessors, Incorporated, Plaintiffs, versus

15 Dannette Meeks-Hull and Michael Hull, Defendants. This

16 is a motion hearing brought pursuant to Plaintiff's

17 motion to remove this Court from these proceedings for

18 bias.

19 Present in the courtroom today is Mr. Mashak.

20 The other parties have not appeared and are not required

21 to appear at this hearing but were given notice of

22 today's scheduling.

23 Mr. Mashak, you will note on counsel table to

24 your right a laptop computer. It is realtime reporting,

25 and it is displaying in written fashion in realtime the

Page 3

1 proceedings that are being conducted here today. It is

2 placed on counsel table for your use. And the Court

3 reporter will be happy to instruct you regarding its

4 use.

5 You may review the written transcript during

6 the course of breaks, which the Court intends to take

7 during these proceedings, so that you may be assisted in

8 processing this information as time goes on.

9 What I'm going to do at this point is stop

10 these proceedings so that the court reporter can step

11 down and can instruct you into the use of the laptop so

12 that you can access these written proceedings, if you

13 choose to do so during the course of the proceedings.

14 (Discussion held between Mr. Mashak and the court

15 reporter off the record.)

16 THE COURT: Mr. Mashak, if you need additional

17 assistance with the operation of the laptop, please let

18 us know that and we will accommodate you during the

19 course of the breaks.

20 Mr. Mashak, are you represented by counsel in

21 these proceedings?

22 MR. MASHAK: No, I'm not.

23 THE COURT: Do you intend to proceed

24 representing yourself in these matters?

25 MR. MASHAK: I guess I have no choice.

Page 4

1 THE COURT: Additionally, as I have previously

2 indicated, these proceedings are not to be recorded,

3 either audio or visual, in contravention of the rules of

4 the Court.

5 So I am informing those who are in attendance

6 here, Mr. Mashak -- and there is one person in the

7 audience, who I think has been at previous hearings --

8 that video or audio recordings are expressly prohibited

9 by the rules of Court and there will potentially be

10 sanctions if you violate these rules of Court by

11 recording these proceedings.

12 MR. MASHAK: May I address that point?

13 THE COURT: Yes, sir, you may.

14 MR. MASHAK: I'd like to understand, because

15 it's my understanding that pursuant to Minnesota

16 Statutes, tape recording of conversations is lawful as

17 long as one party to those conversations are present,

18 and I'd like to know how Court rules over --

19 understanding the hierarchy of laws, how court rule can

20 over -- supersede a Minnesota statute?

21 THE COURT: Mr. Mashak, I'm not able to give

22 you a legal opinion that would answer your legal

23 question with regard to the application of other

24 Minnesota statutes, which do talk about tape recording.

25 (Phone ring tones in courtroom.)

Page 5

1 THE COURT: I'm assuming, Mr. Mashak, you just

2 turned your cell phone off?

3 MR. MASHAK: Yes.

4 THE COURT: Appreciate that. Thank you, sir.

5 I am not able to give you legal advice with regard to

6 interpretation of Minnesota statute which does control

7 the tape recording of conversation between two private

8 parties. However, I have informed you in the past and I

9 will re-inform you today that court rules prohibit

10 recording in the court, absent express authority by the

11 court which can be given under limited circumstances,

12 and which has not been given in these proceedings.

13 So I reiterate: Recording is prohibited and

14 there are potential sanctions for those who violate this

15 court order and this court rule. With regard to these

16 proceedings today, the realtime reporting and frequent

17 recesses will be granted in order to accommodate the

18 request under the Americans With Disabilities Act

19 request that you have made, Mr. Mashak.

20 And I note that prior to today's hearing you

21 did give me some additional information. We will

22 discuss that at the conclusion of these hearings in

23 private, if you choose to do that. The Court may have

24 some additional questions on that issue.

25 MR. MASHAK: Okay.

Page 6

1 THE COURT: Now, with regard to the motion

2 which is pending today, Minnesota Rule of General

3 Procedure 106 requires that this Court conduct a hearing

4 on your motion and that is why we are here today. This

5 is like any other civil motion. The Court can and will

6 consider the affidavit that you filed in support of your

7 motion, which was received by the Court January 20,

8 2011, and was submitted to the Court under oath.

9 It is your affidavit which has the information

10 that you wanted the Court to review with regard to this

11 motion. Your opportunity today is to argue your motion

12 or to submit other written information, if you wish to,

13 for the Court to consider this matter.

14 Mr. Mashak, the rules require that it is your

15 responsibility to demonstrate an affirmative showing of

16 prejudice on behalf of this Court in order to receive

17 the relief that you are requesting. And that is defined

18 in the rules as such bias as a juror might have excluded

19 from consideration of the action should the juror have

20 the same opinions. You may proceed, sir.

21 MR. MASHAK: Okay. Well, first, I'm going to

22 say that a lot of this stems from the unconstitutional

23 transference by the Minnesota Legislature to the Supreme

24 Court of oversight of the Minnesota Judiciary. And

25 further, in having the Minnesota Lawyers Board overseen

Page 7

1 by the Supreme Court effectively makes lawyers be more

2 loyal or answerable to judges than they do the clients

3 that pay them.

4 In this case, which should have been a simple

5 case, this was a nothing case that has been turned

6 upside down and my life has been turned upside down

7 because of my exercise of my First Amendment

8 Constitutional right to petition the government for

9 redress of grievances.

10 For the past five years, a group of hundreds

11 of us have been trying to submit evidence and testimony

12 of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary before the

13 House and Senate Judiciary Committees and we've been

14 unconstitutionally and unlawfully denied that right.

15 And I feel that the way that this matter has

16 been handled is a retaliation, an unlawful retaliation,

17 for my exercise of my right to petition the courts and

18 that had the Minnesota House and Minnesota Senate

19 Judiciary Committees heard the testimony and evidence

20 that I wouldn't even be in the position to having to

21 bring this motion.

22 Simply, the Board of Judicial Standards is a

23 farce. It's a black hole. I've received numerous, and

24 other people have shown me, where they can only deal

25 with things like judge or attorney doesn't show up on

Page 8

1 time, doesn't file papers timely, if they steal from an

2 escrow fund or something like that, that's about the

3 closest to criminal they can get. But everything else

4 is subject to appeal. And most citizens of this country

5 simply are not capable of paying all the expenses, nor

6 understanding all the intricacies of filing the appeal.

7 So the courts have used this to punish those that

8 dissent from the majority.

9 In this particular matter, I've had four

10 attorneys. The first attorney, Diana Longrie, failed to

11 show up for court, failed to give me the documents I

12 needed when she didn't show up, refused to submit

13 discovery, refused to notice depositions. And we had

14 agreed on 50 admissions and related interrogatories and

15 document production requests and she never sent them.

16 She received a Rule 11 motion from the defense back a

17 year ago November. Never notified me. Never notified

18 the second attorney that I hired.

19 The second attorney, Joe O'Brien -- and,

20 again, there's no complaint from Longrie that she didn't

21 get paid. The second attorney, Joe O'Brien, worked on

22 my case for a couple months, got paid money, and, in

23 fact, then he stopped returning my calls. I went with

24 another attorney to pin him down, and he admitted that

25 he had just been a little bit lax and he'd get right on

Page 9

1 it. Then we couldn't find him. So for three months I

2 couldn't get him to return my file to me.

3 Two months after I notified the Lawyers

4 Professional Responsibility Board that he hadn't

5 returned my files so I couldn't proceed with my case, he

6 left me a text message that he had left the file on the

7 seat of an open car on my property.

8 I fail to understand how the Supreme Court nor

9 anybody could foresee that they should have some teeth

10 in the law that requires an attorney to return the file

11 upon demand. You guys have this implied consent for us

12 drivers in regards to taking DUI tests, but there's

13 nothing for an attorney that says: Hey, this is the

14 litmus test. Either you produce files within, I don't

15 know, five, ten days, whatever you think is reasonable,

16 or we jerk your license. I don't understand why that

17 doesn't exist.

18 He missed deadlines, made me scramble to do

19 things pro se. And I got it back on 6-15, and I had a

20 hearing on July 9. I showed up on July 9 ready to go

21 with another attorney and the defense didn't even bother

22 to show up. We requested summary judgment; weren't

23 granted it.

24 And then there was supposed to be a new

25 scheduling order entered. And for two months I bugged

Page 10

1 the attorney about when are they going to answer the

2 discovery that I had to serve? Because at the time I

3 didn't have any and the deadline was coming up and I

4 didn't know what was going to happen on July 9. I

5 served admissions and I served requests -- or

6 interrogatories, et cetera, et cetera.

7 And in any case, we never got an answer. All

8 my attorney kept saying to me is the other side said

9 they weren't at the July 9 hearing so they don't have to

10 answer because as far as they're concerned the deadline

11 to respond to your discovery passed after the deadline

12 for discovery to be done.

13 And so I kept telling the attorney, you need

14 to be sending -- having the court get that scheduling

15 order so they can't keep telling you this. This went on

16 for months. I kept saying: Can't they just call the

17 court themselves? Can't you set a hearing? Can't you

18 compel discovery? And he said no.

19 I'd like to enter this e-mail between my

20 attorney and myself on August 17, and I'll give this to

21 you in just a moment. I'll give it to you right now

22 because I have another copy of it.

23 THE COURT: Mr. Mashak, I'm assuming it's not

24 in the form of a sworn affidavit?

25 MR. MASHAK: No.

Page 11

1 THE COURT: Are you willing to swear under

2 oath today that it's a true and accurate copy --

3 MR. MASHAK: Certainly.

4 THE COURT: -- of the document that you're in

5 possession of?

6 MR. MASHAK: Yes, Your Honor.

7 THE COURT: I'm going to ask you to stand,

8 raise your right hand and be sworn.

9 (Mr. Mashak was sworn in by the Clerk of Court.)

10 THE COURT: Be seated again. I'm going to ask

11 the deputy to hand the document back to you, and I'm

12 going to ask you to identify for the record what it is

13 and indicate whether it's a true and accurate copy of

14 the document in your possession.

15 MR. MASHAK: This is an e-mail from -- between

16 myself, Jack Gram, and Mark Olson, dated August 17. And

17 it describes the problem they were having with the

18 court.

19 THE COURT: Authored by whom, sir?

20 MR. MASHAK: It was -- it was sent to me and

21 it was between me and Mark Olson, my attorney at the

22 time.

23 THE COURT: Authored by Mr. Olson?

24 MR. MASHAK: Yes.

25 THE COURT: And you're swearing on the record

Page 12

1 today it's a true and accurate copy of what you have in

2 your document possession?

3 MR. MASHAK: Absolutely.

4 THE COURT: You may hand it to the deputy.

5 I'll receive it as information for this hearing.

6 MR. MASHAK: And here's the essence of this:

7 Here's the problem, Jack, my office has called the Court

8 four times. I've sent two letters. She is chambered in

9 Sherburne County and the case is in Isanti. I asked her

10 if I should copy her with submissions to her chambers

11 and she said no. She explained that without a file it

12 would be in no man's land. I also explained to her that

13 I could e-mail her the documents. She again said no.

14 Just send them forward. I don't want to become a pest.

15 I have a paper trail here. I'm sure that Don is anxious

16 since his prior counsel dropped the ball," et cetera, et

17 cetera.

18 And this went on for weeks where he was -- I

19 was on his case saying this needs to come to an end

20 because at that point in time this had been going on for

21 more than a year. And he was indicating that he was

22 having problems contacting the Court. And that the

23 Court wasn't responding to sending him a scheduling

24 order. And along the line, I finally said I'm going to

25 get a copy of the transcript from July 9 and you can

Page 13

1 send that to them. And then all of the sudden when

2 everybody was aware that I did that, there was a flurry

3 of activity. And my recollection is that the scheduling

4 order was produced by you on or about August 28th but

5 somehow got lost.

6 And in that same time frame, I got served a

7 motion for -- Rule 11 Motion for Summary Judgment that

8 was to be heard on September 30th. In the meantime at

9 the July 9th hearing we had specifically said the

10 original court date was supposed to be September 16th.

11 And we just left it as September 16th because we figured

12 there would be discovery issues that would be dealt with

13 at that point in time.

14 So when we can't compel discovery, we can't

15 get the other side to answer discovery, we're not

16 getting responses from the court, I am reasonably

17 annoyed and irritated that this is not proceeding the

18 way it should proceed. I'm being denied the opportunity

19 to collect evidence. I'm being denied the opportunity

20 to get evidence on the record.

21 And then I started having debates with my

22 attorney about whether we should put evidence on the

23 record. Because he's trying to tell me: Well, they

24 filed it two days late. They didn't allow enough time.

25 I'm, like, if you give me assurance the judge can't rule

Page 14

1 any other way, then I'll go with that. Otherwise, we've

2 got 30 exhibits we need to put on the record because the

3 defense is saying not one scintilla of evidence.

4 I said on the 9-16 hearing we need to be

5 compelling in taking care of all this fact that the

6 other side is saying they don't know that there's not a

7 -- that the discovery didn't end because there's a new

8 scheduling order, et cetera, et cetera. And suddenly

9 I'm told that the Court canceled the hearing on the

10 16th. And I started making inquiries of various people

11 in the court system about how could this date get

12 changed? And I believe you've seen the photo

13 previously, and the computer screen says that my

14 attorney agreed to change the date so that the defendant

15 -- defense's motion for summary judgment would be

16 timely, which would be completely contradictory to my

17 best interest, in light of the fact that we hadn't been

18 able to get discovery.

19 Now, I know you say you didn't do it. But

20 here is an e-mail, which again I'll swear is true and

21 correct, copy of what I received on September 8th. And

22 it's got me saying, "Darnit --

23 THE COURT: Excuse me, who's the author of the

24 e-mail?

25 MR. MASHAK: Mark Olson. I want my discovery,

Page 15

1 I want to get evidence on the record. I want to get the

2 amended complaint in. This is all going to happen on

3 September 16. We're not giving up September 16. You

4 can't give up September 16 without my consent.

5 And this is, in short, his response to me is:

6 You don't get it. The judge had a conflict. Now, I've

7 since made a complaint to the Minnesota Lawyers

8 Professional Responsibility Board asking -- again

9 asserting that the screen says that my counsel agreed to

10 move this date, which was clearly not in my best

11 interest. And in response to that, with the Lawyers

12 Board, he once again wrote back that the judge changed

13 the date.

14 And at the September 30th hearing, you

15 indicated that you had nothing to do with changing the

16 date. So something someplace along the line is wrong.

17 Doesn't matter to me, because to me it's consistent with

18 my entire perspective that the Minnesota Judiciary and

19 the Minnesota legal system is retaliating against me for

20 trying to bring forward and testify about evidence and

21 give evidence of corruption in the Minnesota judicial

22 system.

23 And that, again, that is a violation of the

24 First Amendment right to petition the government for

25 redress of grievances. So in any case, I get in an

Page 16

1 argument with Mr. Olson about: You will put these

2 exhibits on the record; you will file the amended

3 complaint as we agreed.

4 And he's saying: No, no, no, we're not doing

5 any of that.

6 I'm telling him we need to compel discovery.

7 We need to get the amended complaint. And again he's

8 telling me there's nothing to be done. We just got to

9 go to this hearing. I'm, like, you will file, because I

10 understand that if you don't have it in -- evidence or

11 testimony in an official form, it's as though it didn't

12 exist and you make your findings directly from only the

13 evidence in the crucible of justice.

14 No matter how many times I tell my attorney,

15 no matter how many times I tell my friends, no matter

16 how many times I post on the Internet or put it in the

17 paper, if you don't see it officially, it don't count.

18 And that was the basic conflict with Mr. Olson

19 was he was refusing to put the exhibits in and he was

20 refusing to compel discovery. And then he was refusing

21 to set -- or saying the Court wasn't willing to set a

22 hearing in order to get past the scheduling order deal.

23 Now, so then I went out after the September

24 30th hearing in which I said we are going to, you know,

25 continue these motions until I can find an attorney and

Page 17

1 I went out and found an attorney and I told him -- every

2 attorney I went to, because it took me about three weeks

3 to find one. I said: I'm going to tell you this is a

4 horrible case. It's messed up. Not through any fault

5 of my own, but because there's been too many fingers in

6 the pot. And I believe the judicial system is corrupt.

7 And they're retaliating against me because I didn't want

8 somebody telling me, well, you didn't tell me.

9 So it took me, like, three weeks to go through

10 20, 30 attorneys before one said that they would take it

11 and that they understood what the issue was.

12 And, again, this is extremely distressful to

13 me that this defense just made up some story, some

14 scandalous story, of accusations about me. This has

15 went on for two years; it should have been nipped in the

16 bud immediately. Justice delayed is justice denied.

17 In any case, so then I told Mr. Wolfgram --

18 and I believe I don't have to give you this because this

19 is already included in the documents that I've given

20 you -- you see there's a series of e-mails between

21 Mr. Wolfgram and myself where in October 28 I'm telling

22 him: You need to notice depositions. You need to

23 compel discovery. You need to get the amended complaint

24 in.

25 And I'm getting double talk from Mr. Wolfgram

Page 18

1 saying: Don't worry. We'll -- we have plenty of time.

2 I don't have to notice these right away. You've noticed

3 a month before for the depositions, so I don't have to

4 give them the full 30 days.

5 And he assures me, he says on top of this --

6 by this point in time, I, you know, I was suffering from

7 the disability that we've discussed due to all these

8 bizarre occurrences happening with this court case and

9 that I couldn't simply get a quick and speedy trial to

10 get this resolved.

11 And so I remember saying to him: I have to

12 trust you because this is killing me to question every

13 single thing that every single attorney does. And if

14 you look at those e-mails, you can see that I clearly

15 told him you need to have these filed -- do this stuff

16 immediately.

17 The judge isn't going to move the hearing

18 date. She's not going to do anything. And he's

19 assuring me.

20 And I told him: You go down to the court file

21 and you look in the court file because I don't want to

22 hear at some point in time you say I forgot to tell you

23 something. I will pay for that. You go down there

24 because that's the record. I don't want to ever hear

25 that something I forgot -- because I don't know what's

Page 19

1 important. I'm not an attorney. Something I think is

2 unimportant might be important. Didn't occur.

3 And during this whole time, he's telling me

4 the Court is refusing to set a hearing because you

5 demanded that it be in Isanti County. And I said:

6 That's a gross misrepresentation of what was said and

7 specifically I was asked which county do you want to

8 have it in?

9 And do you have copies of the transcript?

10 THE COURT: No, sir.

11 MR. MASHAK: Okay. So do you need me to swear

12 that these are true and correct? Or is it enough

13 that --

14 THE COURT: Any evidence that you want me to

15 consider must come in through affidavit or having you

16 swear to correctness on the record.

17 MR. MASHAK: Okay. So I swear that this is

18 true and accurate copies of page 1, page 5, page 4, and

19 page 31 of the September 30, 2010, hearings in the -- in

20 this matter.

21 And I draw the Court's attention to page 4.

22 And there's a typo here, but, as we had said, Isanti,

23 not Sherburne. But in any case: All future count (sic)

24 hearings will be scheduled in Isanti. I'm just simply

25 telling you it's more difficult, scheduling-wise, but we

Page 20

1 will accommodate it, and all future hearings will be

2 held in Isanti County.

3 And the important word there is accommodate.

4 But on top of that -- and so this is all going on in

5 early November. And as soon as Attorney Wolfgram says

6 to me, Hey, they're saying that you refused to have them

7 heard in Sherburne County. I said, You know, that's not

8 the way it was. I was offered a choice. I made the

9 choice. And of course if we can't have these heard

10 before the December 17, if I insist on having them in

11 Isanti County, by all means let's have them in Sherburne

12 County, but make sure the trial is still held in Isanti

13 County.

14 And for another 30 days I got to hear the

15 Court won't schedule, the Court won't schedule, the

16 Court won't schedule. And he's telling me don't worry

17 about the depositions, don't worry about the

18 depositions, don't worry about the depositions. And

19 this is consistent with --

20 THE COURT: Mr. Mashak, I said at the

21 beginning of this hearing that I would accommodate you

22 with reasonable breaks if you need them. Do you need a

23 break or --

24 MR. MASHAK: Yes. Yes. Yes. That would be

25 very, very helpful.

Page 21

1 THE COURT: 10 minutes enough, sir?

2 MR. MASHAK: I think so.

3 THE COURT: We'll stand in recess for 10

4 minutes. At 20 minutes to 4 on the clock, we'll

5 recommence.

6 MR. MASHAK: Thank you.

7 THE COURT: You're welcome, sir.

8 (A brief recess was taken.)

9 THE COURT: We're back on the record on Mashak

10 and First National Repossessors versus Meeks-Hull and

11 Hull. Mr. Mashak returns, all Court personnel have also

12 returned. Mr. Mashak, you may proceed.

13 MR. MASHAK: Okay. I want to first correct a

14 typo on the motion papers on page 2. It says "for two

15 weeks now." It should actually say "for three weeks."

16 And that's consistent with the Exhibit 39 from that same

17 -- from the affidavit of 12-29. That's an e-mail of

18 December 9, 2010, and it's from me to Attorney Wolfgram.

19 And the relevant portion is -- again, dated

20 December 9 -- for three weeks or more now Judge Yunker

21 has refused to set any hearing date for us before the

22 December 17, 2010, discovery and dispositive motion

23 deadline.

24 THE COURT: I'm sorry, which e-mail are you

25 referring to?

Page 22

1 MR. MASHAK: If you look, there's an affidavit

2 that's the 12-29 affidavit.

3 THE COURT: Yes, sir.

4 MR. MASHAK: Attached as an exhibit. It will

5 say at the bottom "E-39." I believe it's the very last

6 page of that.

7 THE COURT: I have that, sir.

8 MR. MASHAK: You see me writing to Attorney

9 Wolfgram for three weeks now or more.

10 THE COURT: I see it.

11 MR. MASHAK: Okay.

12 THE COURT: Also, sir, I note that document

13 has a lot of X's in it. Was that an alteration of the

14 original document?

15 MR. MASHAK: Yes. I just redacted stuff that

16 was attorney-client privileges. I'm sorry.

17 THE COURT: That's all right. Go ahead, sir.

18 MR. MASHAK: And so I've -- the Court

19 obviously knew that I needed to bring motions, the

20 motion to amend the complaint, the motion to compel

21 discovery, motion for punitive damages, all those

22 continued motions from September 30th, but my attorney

23 kept saying that they wouldn't set one.

24 In the meantime, I'm saying what about the

25 depositions? And he's saying, don't worry, there's

Page 23

1 plenty of time, I'll get them noticed. And I'm becoming

2 extremely frustrated.

3 THE COURT: Mr. Mashak, allow me to ask --

4 MR. MASHAK: Okay.

5 THE COURT: Is there evidence in the record or

6 do you have evidence of communication between

7 Mr. Wolfgram and the Court attempting to set motion

8 hearings during this time period?

9 MR. MASHAK: I'm sorry, Your Honor, I'm

10 thinking somebody I'm paying the big money to is doing

11 the job, and I didn't think that I had to question my

12 attorney about whether he was actually contacting the

13 Court or not. I assume as heated as the arguments got

14 and as much as he believed the defense of "the Court

15 just won't set one" that he's telling me the truth.

16 THE COURT: There's no written document that

17 you have or that you filed with the Court that documents

18 Mr. Wolfgram's request to the Court to set a hearing and

19 request denied?

20 MR. MASHAK: Right. And, in fact, I've asked

21 him for all my court files back and he's playing this

22 game of Simon says: You have to tell me when; and the

23 time I say, it won't work. And just again yesterday I

24 said I want to send somebody down between 8:30 and 10

25 today to pick up my court files. And I sent somebody

Page 24

1 down with a copy of my driver's license and a sheet

2 saying this person is authorized to pick up the records,

3 you say they're available to pick them up, and nobody

4 was in his office.

5 He called to tell me he didn't know when

6 somebody would be available to give me a file. In fact,

7 I don't have any of my court files as of this hearing.

8 But -- and I asked him for documentation

9 regarding contacting the Court and he hasn't given me

10 that, either. So in rapid succession, we get to

11 December 29 because I'm upset that -- and he's telling

12 me, don't worry, because the Court didn't make time

13 before December 17, it's your order, she's got to change

14 the scheduling order. She has to. Don't worry. This

15 is fine. She'll change it. It just would be grossly

16 unfair for you that because she didn't have time you

17 don't get to have your motion to compel, amended

18 complaint, et cetera, et cetera.

19 And, in fact, he said that in trying to set up

20 the deposition of Defendant Meeks-Hull, Dannette Meeks,

21 that she was saying because of the harassment

22 restraining order I couldn't even be in the deposition,

23 needed to talk to you about how that could be worked

24 out. Clearly there are ways to do that, electronically,

25 or behind a window or whatever it was.

Page 25

1 And they asked to have a teleconference with

2 you, and you refused to have a teleconference. And that

3 was the last week before the discovery deadline.

4 I'm sure you're aware then came December 29

5 where you said: Nope, I'm not changing any deadlines,

6 I'm not taking the amended complaint, I'm not

7 entertaining the motions to compel.

8 And then we came up with this -- and this is

9 difficult for me to say, but I've just got to say it,

10 this notion of suspense motions. And I've asked several

11 attorneys if they've ever heard of suspense motions from

12 the 9-30 hearing. I've looked in the Minnesota Rules of

13 General Practice.

14 I might not have it quite right, but I'm sure

15 you know what I'm talking to. I looked in the Minnesota

16 Rules of Civil Procedure and could find no reference to

17 suspense motions.

18 And it was my sense that my own attorney,

19 acting on behalf of the legal fraternity, understood

20 that what you were trying to do was to prevent some of

21 those motions from being heard. And so that is when he

22 took me in the back room and said: No, you shouldn't

23 enter any of this other stuff. You shouldn't enter your

24 motion, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

25 And there was yelling and screaming and he was saying he

Page 26

1 wasn't going to represent me anymore if I insisted on

2 doing this.

3 And here I'm sitting between I know that if

4 it's not on the record, it's as though it didn't happen

5 as far as the judge is concerned. And I have my

6 attorney telling me something completely different that

7 I know to be wrong. And he's threatening to withdraw,

8 and I'm not capable of knowing all the nuances of the

9 law.

10 And because of this idea suspense motions and

11 because of all of this, I had said: Okay; if you're

12 telling me that this is just a bad idea. And his story

13 was something about, well, what you're arguing is that

14 there's no material issues of fact. And if you go in

15 there and say that your side is there's no material

16 issues of fact, you're saying there is material issues

17 of fact.

18 And, of course, that is completely

19 wrong-headed thinking that doesn't even make any sense

20 because we're saying there's no issues of material fact

21 for us, not that there are not any material issues of

22 fact for them.

23 But in any case, you know all the rulings you

24 made there, and it denied me the right to get any --

25 $16,000, almost two years, I get a smattering of

Page 27

1 discovery on the very last day. And it just can't be.

2 Nobody could figure out to serve discovery 10 months

3 earlier, 12 months earlier, 13 months earlier? Nobody

4 could -- and then we have Olson saying for two and a

5 half months, from 7-9 to early September, that the judge

6 won't return my calls, the judge won't set a hearing,

7 which is consistent with what Wolfgram was saying was I

8 can't do anything, the Court won't set a hearing.

9 And clearly the Court knew that if I can't

10 compel discovery, if I can't amend my complaint that it

11 prejudices my case because I can't get evidence on the

12 record and I can't even say in the course of the

13 independent discovery that we did we discovered these

14 other causes of action and that we want to amend our

15 claim for that.

16 And worse, then I have my attorneys

17 blackmailing me, not just that they're going to quit by

18 doing something their certain way, but I have Wolfgram

19 telling me that if I don't sign something that says that

20 I am satisfied with his representation that he's going

21 to quit.

22 Now, I only got so much money and this has

23 damaged my business terribly. I can't -- I'm trapped.

24 I'm being exhorted that -- I've invested all this money

25 into this and every time you change attorneys, you've

Page 28

1 got to pay for them to relearn the case. Now I've got

2 Wolfgram saying: You need to sign a document that says

3 you're satisfied with my representation.

4 By this time I'm so absorbed with the

5 document, the issues in the document that I handed to

6 you just prior to us beginning this hearing, that I

7 don't know anymore. I'm just blown away that I even

8 have to deal with any of this.

9 This is a straightforward case of an employee

10 quit while I was out of the country, stole money,

11 embezzled money, stole company property, and then

12 purposely trashed a vehicle that I cosigned for her and

13 let it get repossessed. And suddenly two years later,

14 I'm the one whose life is destroyed. And I say it's by

15 deliberate machinations of the Court.

16 And, again, after the July -- January 9th

17 hearing, Wolfgram was, again: If you want me to

18 represent you, you need to sign a document that says

19 you're happy with my representation.

20 And all these things primarily instigated by

21 the fact that the Court from 7-9 to early September

22 wouldn't allow me to -- allow my attorneys, and wouldn't

23 respond to their correspondence, wouldn't set hearings,

24 that the December -- or the September 16 hearing, which

25 was reserved at 7-9, was mysteriously canceled. And the

Page 29

1 attorney insists, in multiple places that I have

2 documented and with Lawyers Professional Responsibility

3 Board, that the Court canceled that hearing, not him.

4 And then we have Wolfgram saying for several

5 months -- or for six weeks: She won't set any hearings

6 despite -- and you have the e-mails where right from the

7 beginning I made it clear to him what your instructions

8 were -- you aren't changing nothing, nothing was going

9 to change, that this had to be done, that he needed to

10 notice the depositions, that all these things had to

11 happen.

12 And he said he couldn't make them happen

13 because the Court wouldn't set a hearing. The Court

14 wouldn't entertain the amended complaint. The Court

15 wouldn't entertain the motion to compel discovery. That

16 the Court wouldn't work with them to resolve this issue

17 of Ms. Meeks saying she wouldn't want to be in the same

18 room with me, even by teleconference. This went on over

19 the course of two months.

20 I'm just going to go through and -- if it

21 please the Court, if we could take, like, 10 minutes so

22 I could gather my thoughts to make my final statements,

23 I'd appreciate that.

24 THE COURT: Certainly, Mr. Mashak. Can we

25 agree top of the hour? Is that enough time?

Page 30

1 MR. MASHAK: Yes, thank you.

2 THE COURT: You're welcome, sir. We stand in

3 recess until 4:00.

4 (A brief recess was taken.)

5 MR. MASHAK: Could I have one minute to look

6 at this?

7 THE COURT: Certainly.

8 (Mr. Mashak reviewing realtime.)

9 MR. MASHAK: Okay. Your Honor.

10 THE COURT: We are back on the record on

11 Mashak and First National Repossessors, Incorporated,

12 versus Meeks-Hull and Hull, defendants. Mr. Mashak, you

13 may proceed.

14 MR. MASHAK: Okay. I'm just going to take a

15 few minutes to go through anything I might have missed

16 along here and make some points in closing, and then I

17 should be done.

18 We've discussed the fact that by the Court not

19 setting hearings or allowing teleconferences it

20 prevented me from having motions and communications with

21 the Court to advance my case in terms of getting

22 discovery evidence on the record and amending my

23 complaint, punitive damages, et cetera, et cetera.

24 We talked about the cancelling of the 9-16

25 hearing. We talked about the suspense motions. And

Page 31

1 then I want to comment on the unusual efforts to prevent

2 recordings of proceedings on the December 29 hearing.

3 Law enforcement were used to do unlawful searches and

4 seizures of people at the direction of this Court to

5 prevent any recording, any possible recording. People

6 were required to take any recording devices and their

7 cell phones out to the cars, which is something I've

8 never experienced in my 52 years previously. Not that

9 I've been in Court that much, but that was unusual to me

10 and many people that I spoke to.

11 And then at the 1-9 hearing, apparently there

12 had been discussions between law enforcement and the

13 Court, and instead of having people take their cell

14 phones and their recording devices to their cars, the

15 Court merely asked myself and other people in the

16 gallery if they were recording and unusually asked

17 people in the gallery their names and indicated there

18 would be some kind of consequences for anybody recording

19 these hearings.

20 And, again, I hate challenging the Court on

21 this, but that would seem to indicate the Court had

22 something to hide that they didn't want documented.

23 Again, I refer to the Minnesota statute that I believe

24 supersedes any court rules that say anybody -- at least

25 one person party to a conversation they have the right

Page 32

1 to record it.

2 And then, oh, at the last hearing when you

3 made me only speak through my attorney and my attorney

4 was refusing to say the things that I wanted to say and

5 make the arguments I wanted to make, and I was

6 substantially stifled in getting things on the record

7 for appeal.

8 And then I'm going to touch on that the Court

9 refused to continue the hearing to deal with the

10 accommodations required by the Americans with

11 Disabilities Act. And go back to -- it just is

12 manifestly unjust that the Court would take months and

13 refuse to have hearings and then on December 17 --

14 before December 17 and then on December 29 say, well,

15 too bad, so sad, we set December 17, when the Court

16 effectively acted to prevent me from prosecuting my case

17 and getting discovery by refusing to have hearings

18 because the defense wasn't cooperating in the discovery

19 as the defense should have.

20 And had we had the 9-16 hearing or any hearing

21 between now and 9-17, I would have had -- the Court

22 would have been able to accept my amended complaint, the

23 Court would have been able to compel discovery, I would

24 have been able to work out the issues that the defense

25 brought up regarding the depositions.

Page 33

1 All these things demonstrated bias of the

2 Court. And I'm going to go back and say that while I

3 don't -- I have two different attorneys saying that the

4 Court wasn't returning their communications, wasn't

5 setting hearings, wasn't -- in the first instance, also,

6 you weren't putting out the scheduling order agreed to

7 on July 9.

8 And then the second case we have the attorneys

9 saying she won't set any hearings and just briefly

10 allegedly because I refused to have them heard in

11 Sherburne County when -- and even when that possible

12 communication happened, in short order, I said of course

13 if we can't have the hearing before December 17 unless

14 we have them in Sherburne, I'm not stupid, then we'll

15 have to have it in Sherburne, just make sure the trial

16 ends up being in Isanti.

17 And the other thing is, judges are aware that

18 all of this extra communication that I have with my

19 attorneys and changing attorneys costs money and most

20 people don't have unlimited resources. So by the very

21 act of making this litigation stall out farther and

22 farther, the Court knew that eventually I would run out

23 of money. And the Court knew that the allegations of

24 the defense were having an adverse impact on my income.

25 And, you know, this failing to set hearings so

Page 34

1 that the thing could quickly move to resolution, the

2 defense knows that they're lying. And once they're

3 forced to put things in writing and once they're forced

4 to depositions, I believe settlement happens quickly.

5 But when the Court's acting in this manner, it gives

6 them the belief that the Court's on their side. And I'm

7 sure that's what their attorney is telling them. You

8 don't have to settle nothing because basically what I'm

9 seeing, the Court's made up their mind how they want

10 this to come out.

11 You know, and along those lines, I'm just

12 going to say it's just not satisfactory that there's not

13 some policing of the court. The board of judicial

14 standards and the lawyers professional responsibility

15 boards are just jokes. They're black holes. Nobody

16 ever gets to know what goes on with those. Unless they

17 have a finding that somebody actually did something,

18 people don't know if there was ever any investigation at

19 all done.

20 And then all that information should have been

21 public record. The founding fathers said that all men

22 are fallen, and the only way to keep men from

23 temptation -- the best way to keep people from

24 temptation is transparency and accountability. And the

25 courts, by making the Board of Judicial Standards and

Page 35

1 making the Lawyers Board black holes, they've ended the

2 transparency, which gets us to the situation where you

3 have citizens being denied their right to petition the

4 government for redress of grievances to make it clear

5 that there is corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

6 In this particular instance, again, I believe

7 that the Minnesota legal system and the Minnesota courts

8 are retaliating against me for my lawful and

9 constitutionally specified right to petition the

10 government with grievances.

11 The courts in this case -- this woman just had

12 to make an allegation, in my opinion, and the Court said

13 we can use this, we're going to use this to demonize and

14 discredit this guy who's been making efforts to reform

15 and make accountable and transparent the Minnesota

16 Judiciary.

17 I want to go back to on either December 29 --

18 or January 9, you should have said, you know what, it's

19 not your fault we couldn't get you heard before the

20 deadline. Even though I set the hard deadline, it's

21 just not right, fair, just, equitable, unbiased for me

22 to say you don't get discovery, you don't get to amend

23 your Complaint, you don't get to amend for punitive

24 damages, you don't get to have depositions because the

25 Court knew that that biased my ability to collect

Page 36

1 evidence and to put evidence on the record.

2 And I'm going to close by saying that judges

3 and lawyers have full control over people's lives. The

4 rules are too complex for the average citizen to

5 understand. And the lawyers -- and us citizens come

6 forward and we trust lawyers that we pay big money to to

7 represent us. Unfortunately, in my opinion, what's

8 happened is some of them know how to -- know what the

9 court wants as a result.

10 And because most people -- most people

11 wouldn't even have -- average citizens wouldn't have the

12 ability to come before this Court like I have and say

13 this, this, this, this. To them, it's just a big black

14 box and they just know they got screwed.

15 And when people just know they got screwed,

16 then you have stuff like happened in Egypt where the

17 people just say: We know we're getting screwed. We

18 don't know exactly how we're getting screwed, but we

19 know we're getting screwed.

20 So these attorneys, they either willingly

21 betray their clients because that's the easy way, not to

22 make judges upset and be part of the judicial

23 fraternity, or they are just afraid to cross judges that

24 they appear in front of because the judges can destroy

25 their law practices.

Page 37

1 They've invested thousands of dollars in

2 getting an undergraduate degree, getting a law degree

3 and establishing a practice and the judicial fraternity

4 has the ability to destroy a person's law practice if a

5 lawyer crosses a judge.

6 But just in summary, all the things that I've

7 said here I believe constitute the bias -- demonstrate

8 the bias of the Court that the evidence that I've been

9 denied and the discovery that I've been denied

10 absolutely influenced the outcome of this case. And,

11 therefore, I believe that I have established that bias

12 has occurred and I believe that the Court should remove

13 itself from this matter.

14 And unless you have any questions, that's all

15 I have.

16 THE COURT: I have no questions, Mr. Mashak.

17 Thank you. We will recess this hearing at this time. I

18 will issue a written order on your motion. If you wish

19 to address the ADA concerns, I will go into a private

20 session so that we can privately communicate about that,

21 if you wish to do that, Mr. Mashak.

22 MR. MASHAK: I would wish to do that.

23 THE COURT: All right. That means we're going

24 to close the courtroom, ma'am, if you wouldn't mind

25 stepping out.

Page 38

1

2

3 (A confidential hearing was held and is contained

4 in a separate transcript.)

5

6

7 * * * *

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 46

1 STATE OF MINNESOTA

2 COUNTY OF SHERBURNE

3

4 I, Jennifer S. Sati, RMR, CRR, CBC, CRI,

5 District Court Reporter, hereby certify that the

6 foregoing pages are a true and correct transcript of my

7 stenographic notes taken relative to the afore-mentioned

8 matter on the 2nd day of February, 2011, in the City of

9 Elk River, County of Sherburne, and State of Minnesota,

10 before the Honorable Mary A. Yunker, Judge of District

11 Court.

12

13

14

15 SIGNED THIS 22nd day OF February, 2011.

16

17

18

19

20

___________________________________

21 Jennifer S. Sati Registered Merit Reporter

22 Certified Realtime Reporter Certified Broadcast Captioner

23 Certified Realtime Instructor Notary Public Comm. Expires 1-31-15

24

25

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1

!

Exhibit 2 - You don't get it, the judge had a conflict

Exhibit 3 -

!
-----Original Message-----
From: CynicalPatriot
To: wolfgramclerk@gmail.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 9, 2010 7:32 am
Subject: recap of where we are at.

Hello

Just to document the recent events:

For 3 weeks or more now Judge Yunker has refused to set any hearing date for us before the December 17, 2010
Discovery and dispositive motion deadline?

Opposing Counsel has not returned your calls for discovery and depositions.

Because of how late this is all happening it will be more expensive for me, expedited transcripts.

And it is likely Yunker will rule against us based on her being corrupt.

And we can appeal but that will be expensive.

And the otherside will not settle because Judge Yunker has telegraphed to them that the fix is in.

Now, As I understand it this is one way that fixes are done.

I will not be allowed to do discovery so I cannot introduce evidence.

This is evidenced by Yunker cancelling the 9/15/2010 hearing and promoting a summary judgment hearing
by the Defense.

You understand that I want a Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment heard. I have already done one
that has already been submitted but I would expect it to be updated with new evidence....

Don Mashak

Exhibit 4

! WE Will Accomodate in Isanti County

Rep. Mary KiffMeyer and MN GOP Judiciary Committee Submit Judicial Reform Bill 016 to MN Revisor

2011-02-12T12:09:00.001-08:00

02/09/11 02:54 PM HOUSE RESEARCH JV RP016
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to judges; creating judicial election districts; amending the mandatory
1.3 retirement date for judges; creating optional retirement dates; imposing partial
1.4 forfeiture of annuity under certain circumstances; amending Minnesota Statutes
1.5 2010, sections 2.722, subdivision 1; 10A.09, subdivision 1; 204B.06, subdivision
1.6 6; 490.121, subdivision 21d, by adding subdivisions; 490.124, subdivisions 1, 3,
1.7 by adding subdivisions; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes,
1.8 chapter 480B.
1.9 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.10 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 2.722, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
1.11 Subdivision 1. Description of judicial districts and election districts. (a)
1.12 Effective July 1, 1959, the state is divided into ten judicial districts composed of the
1.13 following named counties, respectively, in each of which districts judges shall be chosen
1.14 as hereinafter specified:
1.15 1. Goodhue, Dakota, Carver, Le Sueur, McLeod, Scott, and Sibley; 36 judges; and
1.16 four permanent chambers shall be maintained in Red Wing, Hastings, Shakopee, and
1.17 Glencoe and one other shall be maintained at the place designated by the chief judge
1.18 of the district;
1.19 2. Ramsey; 26 judges;
1.20 3. Wabasha, Winona, Houston, Rice, Olmsted, Dodge, Steele, Waseca, Freeborn,
1.21 Mower, and Fillmore; 23 judges; and permanent chambers shall be maintained in
1.22 Faribault, Albert Lea, Austin, Rochester, and Winona;
1.23 4. Hennepin; 60 judges;
1.24 5. Blue Earth, Watonwan, Lyon, Redwood, Brown, Nicollet, Lincoln, Cottonwood,
1.25 Murray, Nobles, Pipestone, Rock, Faribault, Martin, and Jackson; 16 judges; and
Section 1. 1
02/09/11 02:54 PM HOUSE RESEARCH JV RP016
2.1 permanent chambers shall be maintained in Marshall, Windom, Fairmont, New Ulm,
2.2 and Mankato;
2.3 6. Carlton, St. Louis, Lake, and Cook; 15 judges;
2.4 7. Benton, Douglas, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Otter Tail, Stearns, Todd, Clay, Becker,
2.5 and Wadena; 28 judges; and permanent chambers shall be maintained in Moorhead,
2.6 Fergus Falls, Little Falls, and St. Cloud;
2.7 8. Chippewa, Kandiyohi, Lac qui Parle, Meeker, Renville, Swift, Yellow Medicine,
2.8 Big Stone, Grant, Pope, Stevens, Traverse, and Wilkin; 11 judges; and permanent
2.9 chambers shall be maintained in Morris, Montevideo, and Willmar;
2.10 9. Norman, Polk, Marshall, Kittson, Red Lake, Roseau, Mahnomen, Pennington,
2.11 Aitkin, Itasca, Crow Wing, Hubbard, Beltrami, Lake of the Woods, Clearwater, Cass and
2.12 Koochiching; 23 judges; and permanent chambers shall be maintained in Crookston, Thief
2.13 River Falls, Bemidji, Brainerd, Grand Rapids, and International Falls; and
2.14 10. Anoka, Isanti, Wright, Sherburne, Kanabec, Pine, Chisago, and Washington;
2.15 45 judges; and permanent chambers shall be maintained in Anoka, Stillwater, and other
2.16 places designated by the chief judge of the district.
2.17 (b) In all districts except the Second and Fourth Judicial Districts, a candidate for
2.18 district court judge shall be elected by voters residing in the county in which the judge is
2.19 chambered. If no judge is chambered in a county, the Commission on Judicial Selection
2.20 shall assign a judgeship to a contiguous group of counties for an election at least 30 days
2.21 prior to a general election.
2.22 In the Second and Fourth Judicial Districts, a candidate for district court judge shall
2.23 be elected by voters residing in the judge's judicial election precinct. By October 1, 2011,
2.24 and thereafter, 30 days prior to a general election following the addition of a judgeship, the
2.25 Commission on Judicial Selection shall establish boundaries of judicial election precincts
2.26 and assign a judgeship to each precinct in the Second and Fourth Judicial districts. The
2.27 boundaries of judicial election precincts must follow visible, clearly recognizable physical
2.28 features, be composed of compact, contiguous territory, and be substantially equal in
2.29 population based on the results of the most recent decennial census.
2.30 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective July 1, 2011.
2.31 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 10A.09, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
2.32 Subdivision 1. Time for filing. Except for a candidate for elective office in the
2.33 judicial branch, An individual must file a statement of economic interest with the board:
2.34 (1) within 60 days of accepting employment as a public official or a local official in
2.35 a metropolitan governmental unit;
Sec. 2. 2
02/09/11 02:54 PM HOUSE RESEARCH JV RP016
3.1 (2) within 14 days after filing an affidavit of candidacy or petition to appear on the
3.2 ballot for an elective state office or an elective local office in a metropolitan governmental
3.3 unit;
3.4 (3) in the case of a public official requiring the advice and consent of the senate,
3.5 within 14 days after undertaking the duties of office; or
3.6 (4) in the case of members of the Minnesota Racing Commission, the director
3.7 of the Minnesota Racing Commission, chief of security, medical officer, inspector of
3.8 pari-mutuels, and stewards employed or approved by the commission or persons who
3.9 fulfill those duties under contract, within 60 days of accepting or assuming duties.
3.10 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 204B.06, subdivision 6, is amended to read:
3.11 Subd. 6. Judicial candidates; designation of term. (a) An individual who files as a
3.12 candidate for the office of chief justice or associate justice of the Supreme Court, judge of
3.13 the Court of Appeals, or judge of the district court shall state in the affidavit of candidacy
3.14 the office of the particular justice or judge for which the individual is a candidate. The
3.15 individual shall be a candidate only for the office identified in the affidavit. Each justice
3.16 of the Supreme Court and each Court of Appeals and district court judge is deemed to
3.17 hold a separate nonpartisan office.
3.18 (b) An incumbent justice or judge shall not be named on the ballot unless the justice
3.19 or judge has filed a commitment in writing to the Secretary of State by May 1 of the year
3.20 of the expiration of the term of office of such judge. The commitment shall provide that
3.21 the justice or judge will serve the office identified in the affidavit for candidacy until
3.22 the expiration of the term of such office, the mandatory retirement date, the optional
3.23 retirement date, or the disability date, or until appointed to another office of government or
3.24 is unable to serve due to a compelling physical or personal reason, as defined in section
3.25 490.121, subdivision 7d.
3.26 (c) When a judge or justice reaches the age of 70, the office of the judge shall be
3.27 placed on the ballot in the general election year of the judge's mandatory retirement date,
3.28 as defined in section 490.121, subdivision 21d, if the judge is serving in office 30 days
3.29 prior to the general election.
3.30 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective July 1, 2011.
3.31 Sec. 4. [480B.02] ELECTION OF JUDGES TO FILL VACANCIES.
3.32 Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) The definitions in this subdivision apply to this
3.33 section.
Sec. 4. 3
02/09/11 02:54 PM HOUSE RESEARCH JV RP016
(b) "Place holder" means a qualified person who has been appointed 4.1 by the governor
4.2 to a judicial office. A place holder who has been appointed to judicial office is not a prior
4.3 office holder or the successor of a prior office holder, unless later elected to such position.
4.4 (c) "Prior office holder" means a person who had been elected to judicial office and
4.5 held the position until death, resignation, or removal from office created a vacancy in
4.6 the judicial office.
4.7 (d) "Qualified person" is a person who is learned in the law, is a resident of the
4.8 district in which the person will serve, and meets all other requirements for holding
4.9 judicial office as provided in law.
4.10 (e) "Successor" means a person who is elected to a judicial office to fill a vacancy
4.11 which was created by a prior office holder through death, resignation, or removal from
4.12 office.
4.13 (f) "Vacancy" means an unfilled judicial office created when the prior office holder
4.14 dies, resigns, or is removed from office. The mere announcement of an intention to resign
4.15 does not create a vacancy.
4.16 Subd. 2. Filling a judicial vacancy. (a) Whenever there is a vacancy in the office
4.17 of judge, the governor shall appoint a place holder to fill the vacancy until a successor is
4.18 elected and qualified. A successor shall be elected at the next general election occurring
4.19 more than one year after the date of appointment of the place holder.
4.20 (b) The death, resignation, or removal of a place holder from office prior to an
4.21 election shall not alter the date of the election of a successor. Should the place holder fail
4.22 to serve, for any reason, in the judicial office until the successor is elected, then:
4.23 (1) if the election is less than 12 months away, the position shall be filled when a
4.24 successor is elected; or
4.25 (2) if the election is more than 12 months away, the governor shall appoint a
4.26 qualified person who shall serve only until a successor is elected and qualified.
4.27 Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 490.121, is amended by adding a subdivision
4.28 to read:
4.29 Subd. 7d. Compelling physical or personal reason. "Compelling physical or
4.30 personal reason" means a physical condition that renders the judge unable to perform the
4.31 duties of judicial office or the need to care for a member of the judge's immediate family.
4.32 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective July 1, 2011, and applies to vacancies
4.33 occurring on or after that date.
4.34 Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 490.121, subdivision 21d, is amended to read:
Sec. 6. 4
02/09/11 02:54 PM HOUSE RESEARCH JV RP016
5.1 Subd. 21d. Mandatory retirement date. "Mandatory retirement date" means
5.2 December 31 of the year of a general election after the last day of the month in which a
5.3 judge has attained 70 years of age.
5.4 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective July 1, 2011.
5.5 Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 490.121, is amended by adding a subdivision
5.6 to read:
5.7 Subd. 21g. Optional retirement date. "Optional retirement date" means December
5.8 31 of a general election year.
5.9 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective July 1, 2011.
5.10 Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 490.124, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
5.11 Subdivision 1. Basic retirement annuity. (a) Except as qualified hereinafter from
5.12 and after the mandatory retirement date, the normal retirement date, the early retirement
5.13 date, the optional retirement date, or one year from the disability retirement date or date
5.14 approved by the Court of Appeals under subdivision 4a, as the case may be, a retiring
5.15 judge is eligible to receive a retirement annuity from the judges' retirement fund.
5.16 (b) The retirement annuity is an amount equal to: (1) the percent specified in section
5.17 356.315, subdivision 7, multiplied by the judge's final average compensation with that
5.18 result then multiplied by the number of years and fractions of years of allowable service
5.19 rendered before July 1, 1980; plus (2) the percent specified in section 356.315, subdivision
5.20 8, multiplied by the judge's final average compensation with that result then multiplied
5.21 by the number of years and fractions of years of allowable service rendered after June
5.22 30, 1980.
5.23 (c) Service that exceeds the service credit limit in section 490.121, subdivision 22,
5.24 must be excluded in calculating the retirement annuity, but the compensation earned by
5.25 the judge during this period of judicial service must be used in determining a judge's final
5.26 average compensation and calculating the retirement annuity.
5.27 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective July 1, 2011.
5.28 Sec. 9. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 490.124, subdivision 3, is amended to read:
5.29 Subd. 3. Early reduced retirement. Except as provided in subdivision 3a, the
5.30 retirement annuity under subdivision 1 of any judge who elects to retire at an early
5.31 retirement date that does not qualify as an optional retirement date must be reduced by
5.32 one-half of one percent per month from the retirement date to the normal retirement date.
Sec. 9. 5
02/09/11 02:54 PM HOUSE RESEARCH JV RP016
EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is 6.1 effective July 1, 2011.
6.2 Sec. 10. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 490.124, is amended by adding a subdivision
6.3 to read:
6.4 Subd. 3a. Partial forfeiture of retirement annuity. The retirement annuity under
6.5 subdivision 1 of any judge who elects to retire at any date that results in the appointment
6.6 of a successor by the governor must be reduced by 25 percent. This subdivision shall
6.7 not apply if the judge is appointed to serve on another court, the judge retires due to a
6.8 disability, or the judge retires for compelling physical or personal reasons.
6.9 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective July 1, 2011, and applies to judges
6.10 elected or appointed to a new term of office on or after that date.
6.11 Sec. 11. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 490.124, is amended by adding a subdivision
6.12 to read:
6.13 Subd. 4a. Compelling physical or personal reason retirement. (a) An incumbent
6.14 judge may retire at any time if unable to continue to serve as a judge for a compelling
6.15 physical or personal reason, as approved by the Court of Appeals. When the Court of
6.16 Appeals determines that a judge is unable to serve under this subdivision, notice of
6.17 the court's determination must be sent to the judge, to the chief justice of the Supreme
6.18 Court, to the state court administrator, and to the executive director of the Minnesota
6.19 State Retirement System.
6.20 (b) From and after this retirement date, the judge is entitled to continuation of the
6.21 judge's full salary payable by the judge's employer, as if the judge's office were not vacated
6.22 by retirement, for a period of up to one full year, but in no event beyond the judge's
6.23 mandatory retirement date. During this year, the judge is entitled to earn additional service
6.24 credit in the judges' retirement plan. The salary payable to a judge is subject to retirement
6.25 deductions and must be included in computing final average compensation of the judge.
6.26 (c) At the conclusion of the year of continued salary following retirement under this
6.27 subdivision or upon the judge's mandatory retirement date, whichever is earlier, the judge
6.28 is entitled to a retirement annuity computed as provided in subdivision 1.
6.29 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective July 1, 2011.
Sec. 11. 6

Rep. Mary KiffMeyer and MN GOP Judiciary Committee Submit Judicial Reform Bill 015 to MN Revisor

2011-02-12T12:04:00.000-08:00

02/04/11 09:18 AM HOUSE RESEARCH JV RP015
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to courts; establishing a judicial code of ethics; amending Minnesota
1.3 Statutes 2010, section 43A.39, subdivisions 1, 2; proposing coding for new law
1.4 in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 480.
1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 43A.39, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
1.7 Subdivision 1. Prohibited acts; penalties. All employees shall comply with and aid
1.8 in all proper ways the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter. No employee or any
1.9 other person shall intentionally:
1.10 (a) Make any false oral or written statement, mark, rating or report concerning any
1.11 application, selection process, or appointment made under provisions of this chapter or in
1.12 any manner commit or attempt to commit any fraud preventing the impartial execution
1.13 of this chapter;
1.14 (b) Directly or indirectly, give, render, pay, offer, solicit, or accept any money, service
1.15 or other valuable consideration for any appointment, proposed appointment, promotion or
1.16 proposed promotion to, or any advantage in obtaining, a position in the civil service;
1.17 (c) Defeat, deceive, or obstruct any person in exercising rights under this chapter, or
1.18 furnish to any person any special or secret information for the purpose of affecting the
1.19 rights or prospects of any person with respect to appointment, advancement or retention
1.20 in the classified service;
1.21 (d) Violate the provisions of section 43A.37 or, 43A.38, or 480.115; or
1.22 (e) If in the classified service, engage in activities prohibited by section 43A.32.
1.23 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 43A.39, subdivision 2, is amended to read:
Sec. 2. 1
02/04/11 09:18 AM HOUSE RESEARCH JV RP015
2.1 Subd. 2. Noncompliance. Any employee who intentionally fails to comply with
2.2 the provisions of chapter 43A or section 480.115 shall be subject to disciplinary action
2.3 and action pursuant to chapter 609. An appointing authority shall report in writing to the
2.4 legislative auditor when there is probable cause to believe that a substantial violation has
2.5 occurred. Any person convicted of a crime based on violations of this chapter shall be
2.6 ineligible for appointment in the civil service for three years following conviction.
2.7 Sec. 3. [480.115] CODE OF ETHICS FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE JUDICIAL
2.8 BRANCH.
2.9 Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following
2.10 definitions shall apply.
2.11 (a) "Business" means any corporation, partnership, proprietorship, firm, enterprise,
2.12 franchise, association, organization, self-employed individual or any other legal entity
2.13 which engages in nonprofit or profit making activities.
2.14 (b) "Confidential information" means any information obtained under government
2.15 authority which has not become part of the body of public information and which, if
2.16 released prematurely or in nonsummary form, may provide unfair economic advantage or
2.17 adversely affect the competitive position of an individual or a business.
2.18 (c) "Personal relationship" means a relationship by blood, marriage, or association
2.19 such as membership or participation in a common organization, or having an association
2.20 while attending a college or postgraduate school, or sharing a residence, or working at the
2.21 same time for the same employer, or having a personal friendship at any time, or otherwise
2.22 appearing to have had such a relationship.
2.23 (d) "Private interest" means any interest, including but not limited to a financial
2.24 interest, which pertains to a person or business whereby the person's business would gain a
2.25 benefit, privilege, exemption, or advantage from the action of a state agency or employee
2.26 that is not available to the general public.
2.27 Subd. 2. Acceptance of gifts; favors; from other lawyers, law firms, and
2.28 employees of law firms. Justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the Court of Appeals,
2.29 state district court judges, and judicial branch employees, who are hereinafter referred to
2.30 collectively as employees of the judicial branch, shall not directly or indirectly receive
2.31 or agree to receive any payment of expense, compensation, gift, reward, gratuity, favor,
2.32 service, or promise of future employment or other future benefit from any source, except
2.33 the state, for any activity related to the duties of the employee unless otherwise provided
2.34 by law. However, the acceptance of any of the following from other than a lawyer, law
2.35 firm, or employee of a lawyer or law firm is not a violation of this subdivision:
Sec. 3. 2
02/04/11 09:18 AM HOUSE RESEARCH JV RP015
(1) gifts of nominal value or gifts or textbooks which may 3.1 be accepted pursuant to
3.2 section 15.43;
3.3 (2) plaques or similar mementos recognizing individual services in a field of
3.4 specialty or to a charitable cause;
3.5 (3) payment of reimbursement expenses for travel or meals, not to exceed actual
3.6 expenses incurred, which are not reimbursed by the state and which have been approved
3.7 in advance by the Judicial Council;
3.8 (4) honoraria or expenses paid for papers, talks, demonstrations, or appearances
3.9 made by employees on their own time for which they are not compensated by the state,
3.10 provided that the honoraria or expense is reasonable in amount;
3.11 (5) tips received by employees engaged in food service; or
3.12 (6) a contribution to an election campaign in an election year of no more than $500
3.13 as authorized by law.
3.14 Subd. 3. Use of confidential information. An employee in the judicial branch shall
3.15 not use confidential information to further the employee's private interest, and shall not
3.16 accept outside employment or involvement in a business or activity that will require the
3.17 employee to disclose or use confidential information.
3.18 Subd. 4. Use of state property. (a) An employee shall not use state time, supplies,
3.19 or state-owned or leased property and equipment for the employee's private interests or
3.20 any other use not in the interest of the state, except as provided by law.
3.21 (b) An employee may use state time, property, or equipment to communicate
3.22 electronically with other persons including, but not limited to, elected officials, the
3.23 employer, or an exclusive bargaining representative under chapter 179A, provided this
3.24 use, including the value of the time spent, results in no incremental cost to the state or
3.25 results in an incremental costs that is so small as to make accounting for it unreasonable or
3.26 administratively impracticable.
3.27 (c) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Minnesota shall issue a statewide
3.28 policy on the use of electronic mail and other forms of electronic communications by
3.29 judges. The policy is not subject to the provisions of chapter 14 or 179A. The Office
3.30 of Court Administrator shall issue policies on these issues for other employees of the
3.31 judicial branch. The policies shall permit employees to make reasonable use of state time,
3.32 property, and equipment for personal communication and shall address issues of privacy,
3.33 content of communications, and the definition of reasonable use, as well as other issues
3.34 the chief justice and the Office of Court Administrator identify as necessary and relevant.
Sec. 3. 3
02/04/11 09:18 AM HOUSE RESEARCH JV RP015
Subd. 5. Conflicts of interest. The following actions by an employee 4.1 in the judicial
4.2 branch shall be deemed a conflict of interest and subject to procedures regarding resolution
4.3 of the conflicts, section 43A.39, or disciplinary action as appropriate:
4.4 (1) use or attempted use of the employee's official position to secure benefits,
4.5 privileges, exemptions, or advantages for the employee or the employee's immediate
4.6 family or an organization with which the employee is associated which are different
4.7 from those available to the general public;
4.8 (2) acceptance of other forms of employment or contractual relationships that will
4.9 affect the employee's independence of judgment in the exercise of official duties;
4.10 (3) actions as an agent attorney in any action or matter pending before the employing
4.11 agency except in the proper discharge of official duties;
4.12 (4) the solicitation of a financial agreement for the employee or entity other than
4.13 the state when the state is currently engaged in the provision of the services which are
4.14 the subject of the agreement or where the state has expressed an intention to engage in
4.15 competition for the provision of the services, unless the chief justice or the Office of
4.16 Court Administrator waives this clause; and
4.17 (5) participation in a judicial proceeding as a judge, referee, mediator, or arbitrator if
4.18 there has been or is a personal relationship as defined in subdivision 1 herein between the
4.19 participant and a party or lawyer who appears in the proceeding.
4.20 Subd. 6. Determination of conflicts of interest. When an employee believes the
4.21 potential for a conflict of interest exists, it is the employee's duty to avoid the situation.
4.22 A conflict of interest shall be deemed to exist when a review of the situation by the
4.23 employee, the Office of Court Administrator, or the chief justice determines any one
4.24 of the following conditions to be present:
4.25 (1) the use for private gain or advantage of state time, facilities, equipment or
4.26 supplies, or badge, uniform, prestige, or influence of state office or employment;
4.27 (2) receipt or acceptance by the employee of any money or other thing of value from
4.28 anyone other than the state for the performance of an act which the employee would be
4.29 required or expected to perform in the regular course of hours of state employment or as
4.30 part of the duties as an employee;
4.31 (3) employment by a business which is subject to the direct or indirect control,
4.32 inspection, review, audit, or enforcement by the employee; or
4.33 (4) the performance of an act in other than the employee's official capacity which
4.34 may later be subject directly or indirectly to the control, inspection, review, audit, or
4.35 enforcement by the employee.
Sec. 3. 4
02/04/11 09:18 AM HOUSE RESEARCH JV RP015
Subd. 7. Resolution of conflict of interest. If an employee 5.1 of the judicial branch,
5.2 the Office of Court Administrator, or chief justice determines that a conflict of interest
5.3 exists, the matter shall be assigned to another employee who does not have a conflict of
5.4 interest. If it is not possible to assign the matter to an employee who does not have a
5.5 conflict of interest, interested persons shall be notified of the conflict and the employee
5.6 may proceed with the assignment.
5.7 Subd. 8. Judge organizations; attorneys. It is a conflict of interest for a judge
5.8 or judicial official to reside over, or be involved inn a proceeding if the judge belongs
5.9 to or participates in any organization, association, or group that retains a law firm or
5.10 lawyer to represent, lobby for, or provide services to the organization and the law firm
5.11 or lawyer for the organization represents one of the parties to the proceeding or appears
5.12 in the proceeding.
5.13 Subd. 9. Precedence of chapter 10A. Where specific provisions of chapter 10A
5.14 apply to employees and would conflict with this section, the provisions of chapter 10A
5.15 shall apply.
5.16 Subd. 10. Limits. This section shall not be interpreted to apply to any activity
5.17 which is protected by sections 179A.01 to 179A.25 and collective bargaining agreements
5.18 and practices thereunder, nor to prevent a current or former employee from accepting
5.19 employment with a labor or employee organization representing employees.
Sec. 3. 5

TEA Party For Minnesota Judical Reform - Testimony of Marlena Fearing

2011-02-07T01:07:00.000-08:00

Moving Reading of the US Declaration of Minnesota
<a href="http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=foxsports&from=foxsports_en-us_videocentral&vid=748b4596-e506-4172-b028-588af98111bc&src=FLCP:sharebar:embed" target="_new" title="SB XLV: Declaration of Independence">Video: SB XLV: Declaration of Independence</a>

Those were my thoughts.

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

TellMyPolitician

TEA PARTY - Planning the 2nd Enlightenment (Part 2b of 3)

2011-01-28T22:09:00.000-08:00

In part 2a of this series, we addressed the first three parallels of the conditions in present day America to the conditions of conditions during the first enlightenment. We continue in part 2b with the remaining 5 parallel conditions.

4) Paradigm Shifts - Changes in Individuals perception of Reality and other Paradigm Shifts;

Prior to the original Enlightenment, Governments relied on persuasion, superstition and Religion to control the General Public. Under the Devine Right of Kings gruesome punishment (warning graphic) was often employed to force people to comply with the laws and rules of society. Fear of eternal damnation also caused many people to simply comply with the rules and beliefs of the time period, regardless of how unfair or nonsensical they seemed, to avoid eternal damnation of their souls. These modalities comprised the dogma of the Sacred Circle (King,Clergy, Religious Text) that circumvented rational thinking before the enlightenment.

With the Enlightenment came a Perception of the World Based on Reason and Experience. Logical, quantifiable assessment of the World around the individual replaced a belief system imposed on the population by indoctrination by a superstition or religion. The Divine Right of Kings was exposed for the fallacy it was. Subjects became freeman and citizens because their perception of reality became based on their own interpretation of the world around them. And with the shackles of the old status quo tossed aside, these freeman came to see themselves as "Natural Law equals to the ruling class". And with that came the right to own property. And while some enlightened rulers adjusted their Governing to accommodate this new reality, many others were deposed by violent revolution.

And so, Governance with observance of Natural Law became the accepted standard for much of the Western World.

But the Tyrants of the World sought to restore their previous control on power and so they adapted to the new perception of reality that individuals of the world had created for themselves..

During the late 1800's a group of people arose who believed nations could be better managed by the educated elites than by the uneducated masses.

These educated elitists opposed laissez-faire economics, thus representing a new willingness to allow government and private groups to intervene, regulate and even coerce business firms and private individuals for the good of society

These folks were so impressed by how they changed Public Opinion from being against the USA entering World War I to being in favor of entering World War I that they openly engaged in attempting to manage public opinion during Peace time.

Representative of these educated elites' attitudes toward the uneducated masses, Edward Bernays wrote the book, "Propaganda" and said:

"It was of course the astounding success of propaganda (during WWI) that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind "

"It was only natural that after the war ended that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace"

"If we understand the mechanisms of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it."

Perception is Reality - I submit that our government has decided that rather than represent us, they have the right to manage and manipulate us like cattle; and finally, if necessary, they have the moral authority coerce us to comply with what they believe in general public's best interests.

They do this by tainting the data and information by which we create our individual Perspectives of Reality. Through control and manipulation of the major media they have been able to taint the information and ideas we receive. By tainting the information and ideas we use to form each of our own perceptions of reality they have altered our perceptions of reality to suit their goals. And, in so doing, they have limited our free will by altering our perception of reality from actual reality.

Government Exploits the emotions and predisposition of the "herd" to get the herd to go in the Direction the educated elites desire. (And when certain "lead cows" impede the movement of the herd in the direction the Governmental elites desire, the Government attempts to marginalize the "lead cows" by demonizing, discrediting or silencing them.)

In this way they have been able to get us to consent to, or ignore, their trespasses on our Natural Rights.

I submit that the rise of the Internet and its resultant vast increase in the velocity of information and ideas is the single biggest paradigm shift since the 1st Enlightenment. As books and the printing press allowed mankind to compare notes and agree upon the state of injustice they were each enduring, the Internet has had an even profound effect upon the speed at which ideas can be exchanged and validated. And just as rapidly as the Internet has became a means of WE THE PEOPLE to escape the propaganda and censorship of the Government and Corporation Dominated Major Media, the Government is working to restrain, control and if necessary, shut down the internet. (Search the Internet for the term - "Net Neutrality )

Other Paradigm Shifts

Decline of political empires gives way to Rise of Nations.

Decline of Nations gives rise to corporate / Economic / Ideological empires.

Change of Specie backed money to Fiat Money.

Adoption of the Federal Income Tax as the main source of Federal Revenues as opposed to Tariffs as defined in the Constitution.

Development of Nuclear Weapons changes the dynamics of War.

Adam Smith and Modern Theory of Economics (Society guided by invisible hand as individuals make personal choices) to present Oligopoly cram down.

Rise of the Welfare state changes dynamics of Population genetics - Change in manner allocation of Resources increases birth rates of less productive members of society.

Sexual Revolution, Improved access to food, Welfare and Child Support leads to women no longer being strictly reliant on men to raise children.

Loss of intellectual honesty - Rise of the adoption and implementation of the principle of Plausible Deniablity as opposed to standard of absolute truth. Quid Pro Quo Compromise of the men of letters (Academic Elites) - Rise of the intellectual elite with a Superiority complex (They know better than the common man)

Judges circumscribe Rational Thought in much the same manner as the churches of the 1st Enlightenment. Reduced oversight and Discipline of the Judiciary along with Reduced Transparency of the Judiciary removes the checks and balances on the Judiciary that the Founding Fathers and Constitution intended.

Willing Suspension of Disbelief by the Voters - Voters through intellectual laziness or because of information overload accept the reality painted by the major media even when confronted with improbability or conflicting empirical information.

Disinformation by Major Media - analogous to major religion on flat world and center universe
Rise of Radio and Television allows Government and Corporations to give entire country homogeneous message all at once.

Decline of Elected Representative Officials - Rise of Bureaucrats (Quangocrats)

Rise of concept of Sustainable Development

Rise of Consideration of a One World Government

5) Renewed interest, understanding and adherence of and to the Principals of Natural Law;

Let us begin with a review of what Natural Rights are.

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists . Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal . They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, also called statutory rights, are bestowed by a particular government to the governed people and are relative to specific cultures and governments. They are enumerated or codified into legal statutes by a legislative body.
Rather than go into the 19 points (chapter XIV of Leviathan)of Natural Rights Set out by Thomas Hobbes, I preferred the simplified view of John Locke (1632–1704). He was another prominent Western philosopher who conceptualized rights as natural and inalienable. Like Hobbes, Locke was a major social contract thinker. He said that man's natural rights are life, liberty, and property.

Similar to the original Enlightenment, grassroots groups of people have been forming to discuss and debate their the sources of their frustration with the Status Quo. The "dull ache" and the feeling that "something is wrong but they don't know exactly what" is affirmed by their peers.

I imagine this "dull ache" and sense that "something is wrong, but what?" were the harbingers of the great change that was on the horizon just before and during the original Enlightenment. And now many grassroots movements are again revisiting natural law and natural rights. And they are injecting their perspectives into the politics of the nation.

The status quo government has reacted with its usual strategies to deal with political dissent. In the beginning they have attempted to marginalize, demonize and discredit these various grassroots groups.

But the internet Juggernaut could not be stopped.

The Internet caused a rise in the communication of violations of Natural Law. It allow individual citizens to compare notes and affirm the suspicions of each other. It allowed the General Public to overcome the propaganda and censorship of the major media and expose and create awareness of corruption and duplicity in elected officials and judges.

Natural Law and Natural Rights have been rediscovered by the American masses.

And only now are some of the Status Quo Politicians coming to realize that this grassroots revival of Natural Law and Natural Rights, cannot be repressed.

WE THE PEOPLE demand a restoration of the principles of Natural Law and Natural Rights and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which were written to protect our Natural Rights.

6) Ruling Class adaptation to "Consent of the Governed", "Uncircumscribed Reasoned Thought" resulting in subversion of the principles of Natural Law;

Propaganda and Censorship - Controlling and Altering Citizen Perceptions of Reality

As we have already touched on, the tyrants of the world want their previous scope and level of power and control restored. They lost the their original instruments of control when mankind chose reason and experience as the best means of determining their individual perspective of reality. The tyrants tools of tradition, persuasion, superstition and religion were lost to them because mankind chose to think for themselves.

But the tyrants of the world, did not give up. They assessed the new reality. And the tyrants of the world determined that if they could no longer force the desired perception of reality upon the citizens of the World, they would alter it without the vast majority of individual citizens even realizing their perception of reality was being altered to suit the purposes of the tyrants. They experimented with how to do this. And they did not get it right until World War I, when they successfully changed the Public Opinion of the USA from being against being involved in WWI to being in favor of involvement in just a few short months. (see previous mentions of Edward Bernays in this article series)

They achieved this by tainting the information and ideas the General Public received through the major media. Through Propaganda, Censorship and duplicity hidden behind kind, smiling faces they tainted the supply of information and ideas that American relied on to form their own perspectives of reality.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
Our Elected Officials have replaced the tapestry of control woven with Superstition and Religion with that of Secular Political Correctness. Political Correctness has been used to fill the huge vacuum circumscribed thought created by the displacement of religion by reason. Now people self-censor the public expression of their thoughts to avoid the criticism and ostracism that politically incorrect public statements might inflict on them.

MODERN FEUDALISM

Medieval Feudalism

In most of medieval Europe, society was dependent on the "feudal" system, which was based on allocation of land in return for service. The king would give out grants of land to his most important noblemen (barons and bishops), and each noble would have to promise to loyally follow him and supply him with soldiers in time of war. They did this at a special - kneeling before the king, he swore an oath with the words "Sire, I become your man." The nobles then divided their land among lower lords, or knights who also had to become their vassals(servants). In the lowest spot in society sat the peasants who worked on the land itself. They had almost no rights, tiny pieces of property - and no vassals.

In the days of Feudalism before the original enlightenment, you could not own property. The King or the State owned all the property. Anyone who was given the privilege of having property, knew it was on the condition that a certain amount or percentage of what was produced would be given to which ever member of the ruling class the privilege was obtained from.

The ruling class could tell you how to use the land and whether you and your family could continue to stay. The ruling class could be as merciful or merciless as they desired.

And when the King or Lord or whomsoever of ruling class rank you received your privilege from was displeased they simply sent the Sheriff out to force you off the property you had been privileged to live upon. This happened often and without recourse, especially when there were crop failures beyond any humans control.

Rise of Modern Feudalism

Property Rights - A parallel system of Feudalism has arisen in American. Each County (and some cities) in America has/have become a Fiefdoms. The Wages of the Government Employees have become much greater than their counter parts in the private sector. Simple logic dictates that if the average wages / compensation package of Government greatly exceeds the income of private citizens, certain private citizens will no longer be able to pay the tax tribute to the ruling class at the County Governments Demand. The private citizens of the Modern Fiefdoms are struggling under the weight of the burden of tribute while the ruling class turns a blind eye to the suffering of the Property owners and renters. And eventually the County Lords send the Sheriff to remove those who cannot pay the tribute from the land. (Don't believe me, stop paying your property taxes.)

In short, property ownership has become a privilege based on payment of tribute. And if you can't pay the tribute to the Cities and Counties so they can have their excessive salaries, "boot to your head and out you go". Effectively the Government has reduced us all to Peasants, Serfs, Oafs and Jesters. We no longer have rights, we are given the privilege of staying on the property until we can not pay the demanded tribute in the form of property taxes. Does that sound like Natural Law or Natural Rights? No, that sounds like feudalism and the erosion of our Natural Rights to me.

But you want to argue I have it all wrong? It is reasonable for everyone to pay taxes? You say I am looking at this all wrong? You want me to go down and complain about where the money is going or I am part of the problem? It is unfair for me to criticize my government if I don't participate in the process?

Wright County MN Massive Financial Cover up Continues 2

The finances of every municipality are all suppose to be public record but more than a year later I still don't have some of the financial information I requested. And what I have is not in a usable format despite it all supposedly being Public Domain. I suggested they should post it all on the internet in a format the lay person could understand but that has not happened either. (Wouldn't that be greener than using paper?)

Let us now review Natural Rights! Natural Rights are Rights that cannot be taken from you. .

The Right to Own Property and use your property as you see fit is a Natural Right.

We previously in our history made allowances for the taking of private property for the public good for such reasons as Roads and the like. But somehow our courts have side step the Rule of Law to take private property from a private business because it was determined that the Property would be generate more tax revenue and be better for the community if it were condemned, sold to another buyer and used for a different purpose. See Best Buy, inc v. Walser Car Sales in Richfield Minnesota USA

Eminent Domain Revisited: A Minnesota Case

Also see Kelo v City of New London Connecticut

And at this point, I will just mention Zoning Ordinances as just another way our Property Rights are being reduced to Privileges solely controlled by the ruling class.

Isn't all of this a reversal of the Natural Right to OWN property? Does any of this sound vaguely familiar to the use of Property being a privilege granted by the ruling class rather than a right? Does the ruling class telling you how your property should be used to maximize return to ruling class sound like property ownership is a right or a privilege.

Property ownership is a fundamental Natural Right and it is being taken away from us.

FIAT MONEY

A Central Bank owned by private parties are now in control of Government Monetary Policy. While the Constitution of the USA calls for all money to be coined or backed by specie, the Federal Reserve has persuaded the Government to start printing worthless money no longer redeemable for gold or silver. The Central Bank manipulates the currency and because of its knowledge of the timing, those aware of the timing are able to profit from it while the uninformed American General suffers and in some instances has its savings wiped out by hyper-inflation. All of this represents an infringement on our Natural Rights to Property, regardless of whether a physical transfer occurred. Wealth was transferred from one individual to another individual without informed consent.

GOVERNMENT UNACCOUNTABILITY

Career Politicians
We no longer have Citizen Politicians as preferred by the Founding Fathers. Instead, We have Career Politicians. As Career politicians give answers and act to retain their power, not in best interests of general citizenry. Politicians sell proposals and positions as being ways to improve the lot of their constituents but really they are just more firmly securing the ruling class's grip on power."

Campaign Finance Inequities
One of the consequences of career politicians is the bastardization of the Campaign Contribution Process. How clear can it me that if you can't vote for an elected position, you should not be able to contribute money to the campaign of someone running for that position. Elected officials end up being more beholding to the people that contributed money to their campaigns than they are to the Voters who actually elected them.

Bureaucrats

Next, an unelected intermediate layer of bureaucracy, such as super counties have arisen, to act a a buffer between electorate and elected ruling class. The rise of Bureaucrats (Quangocrats) have permitted elected officials to put distance between themselves and their actions that tend to infringe on the Liberty and other Natural Rights of USA Citizens.

Major Media Abandons its role as the 4th Estate
Major Media and Newspapers have been co-opted and no longer hold the government accountable. Instead they appear to act to distract citizens attention away from the important issues. Government, Political Correctness, Propaganda and Censorship confuse the issues and cause people to believe things they know are inherently untrue and in violation of natural law.

Divide and Conquer

Politicians use issues to divide and conquer electorate. Social issues like abortion and gay marriage are used to polarized the Citizenry. This also simultaneously distract the General Public from what the Elected Officials are doing behind the scenes.

Decline of Rule of Law and Rise of a Moral Standard of Plausible Deniability

While the Public Schools, religion and other public institutions teach an absolute moral standard, the reality is that the Government practices a conditional moral standard. This moral standard is best described as plausible deniability. In essence, if a negative controversy is assigned to a person, they first assess whether their is any "proof" or "evidence" that they cannot deny. And this thought process becomes logically applied in planning and Policy. That is why it is so hard to get Politicians and Bureaucrats to put things in writing. And that is why usually some scape-goat underling ends up taking the fall for a elected officials transgressions.

Laws and Bills not Named Appropriately

The Freedom of information Act (FOIA) requires us to pay homage to elected officials and bureaucrats

to get information that is suppose to be public record. Fees and bureaucratic delays allowed by this act make FOIA almost useless.

HIPAA act is not a privacy act but rather states who the Government will distribute our information to.

Economics

Adam Smith and Modern Theory of Economics (Society guided by invisible hand as individuals make personal choices) to present Oligopoly cram down. Reduced number of buyers bidding for goods and Services of Producers, Suppliers and Wholesalers. Enormous Corporations are able to "Cram Down" Vendor and Subcontractor wholesale prices because the reduced number of Resale buyers and corresponding smaller market share of the competing retailers/corporations creates a Resale buyers oligopoly.

7) Retaliation and punishment of those who identify and publicize the loss of liberty caused by the Government's subversion of Natural Law;

Back in the days of the original Enlightenment, the ruling class responded to the Leaders of change in various, but generally much harsher way, than usually occurs in present day America.

Not only did the leaders of enlightenment have to craft the Principles of Natural Law but they had word them carefully or publish them anonymously to avoid the often painful or deadly consequences. ( See Spanish Inquisition)

Remember they operated under Rule by Law not Rule of Law. All permissions came from the ruling class. Since America has been acting under the principle of "Rule of Law" until recently, the present day ruling class has had to use less severe consequences and strategies in dealing with these new grassroots groups debating "How things are?" as opposed to "the way things should be under Natural Law?".

These strategies and consequences include marginalization, demonization, discrediting, harassment, political shunning, blacklisting, Economic Isolation and other attempts to "taint the information and idea the General Public receives". Also used are the tactics of selective law enforcement and denying full, fair and equitable adjudication of court cases to Leaders of Political Dissent. Again the intent these tactics is to alter the General Public's Perception of Reality to obtain the ruling classes goal of maintaining the status quo and thus, there power.

And as the ruling class becomes more helpless in resisting the tidal wave of discontent and change, they become more desperate in their strategies to resist the change so they can maintain there power. They look to veil their future desperate acts as being reasonable Rule of Law responses by classifying these grassroots groups as extremists and terrorists - Homeland Security Report Warns Of Rising Right-Wing Extremism Whereas the old Monarchs put prices on people's heads, our Government cultivates a American Public perception of reality to acclimate them to the possible imprisonment of members of the General Public that insist on the application of Natural Law and/or otherwise refuse to "go along to get along" and any "accidental deaths" that might occur.

8) Decay of the standard of "Consent of the Governed" and Replacment of it by Government and Corporate Ruling Class's Rule By Law and/or Devine Right of Kings

Liberty is a Zero Sum Game - What ever power and money we yield to our Government results in a loss of Liberty for WE THE PEOPLE.

VIOLATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

Per Locke with regard to violation of the Social Contract

"the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right—and sometimes the duty—to withdraw their support and even to rebel"

Any ruling class persons who willfully and maliciously with malice of forethought uses their Governmental Power and the threat of physical enforcement to unjustly trespass any citizens Natural Rights and/or otherwise violate natural law is simply doing evil.

Speaking Truth to Power

Our Elected Officials are suppose to Represent us; Instead they manage and manipulate them for their own ends.
Our Elected Officials aren't leaders, Leaders lead to the benefit of the citizens, not to enrich themselves.
Our Elected Officials do not lead is to great prosperity and reward; but use our basar instincts against us.
Our Elected officials have become tyrants. The difference between them and the British Tyrants of 1776,
the British openly disclosed their tyranny, Our Elected officials used Propaganda, Censorship and Duplicity to deny their tyranny.

Should we not identify these Governmental Evil doers who ignore our Constitution, trample Natural Law and our Natural Rights? Once they are identified, Should they not be removed from office as a matter of Natural Law? Should they not save us the trouble and simply resign in recognition of their violation of Natural Law?

Isn't all of what is transpiring in America a Reversal of Self Determination - Aren't WE THE PEOPLE transforming from Freeman of Free Will back to Peasants, Serfs, Oafs and Jesters who have to beg privileges and favors from the ruling class?

Declaration of Independence and Natural Law
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I believe there is enough prima facia evidence to determine WE THE PEOPLE have met our burden of proof under Natural Law and the standard of the Rule of Law.

It is time for each of WE THE PEOPLE to stop acting as though everything is normal. It is time to start acting in a manner that reflects the reality that a crisis is upon us, the eminent collapse of our country.

In the past few months, the nature of our country's entire poltical discourse has sank to new lows. And neither of the two major political parties are blameless. Both major political parties seem to be acting with wreckless disregard for the interests of WE THE PEOPLE albeit in two different ways.

WE THE PEOPLE are to blame. We have failed to perform our civic duty. We have too many times chose to "go along to get a long" when we have been witness or party to trespasses of Natural Law.

We owe a debt, not primarily to the American's remembered in the history books, but more dearly to those unknown Americans who died in the struggle for freedom... unremembered by history. Those Americans who could have struck out into the wilderness and waited for war to pass. Those Americans who could have survived to know wife, children, family and old age but felt moved to fight for the new principles of self-determination, property rights, Public Opinion and Consent of the Governed born of The Enlightenment. Despite the the risks, they answerred the call to advance the condition of mankind through Natural Law...
I believe that debt must be repaid by assuring another 234 years of freedom and liberty to future generations of Americans.

I note that the end of Slavery and Women's Suffrage did not occur until after the first Enlightenment. I would ask those who were so restrained, to please come forward and participate fully in this proposed Planning of the Second Enlightenment.

In Part 3 of 3, we will address how we might proceed in planning the Second Enlightenment.

For those in Minnesota, Tomorrow from 10am to 3pm, the Minnesota TEA Party Coalition
will engage in goal setting through Group Nominal Process. You are invited to attend at the
Brooklyn Park MN Library at the Corner of 85th Av and Zane in Brooklyn Park MN.
8600 Zane Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN(Map) (952) 847-5325

For the rest of you, I should have Part 3 up sometime in the next couple of weeks.

Those were my thoughts.

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

TellMyPolitician

Court grants Final Approval of the Metro Gang Strike Force Settlement

2011-01-23T12:33:00.000-08:00

On December 16, 2010, the Court granted Final Approval of the Twin Cities MN Metro Gang Strike Force Settlement. The time period for appeals have now passed. Pursuant to the Master Settlement Agreement, the final day for class members to submit a claim form to Liaison Counsel is February 2, 2011. No claims postmarked later than February 2, 2011 will be accepted into the settlement.

If you have questions about your eligibility please feel free to contact Class Counsel at
1-866-211-0079 or by email at MGSFSettlement@zimmreed.com.

Settlement Notice:

For further information about this settlement and your possible eligibility please click here.

If you have already contacted Class Counsel about participating in this settlement you should be receiving a notice through first class mail after October 14, 2010. You may also download a copy of that Settlement Notice and the Claim Form from this site.

Plaintiffs named the following individuals as Defendants in their Complaint and Amended Complaint:
● Metro Gang Strike Force,
● Ron Ryan, former Metro Gang Strike Force Commander,
● Doe Officers 1-34, individually and in their official capacities,
● Other Unknown Doe Officers,
● City of West St. Paul, a municipal corporation,
● Hennepin County, a direct political subdivision of the State,
● Dakota County, a direct political subdivision of the State,
● Ramsey County, a direct political subdivision of the State,
● City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation,
● City of Minneapolis, a municipal corporation,
● Washington County, a direct political subdivision of the State,
● City of Maplewood, a municipal corporation,
● City of Lino Lakes, a municipal corporation,
● City of Brooklyn Park, a municipal corporation,
● City of Richfield, a municipal corporation,
● Metropolitan Council,
● Metro Gang Strike Force Advisory Board,
● Manila (“Bud”) Shaver, Chief of the West St. Paul Police Department,
● Ken Schilling, Inspector at the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office,
● Dave Bellows, Chief Deputy of the Dakota County Sheriff’s Office,
● Bob Fletcher, Sheriff of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office,
● John Harrington, Chief of the St. Paul Police Department,
● Rob Allen, Deputy Chief of the Minneapolis Police Department,
● Bill Hutton, Sheriff of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office,
● Dave Thomalla, Chief of the Maplewood Police Department,
● Dave Pecchia, Chief of the Lino Lakes Police Department,
● Dave Indrehus, Chief of the Metro Transit Police Department,
● Michael Davis, Chief of the Brooklyn Park Police Department, and
● Barry Fritz, Captain of the Richfield Police Department.

Posted by

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

TellMyPolitician

MN Meeting of TEA Party TAR Judicial Reform Committee Dec 26 2010

2010-12-25T18:54:00.001-08:00

This is an excerpt from an article that I wrote on Examiner.com:

Minnesota Judges want to take away our right to vote for Judges in meaningul, contested elections and we are not going to let them. The next meeting of the TEA Party Transparency, Accountability and Reform Judicial Reform Committee will be held Sunday December 26, 2010 at 2:00PM. We will meet at Perkins Restaurant, St. Paul Midway area, 1544 University Avenue West, near the intersection of Snelling and University Avenues (about a block North of Snelling and I-94).(map) Agenda:

Refine, add to, modify list of proposed judicial reform
...........

To read the rest of the story (for free) please click here Examiner.com Those were my thoughts. Don Mashak The Cynical Patriot http://twitter.com/dmashak

NowPublic

Proposed Minnesota Judicial Reform 1 of 2

2010-12-17T07:41:00.000-08:00

==================================================
"INTRODUCTION

In two previous articles I wrote regarding the formation of TEA Party Transparency, Accountability and Reform (TAR)group. In another article, I wrote about some suggested readings to understand the extent of the problem of judicial corruption in Minnesota. This document represents 5 years of drafting and redrafting of individual proposals to address specific area of reform, many of which were contained in the last bienniums bills HR 1632 Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability. This is the current iteration of one avenue of Judicial Reform that TPTAR's Judiciary committee is pursuing.
[ i ]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Synopsis and Comment

Table of Contents

Introduction.........................................................................................i

Judge Performance and Candidate Qualification Evaluation Board........................... 1

Judge Accountability - Judge Oversight Board.................................................. 2

Common Sense Board.............................................................................. 3

Public Financing of Judge Election Campaigns at no cost to Taxpayers...................... 4

Judge elections by vote of the people............................................................. 5

Prohibition on gratuities for judges and judicial branch Employees........................... 8

Rule of Judicial Immunity abrogated............................................................... 9

Right of citizens to get a grand jury investigation............................................... 9

Requirement for judges to follow court rules of Procedure......................................10

Requirement for judges to follow the Constitution and the law.................................10

Prohibition on tampering with transcripts and Evidence..........................................11

Court administrator controlled court video and sound recordings................................12

District court decisions by elected judges only......................................................12

Certification of decisions and orders by judges.....................................................13

Code of Ethics for the judicial branch of government..............................................13

New bar examination and lawyer licensing Board...................................................14

Lawyer Oversight Board................................................................................15

Limitations on jailing a person in a civil proceeding without bail or a trial......................15

Prevention of wrongful termination of parental Custody............................................16

Right of parent to meaningful visitation with their child; family Conciliation Court.............17

Right to criticize judges; retaliation Prohibited......................................................18

Enforcement of penalties against judges by a pay Cutoff...........................................19

Attorney’s fees paid all or in part by Loser............................................................19

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED GROUPINGS FOR JUDICIAL REFORM BILLS

Group 1 - Judge Performance and Candidate Qualification Board Public Financing of Judge Election Campaigns at no cost to taxpayers Right of Citizens to get a grand jury investigation Right to criticize judges; retaliation prohibited Enforcement of penalties against by a pay cutoff...."

To read the rest of the Article for free, Please visit Examiner.com

Those were my thoughts.

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

TellMyPolitician

!
Minnesota Injustice: True Court Horror Cases - With Names
!

Judicial Corruption - Suggested Reading - Minnesota USA

2010-12-13T10:19:00.000-08:00

!
This is an except from an article I wrote on Examiner.com:

"These books and literature should be of interest of you, especially if you think you might ever have to appear before a judge..

In Minnesota we have Judges trying to take away our right to vote for Judges in contested elections.

The rational of these judges is that allegedly there is little or no corruption in Minnesota.They then go on to say that we must protect this allegedly near perfect system from the corrupting influence of campaign Contributions and Political parties.(focus on the comments, not the main article propaganda of this link)

But the Black Robed (redacted for decorum) Judges of Minnesota's entire premise that there is little or no corruption in Minnesota has been fraudulently manufactured.

For the past 5 years the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees have refused to hear evidence of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. As a symptom of the systemic corruption in Minnesota Government, Hundreds of Minnesota Citizens have been denied their first amendment right to petition the Government with our grievances without actual or threatened retaliation......"

To read the rest of the Article, Please visit Examiner.com

Those were my thoughts.

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

TellMyPolitician

Click here to purchase: Minnesota Injustice: True Court Horror Cases - With Names

Van's Commentary on the recent Virginia Obamacare ruling:

2010-12-03T17:28:00.000-08:00

Van's Commentary on the recent Virginia Obamacare ruling:

The recent ruling from Virginia is actually GOOD news! It’s good news because it confirms what we have been saying for months: that current Supreme Court precedent is absurd and must be overturned. Let me explain:

For those of you who hadn’t heard the news, on Wednesday a Virginia Federal judge issued a 54-page ruling in one of the many lawsuits challenging Obama
care. His conclusion was that the individual mandate requiring all Americans to obtain health insurance coverage by 2014 is Constitutionally permissible.

To understand why this is good news you must understand that the Virginia judge was simply following post 1942 Supreme Court precedent. That precedent is what our OCA lawsuit is attacking. Unlike all the other lawsuits against Obamacare, our lawsuit begins by acknowledging that under current precedent Congress has authority to pass Obamacare. The goal of our OCA lawsuit is to demonstrate that current precedent must be overturned because it does not reflect the clear meaning of the Constitution. We do this by pointing to the fact that Obamacare may be found Constitutional under current precedent. The Virginia court’s ruling proves this point for us.

You see, by pointing to this ridiculous outcome, we demonstrate to the Supreme Court that its own past rulings are far outside the clear meaning of the Constitution. This is what we must show the Supreme Court if we are to convince it to reverse well-established precedent. So, we’ve been arguing all along that current precedent leaves ABSOLUTELY ZERO limitations on Congressional authority. Zero limitations on Congress is a ludicrous result of precedent when you understand that the Constitution was written for the specific purpose of limiting Congressional authority.

So, how absurd are the results from this week’s ruling? This ruling essentially confirms that Congress can order any American to perform any act as long as Congress can make the argument that Americans NOT performing the act will negatively affect the national economy. This reasoning would allow Congress to order all Americans to buy a car, join a health club, eat certain food, take certain vitamins, etc… Understand what I’m saying, Congress has no limitations on its authority under this ruling. This ruling essentially makes every American a slave to the whims of Congress.

This is exactly what our Constitution was intended to prevent. The Virginia court’s ruling PROVES the need to reverse current Supreme Court precedent. That is the mission of Liberty Legal Foundation and our Obamacare Class Action is the means to do it. We need the force of numbers on our side. Those sitting on the sidelines hoping Obamacare will be overturned need to get in the fight and make it happen! Send everyone you know to http://www.libertylegalfoundation.com to join us!

$924,730.81

That's the current total of anticipated economic loss to our Obamacare Class Action plaintiffs and we still need to hear from most of you! If you have done the math on what Obamacare is going to cost you, please visit http://www.libertylegalfoundation.com/downloads to download the Plaintiff's Statement of Harm form. You can mail, fax or scan and email it back in. If you can't print the form out from our website, just reply to this email and answer the following questions. Please keep your reply in this format.
Name:
City:
County:
State:
Estimated loss in dollars due to Obamacare per year:
State briefly how you calculated your estimated loss entered above:
State briefly any non-monetary loss you are experiencing due to Obamacare:

Do you have friends or family that are also plaintiffs?

Consider getting them an OCA item for Christmas. Please visit our store at http://www.cafepress.com/OCA_Store.

Lastly, just wanted to share with you one of my favorites videos. This is fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0

Liberty Legal Foundation is an non-profit corporation that relies entirely on donations to continue our fight to restore Constitutional limits on government and overturn flawed court precedent. Please consider making a tax deductible donation to help us cover our administrative and legal costs.You may make checks payable to "Liberty Legal Foundation" and mail to 9040 Executive Park Dr, Ste 223, Knoxville, TN 37923. Donations can be made online at http://www.libertylegalfoundation.com/contribute

Nov 18, 2010 Event: Panel Discussion - The State of Judicial Elections in America!

2010-11-17T11:17:00.000-08:00

There will be Panel Discussion on the topic of Judicial Elections in Minnesota, Wednesday, November 18, 2010. The Panel will discuss Organizing, Judges, Money and Politics in Minnesota in the context of recent Supreme Court Decisions won by Minnesota Attorney Greg Wersal. Announcements purport discuss Judicial elections in Minnesota, assess the risk of partisan elections, and whether reform is justified.

The Organizer and Moderator of the event is Professor Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute. [map - parking] The event will be held at the Humphrey Institute on November 18, 2010. The panel discussion will run from 4:00 – 5:30 p.m. and be followed by a reception.

The panelists are Attorney Greg Wersal, Eric Magnuson, former Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, Gary Borgendale, Local Ministry Director for AM980 KKMS radio and Sarah Walker, Chief Operating Officer at 180 Degrees, Inc.

AUTHOR'S COMMENTARY

Essentially, this is the the next installment in a campaign to take away the Minnesota Citizens Constitutional Right to Vote for Judges in Contested Elections. This is intended as a conduit with the political objective
of replacing our right to vote for judges in contested elections with what is Known as Merit Retention Elections. Under this Political Crony Hierarchy System - A group of appointed bureaucrats will select Candidates based only like things like do they show up on time and shower regularly, etc. This pool of Candidates will then be presented to the Governor and the Governor can pick one. "Am I the only only that can see that "merit" might become rewarding political hacks for subverting the will of the people in favor of the desires of the tyrants?"

OUR MINNESOTA JUDICIARY IS JUST DISGUSTING. They are are following in the Propaganda footsteps of Progressive Edward Bernays:

"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it"

The Facts relevant to the Minnesota Judiciary and proposed election changes are these:

1) The Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards and Minnesota Lawyers' Professional Responsibility Board do not perform there functions of holding Judges and Lawyers accountable. Instead they serve as Cover up operations and a Public Relations firm for the Minnesota Judiciary. Both Boards are just black holes for complaints about their respective charges of Judges and Lawyers. Therefore, there is no credible, documented Government Source to ascertain the extent of Corruption in Minnesota.

2) This will be the 6th year (Legislative Session) that the Minnesota Senate and House Judiciary Committees refused to hear testimony from Citizens Regarding Corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. This in violation of each Citizen's 1st Amendment right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

3) This Group of Citizens in the last Minnesota Legislative Biennium introduced what was then known as MN HR 1632 - Minnesota Judicial REFORM and Accountability.

4)Somehow, during that same approximate time frame, A group called the "Quie Commission" came out with a finding that there was little or no corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

5) I leave to the reader to determine how the Quie Commission could not find Several Hundred Citizens demanding a hearing to present evidence of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary over the course of 6 years. In Response to be refused the opportunity to petition the Government with there grievance, the aggrieved Citizens of the State of Minnesota held an Adhoc Meeting on Minnesota Corruption was held - See Video Here and Here.

6) And now, the Minnesota Judiciary is trying to usurp the use of the word "REFORM" from the group of aggrieved Citizens that the Government refused to allow to present evidence of Corruption. Clearly is not the Government to Reform the Judiciary when they refuse to hear evidence of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

So in a nutshell here is the Minnesota Judiciary's Progressive tactic Propaganda Pitch known as Merit Selection Retention Elections.

1) There is no Corruption in Minnesota (because we, the Minnesota Judiciary, refuse to hear it)

2) Recent US Supreme Court Rulings allowing Judicial Candidates Free Speech, the ability to raise campaign funds and to be endorsed by political parties threatens our current Minnesota Judicial hierarchy (falsely premised on the Quie Commission's erroneous findings that there is little or no corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary)

3) Free Speech, the ability of challengers to compete fairly for campaign contributions and the endorsement of judges by political parties will lead to corruption so we must do something to prevent this. (again, presumes the Minnesota Judiciary is not already corrupt)

4) Therefore, instead of allowing Voters to vote for Judges in contested elections, we must allow the Governor to select Candidates from a pool of Candidates provided to him by a new Governmental Group. (otherwise known as taking away the Citizens right to vote so that the Governor can choose a political crony from a pool provided by some unaccountable Government Bureaucracy)

AUTHOR'S RESPONSE OF BEHALF OF THE INFORMED CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

1) Any Voter who is not qualified to vote for a judge is not qualified for vote for the persons who would select judges;

2) Allowing Citizens to Vote in fully Contested Elections is the best way to hold Judges Accountable.

3) The Quie Commission's Finding that there is presently little or no corruption in Minnesota is in error.

4) The premise of replacing the Citizen's Right to Vote for Judges with Merit Retention Elections on the pretext that little or no corruption exists in the State of Minnesota is a fraud perpetrated on the Citizens of Minnesota;

5) Any Citizen can see from the Minnesota Government's refusal to allow citizens to present evidence of Judicial Corruption to Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees, that the Judiciary is not interested in true reform;

6) Merit Selection Election is merely a way for the Minnesota Judicial System to Formalize the Corrupt system they have already established in a piecemeal manner. In Minnesota, the Governor can replace Judges that Resign before their term expires. If a Judge retires within a year of the next election, the judge gets a free pass on the next election. A tradition has evolved whereby judges retire a few months before their next election so the Governor can appoint their replacement and give the replacement a free pass on the next election. One of the arguments Merit Selection RETENTION Election Proponents is that it just formalizes the process. BUT AGAIN THAT WHOLE PREMISE IS BASED ON THE FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION THAT THERE IS LITTLE OR NO CORRUPTION IN THE CURRENT MINNESOTA JUDICIARY. Why do we want to formalize a corrupt Judicial Process?

7) The reason we don't have fully contested Judicial Elections with incumbents is 2 fold:

a) The law provides for the word "incumbent" to be placed on the election ballot next to the name of the incumbent judge and this gives them an unfair advantage against challengers;

B) Judicial Code Red - There is an unwritten rule that says that if lawyers run against incumbent Judges there will be retaliation if the challenger does not win.

8) Any proposed change of law born out of refusing a Citizen's 1st Amendment Right to petition the Government for the redress of grievances must be tyrannical and not in the best interests of the Citizens.

9) The author of this article has personally asked for interview opportunities with, and submitted questions via letter to former Minnesota Chief Judge Eric Magnuson while Mr. Magnuson was still Chief Judge. Chief Magnuson never agreed to an interview nor answered any question. We do not need to formalize a system allows our Judges to be so arrogant as refuse to answer questions involving the issues Citizens would like redressed. True to tradition, Eric Magnuson's resignation allowed the Governor to appoint the new Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Judge Gildea and therefore, she is against hearing evidence of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary and furthermore, she is against any legitimate reform of the Minnesota Judiciary. And she has already advised that she is in support of the Merit Selection Retention Elections. (In light of the facts exposed in this article, may i suggest all Minnesotan's make a note to say no to tryanny and vote against Justice Gildea's reelection in 2012.)

IN SUMMARY:

Just say no to MSRA (Acronym pronounced appropriately "misery")

Merit Selection Retention Elections take away the Citizens Right to Vote for Judges in Contested Elections.

Merit Selection Retention Elections reduce the Accountability of Judges to the Citizens and this invites greater levels of Corruption

Merit Selection Retention Elections are premised on the untrue position that little or no corruption exists in the Minnesota Judiciary.

Merit Selection Retention Elections is not reform, the Minnesota Judiciary refuses to hear or acknowledge evidence of Judicial Corruption.

The issues of the current system of electing and holding Judges Accountable in Minnesota are the result of tyrannical written and unwritten laws and rules.

The Best way to reform the system is for the Minnesota Senate and House Judiciary Committees to hear evidence of Judicial Corruption and act address the laws and rules that enable the corruption to occur.

The best way to reform the method of Selection by Election of Minnesota Judges is to change the written and unwritten rules that prevent fully contested elections, NOT TO FORMALIZE THEM VIA THE MERIT SELECTION RETENTION ELECTION system.

In closing, please contact Lea Chittenden and Larry Jacobs and request that the point I have raised be addressed at their panel discussion.

If their intent is education of the Public and not dissemination of Propaganda, they should have no problem with that request.

You may contact them at:

Lea Chittenden

Center for the Study of Politics and Governance
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
301 - 19th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55455
University of Minnesota

612-625-2530

chit0018@umn.edu

Those were my thoughts.

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak
Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability
Justice in Minnesota
Minneapolis MN Federal Reserve Bank - Video: Quantitative Easing Explained

TellMyPolitician

!

Is USA Justice Broken? Overcoming Government Legal Failure (Oakland, CA; 12/9/10)

2010-11-09T07:23:00.000-08:00

!

"If we want to reform the legal system, we must change the rules of the game so that the individual incentives of judges, lawyers, juries, and other legal actors motivate them to act in the larger social interest." So argues Edward Lopéz in The Pursuit of Justice, a thoroughgoing book on government legal failure--the bureaucratization and politicization of the U.S. legal system and how the law really works in practice rather than in theory. From fingerprinting to criminal sentencing, from lawyer licensing to judicial selection, and from eminent domain to wealth transfers via class-action lawsuits, how do perverse incentives impact the law and what reforms would create a more just and efficient legal system?

Join Professor Lopéz (San Jose State University), David Friedman (Santa Clara University), and Judge Alex Kozinski (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit) as they discuss the faulty incentives at the heart of legal failures and whether market-based reforms would create a more just and efficient system of law.

Speakers:

Edward Lopéz is Associate Professor of Law and Economics, San Jose State University. He is the editor of The Pursuit of Justice, a path-breaking analysis of the problems of the U.S. legal system.

David Friedman is Professor of Law, Santa Clara University. He is the author of the books Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World, Law's Order: An Economic Account, Hidden Order: The Economics of Everyday Life, and The Machinery of Freedom.

Alex Kozinski is Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His scholarly articles have appeared in such journals as Harvard Law Review, Virginia Law Review, Yale Law Journal, Columbia Journalism Review, Michigan Law Review, Texas Law Review, ABA Journal, Stanford Law Review, and Washburn Law Journal, and his popular writings have been published in Slate, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, New Republic, Wilson Quarterly and National Review.

When:

Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wine & Cheese Reception: 6:30 PM
Program: 7:00 PM

Where:

The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, Calif.
Map and Directions

Admission:

$15 • $10 for Institute Members.
$35 Special Admission includes one copy of The Pursuit of Justice • $30 for members
Reserve Tickets Today
Event webpage

Praise for The Pursuit of Justice: Law and Economics of Legal Institutions, edited by Edward Lopéz:

"The American legal system is not just fraying at the edges, in some ways it is fundamentally broken. The Pursuit of Justice is a cutting-edge look at what went wrong and where to go from here. Everyone interested in law and economics should read it."
--Tyler Cowen, Holbert C. Harris Chair of Economics, George Mason University, co-author, MarginalRevolution.com

"The Pursuit of Justice does a wonderful job of using modern methods of social science to examine the actual effects of law, as differentiated from its apparent intent. This volume offers substantial insight into the way the legal system works in practice, and how it can be improved."
--Randall G. Holcombe, DeVoe Moore Professor of Economics, Florida State University

"Judges, police, prosecutors and lawyers are all people with their own goals and constraints. They may care about social welfare, but they certainly care about other things as well. The discipline of Public Choice has contributed greatly to our understanding of political behavior by taking this perspective with respect to politicians. The Pursuit of Justice begins the very important process of applying this insight to the functioning of the legal system. The American legal system has many flaws, and this most insightful book will contribute both to understanding the source of these flaws and then to fixing them."
--Paul H. Rubin, Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Economics and Law, Emory University

Purchase The Pursuit of Justice.

Read a detailed book summary.

Event Webpage: "Is U.S. Justice Broken? Overcoming Government Legal Failure"

Those were my thoughts.

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak

TellMyPolitician

!

Chris Barden for MN Attorney General 2010 - Corruption in the current Minnesota Office of the Attorney General

2010-10-21T09:26:00.000-07:00

Press Release - Historic Minnesota 10th Judicial District Town Hall; September 29, 2010

2010-09-25T08:41:00.000-07:00

PRESS CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Walter Hudson
Office: 612-720-5710

Minnesota North Star TEA Party Patriots to Hold
Historic Judicial Town Hall

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota (September 24, 2010) – North Star
Tea Party Patriots, a recently announced coalition of Tea
Party groups in Minnesota, will hold a Judicial Town Hall in
Monticello MN Wednesday, September 29th, 2010
at 7pm - 9pm. (map) The forum will be held in the city
council chambers of Monticello otherwise Known at the
Mississippi Room.

Candidates will give brief Biographies and then field
questions from the Moderator Attorney Marjorie Holsten.

13 of the 24 candidates seeking election to the open seat in Court 3 of
Minnesota’s 10th Judicial District have confirmed their participation in the
forum. The race is the most widely contested judicial election in the state.
The vast majority of judicial incumbents will go unchallenged this November.

To the best of our knowledge, this will be the
first Judicial Forum of this type in the history
of the State of Minnesota.

It comes in the wake of several legal victories by
contested judicial election advocate and
Minnesota Supreme Court Candidate
Greg Wersal, attorneys seeking election to the
bench in Minnesota have greater latitude than
they have in the past to express their views on
legal and political issues.

As a result of these suits, the US Supreme Court
has struck down many restrictions that Minnesota
previously placed on Candidates for Judge.

The Minnesota Tenth Judicial District includes the Minnesota Counties of Wright,
Washington, Sherburne, Pined, Kanabec, Isanti, Chisago, Anoka. These Counties
respective County Seats are, Buffalo, Elk River, Pine City, Mora, Cambrige,
Center City, Anoka.

Minnesota North Star Tea Party Patriots hopes to provide voters
in the 10th District the opportunity to cast their ballot as informed
as possible.

[ Monticello MN lies on both sides of I-94 | 20 miles NW of Maple Grove, MN ]
[ 40 miles NW of downtown Minneapolis - follow I-94 West]
[ 30 miles from St. Cloud MN - follow I-94 East ]
[ 50 miles from Cambridge MN - Click for route map ]
[ 30 miles from Princeton MN - Click for route map ]
[ 56 miles from Woodbury MN - Click for route map ]

Minnesota TEA Party Patriots Website

###

Contact Walter Hudson at 612-720-5710 waltershudson@yahoo.com

TellMyPolitician

Video: MN Supreme Court Candidate Greg Wersal interview by Sue Jeffers Part 1 /3 Rule of Law not whim of Judges

2010-08-30T08:15:00.000-07:00

!

PLEASE SUPPORT GREG WERSAL FOR MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT JUDGE

WHY?

YOU KNOW THAT LONG LIST OF JUDGES NAMES AT THE END OF
THE BALLOT WITH NAMES OF PEOPLE YOU DO NOT KNOW...

THIS YEAR, YOU MUST NOT IGNORE IT BECAUSE

SOMETHING EVIL THIS WAY COMES:

YOUR LEGISLATORS AND JUDGES ARE CONSPIRING TO TAKE
AWAY YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE FOR JUDGES....
THEY CAN DRESS IT UP AND PITCH IT ANY WAY YOU WANT BUT
JUST REMEMBER ONE THING.... OUR GOVERNMENT WANTS THIS,
OUR GOVERNMENT IS PROMOTING THIS...
DO YOU THINK A CHANGE THEY ARE PUSHING WILL BENEFIT THE
AVERAGE CITIZEN OR THEM?.

COMBAT THIS EVIL ATTEMPT TO
TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE
FOR JUDGES BY VOTING:

GREG WERSAL
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT JUDGE

THIS FALL, MAKE SURE YOU VOTE FOR GREG WERSAL FOR
MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT. GREG WERSAL VIGOROUSLY OPPOSES
THE GOVERNMENT TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE FOR YOUR JUDGES.
GREG WERSAL BELIEVES JUDGES ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS NOT ROYALTY.
SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE GREG WERSAL BELIEVES JUDGES SHOULD
BE HONEST AND ACCOUNTABLE.

GREG WERSAL HAS TAKEN ON, FOUGHT AND BEAT THE STATUS QUO

WITH MULTIPLE RULINGS HE HAS WON AT THE US SUPREME COURT LEVEL.

WHO DO YOU THINK WILL REPRESENT YOU BETTER? JUDGES THAT GO
ALONG WITH THE STATUS QUO OR THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE
DEMONSTRATED BY DEED THEIR WILLINGNESS TO HOLD THE STATUS QUO

ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW?

THIS TYRANNICAL ATTEMPT TO TAKE AWAY
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE FOR
JUDGES DEMANDS WE TAKE ACTION AND PAY
ATTENTION TO THOSE JUDICIAL RACES ON
THE BACK PAGE OF THE BALLOT THIS FALL.

AGAIN, PLEASE SUPPORT GREG WERSAL
FOR MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT JUDGE.

Still not convinced....

Would you like the ability to talk to Judicial Candidates just like talking to you next
door neighbor?

Go to "Justice in Minnesota" and click on Events.
Most Sunday nights they have "Judicial Teleconferences" with Judges from all over the state
calling in. They is always a portion of each teleconference that is kinda "over the back fence"
laid back in nature. Ask those questions that those "black robed Royalty" smugly and
arrogantly refuse to answer. I think a willingness to take questions "without a net" is a pretty
good measure of a Judge's Integrity and attitude toward common citizens. Please join us.

If you would like to Learn more or get involved, check out at the links below

Wersal for Justice
Official site for Greg Wersal for Minnesota Supreme Court Judge
Help us restore the Rule of Law and dismantle the Status Quo Whim of Judges and
Might Makes Right!
Vote for a Vigorous Defender of your Constitutional Right to Vote for your Minnesota
Judges in free, open and meaningful elections.

Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability TEA Party

Minnesota Northstar TEA Party Patriots Coalition

MINNESOTA JUDICIAL REFORM AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Government Corruption Crisis - Judicial "Kids for Cash" Program

Minnesota US Federal District Court to Determine if US Constitution is worth the paper it is written on

Minnesota Judicial Code Red - You Can't Handle the Truth!

Can you spare 10 minutes a day to save our Country from the Brink of Collapse?

LawlessAmerica.com - Next Government Corruption Crisis Conference Sunday March 20, 2011

LawlessAmerica.com Newsletter

Special Guest on Sunday

This Week's Efforts

Threats and Troublemakers

Board Needed

Chaos Theory, Rank & File Wisconsin Public Employees & True Grassroots TEA Party

LawlessAmerica - 2nd Government Corruption Crisis Conference Today March 6, 2011

The Government Corruption Crisis Conference will be held TODAY

This is how the Minnesota Judiciary System Fixes Court Cases

Rep. Mary KiffMeyer and MN GOP Judiciary Committee Submit Judicial Reform Bill 016 to MN Revisor

Rep. Mary KiffMeyer and MN GOP Judiciary Committee Submit Judicial Reform Bill 015 to MN Revisor

TEA Party For Minnesota Judical Reform - Testimony of Marlena Fearing

TEA PARTY - Planning the 2nd Enlightenment (Part 2b of 3)

Wright County MN Massive Financial Cover up Continues 2

Eminent Domain Revisited: A Minnesota Case

Court grants Final Approval of the Metro Gang Strike Force Settlement

MN Meeting of TEA Party TAR Judicial Reform Committee Dec 26 2010

Proposed Minnesota Judicial Reform 1 of 2

Judicial Corruption - Suggested Reading - Minnesota USA

Van's Commentary on the recent Virginia Obamacare ruling:

Van's Commentary on the recent Virginia Obamacare ruling:

$924,730.81

Do you have friends or family that are also plaintiffs?

Lastly, just wanted to share with you one of my favorites videos. This is fun!

Nov 18, 2010 Event: Panel Discussion - The State of Judicial Elections in America!

Is USA Justice Broken? Overcoming Government Legal Failure (Oakland, CA; 12/9/10)

Chris Barden for MN Attorney General 2010 - Corruption in the current Minnesota Office of the Attorney General

Press Release - Historic Minnesota 10th Judicial District Town Hall; September 29, 2010

PRESS CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT

Minnesota North Star TEA Party Patriots to Hold Historic Judicial Town Hall

Video: MN Supreme Court Candidate Greg Wersal interview by Sue Jeffers Part 1 /3 Rule of Law not whim of Judges

Minnesota North Star TEA Party Patriots to Hold
Historic Judicial Town Hall