AMENDED COMPLAINT 7/8/2011 Part 1 of 2

.

United States District Court

District of Minnesota

                                                                                 

Don Mashak               

                                            Plaintiff,               

                                                                                   

vs.                                                                                            Case No. 11 CV 00473

                                                                                                 

United States of America, Federal Reserve System,

State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court,

State of Minnesota House, State of Minnesota Senate,

Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards, Minnesota

Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board,

Minnesota County of Wright, Minnesota North Star TEA Party

Patriots, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Larry Hance,

Eric Magnuson, Tom Kelly, Pat Sawatzke, Jack Russek,

Dick Norman, Tom Salkowski, David Paul, Pat Burns,

Warren Limmer, Amy Koch, Mee Moua, Steve Smith, Tim Mahoney,

Diana Longrie, Lee Wolfgram, Randy Liebo, Sandra Erickson,

Dr. Stewart Sahlberg, Allina Hospitals and Clinics dba

Allina Medical Clinic – St. Michael, Walter Hudson, \

Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull,

Tiffani Meeks-Krenzlock-Hull, Samantha

Meeks-Krenzlock-Hull, John and Jane Doe(s), and

each of the foregoing, jointly and several and each

as part of groups, associations, enterprises and/or Conspiracies;

and/or sub-groups, sub-associations sub-enterprizes and/or

sub-conspiracies.                     

    Defendant(s).

                       

AMENDED COMPLAINT 7/8/2011

________________________________________ _________ ____________________________ 

Plaintiff, as and for their Summons and Complaint in this matter, state and allege as follows:

1.       Plaintiff Don Mashak notifies the Court that Plaintiff First National Repossessors, inc. has assigned Don Mashak, its sole share holder, all of its rights, claims and causes of action to Don Mashak as an Individual, In Propia Persona;

2.       Plaintiff Mashak asks that this cases and all of his related rights and claims be held in Court constituted and/or operating pursuant to the original Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America and not any maritime, admiralty nor Corporate Entity Court constituted and/or acting under any other authority;

3.       Plaintiff Mashak specifically will not consent to be heard by any Court constituted and/or operating under any authority other than that of the original Constitution of the United States of America and the original Bill of Rights and applicable and legitimate Amendments to said Constitution which have been ratified, implemented and remain in effect as of the date of this Amended Complaint.

4.       The only Constitution of the United States of America includes the following language:     

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  http://1.usa.gov/4qisQ

5.      The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America includes the following language:

“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”. http://bit.ly/bPqF8f

It is through these words that the Founding Fathers’ incorporated the concepts of “Natural Law” and “Natural Rights” developed during the first “Enlightenment” from about 1650AD to 1800AD into the Foundations of our Government.;

6.       The Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights incorporated the principles of “unalienable Rights”,  “Natural Rights” and “Natural Law” into said documents.

7.      The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America includes the following language:

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury….

…Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” http://bit.ly/bPqF8f

8.       The Framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States of America, incorporated extensive transparency and accountability into said documents address the sentiments and concerns delineated in the Declaration of independence.

9.       The Framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights incorporated extensive transparency, accountability and separation of powers in said documents because:                                                    

“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….                   

…Cato letter Nos. 59-60 argue that 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.

In the American Republic, the Founders said, that being the case, all men must
likewise be equal under the laws government creates. However, governments, being creations of men, are also imperfect. Cato prescribes a way to keep government from exceeding its mandate and trampling on the liberties of the governed.” http://bit.ly/k1wxut

10.   The Constitution of the United State of America was ratified and implemented in or about 1789;

11.   The first 10 amendments, also known as “The Bill of Rights” were ratified and implement in or about 1791 (2 of the original 12 proposed Amendments were never passed and ratified);

12.   In or about 1795, the 11^th amendment was ratified and implement.

13.   The series of writings known collectively as “The Federalist” Papers were 1^st published from October of 1787 to August of 1788; http://1.usa.gov/HddRK

14.   The series of writing known as “The Anti-Federalist Papers” were also written during the period when the Constitution was drafted and Ratified October 1787 to June 1788;

15.   For the Constitution ratified, Compromises as to  the intent and construction of the Constitution had to be made” :

“Therefore, to win the support of their opponents [ the Anti-Federalists], the pro-ratificationists essentially had to consent to a doctrine of interpretation that must be considered a part of the Constitution, and that therefore must be the basis for interpretation today.  This doctrine can be summed up by saying, "if a construction would have been objectionable to the anti-federalists, it should be initially presumed unconstitutional “ http://www.constitution.org/afp.htm

16.   That a Minnesota Judicial System has as its basis a set of laws, rules and operating procedures that are themselves unjust, cannot render justice to WE THE PEOPLE;

17.   That the unjust laws, rules and operating procedures that the Minnesota Judicial System has in place effectively deprives Minnesota Citizens of their Right to Justice under the Rule of Law.  Instead, said laws, rules and operating procedures make Minnesota justice a matter of: 1) Who you know, 2) Might Makes Right, 3) How much justice can you afford?,  4)  The Whim of Judges. 

18.   As an example related to paragraph 17, Minnesota Law provides for a copy charge of 8 dollars per page for Court documents and charges of a hundred dollars or more to make motions to the Court in addition to the filing fees.  And these outrageous charges are made necessary by the waste and fraud in the Minnesota Judiciary Budgets, Spending and Revenues that the Minnesota Courts refuse to allow WE THE PEOPLE to see, examine and analyze;

19.   That the Minnesota Legal System and Judiciary commonly engage in “Simulated Litigation” (Plaintiff has previously referred to this in his life as  “fact shaping”) to “fix” Court Cases, both civil and criminal, to the outcome the Minnesota Judiciary desires, rather than per the correct application of the Rule of Law to the relevant evidence being entered on the record, without trick or artifice;  http://bit.ly/jlzGN9  http://bit.ly/k3ZIz3

20.   Simulated Litigation is often used to fix litigation 1) to punish political dissenters, 2) to demonize and discredit and/or jail political dissenters (see FBI COINTELPRO) 3) make good on bribes accepted 4) to keep promises to friends 5) because someone in the legal system does not like one of the parties 6) to frame someone so another party with money, power or friends, is not convicted 7) for political gain etc.;

21.   The Ruling Class aka as the Government in America often uses a strategy of discrediting and demonizing leaders of political dissent to defeat the cause said leaders support; This was similar to the Strategies of the FBI COINTELPRO Program. http://bit.ly/amHTM9

22.   Plaintiff Mashak has had his liberties and rights violated and been denied due process of law.

23.   The basis for the Defendants and/or Defendants various “enterprises” conspired to deny Plaintiff his rights and liberties was unlawful, unconstitutional retaliation for Plaintiff Mashak exercising all of his 1^st Amendment Rights – Free Speech – Free Press – Freedom of Association – Right to Petition the Government for redress of grievances and many other rights contained in Federal and State Constitutions and Bills of Rights.

24.   Plaintiff Mashak will ask the “Class Action Status” for leave to seek Class Action Status as a Pro Se, In Propia Persona Litigant for this litigation despite the unjust Court Rules which deny Pro Se Litigants from commencing a class action lawsuit. Said Class Action Lawsuit would be for all persons injured by the unlawful and/or prohibited acts of the State of Minnesota in giving insufficient oversight of its Judiciary and/or specifically for those persons who have attempted to petition the Minnesota Government for the redress of grievances and/or been unlawfully retaliated against by the State of Minnesota and any of the other Defendants in this action;

25.   Defendant, The State of Minnesota is represented by  Attorney General, Lori Swanson;

26.   Defendant, The Minnesota Legislature has delegated to the Minnesota Supreme Court of Minnesota the duty of overseeing itself in violation of the Minnesota Constitution and the principal of checks and balances amongst the various branch of  Government envisioned by the Founding Fathers;

27.   The Minnesota Constitution delegates the responsibility for overseeing the Judiciary to the Minnesota Legislature represented by the Minnesota Attorney General;

28.   Defendant, The Minnesota Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota represented by the Minnesota Attorney General;

29.   Defendant Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards is managed and directed by the Minnesota Supreme Court represented by the Minnesota Attorney General;

30.   Defendant Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board is managed and directed by the Minnesota Supreme Court represented by the Minnesota Attorney General;

31.   Defendant, The Minnesota House and Minnesota Senate are the Minnesota legislature represented by the Minnesota Attorney General;

32.   Defendant, The County of Wright is a County in the State of Minnesota, represented by County Attorney Tom Kelly;

33.   Defendant, Minnesota North Star TEA Party Patriots is a Minnesota Corporation with a registered address of t 18455 Twilight Trail Eden Prairie MN 55346;

34.   Defendant, Walter Hudson is the President of Minnesota North Star TEA Party Patriots;

35.   Defendant, Randy Liebo is a Minnesota Republican Party Political Operative and a Board Member of Minnesota North Star TEA Party Patriots residing at 18455 Twilight Trail Eden Prairie Minnesota;

36.   Plaintiff Don Mashak was a Board member, Co-Founder and Co-Leader of Minnesota North Star TEA Party Patriots until about March of 2011;

37.   Defendants Pat Sawatske and Jack Russek are Wright County Board Commissioners represented by Wright County Attorney Tom Kelly;

38.   Defendant Dick Norman is the unelected Wright County Coordinator represented by Wright County Attorney Tom Kelly;

39.   Defendant Tom Salkowski was the Wright County Zoning Department Director for the relevant time frame represented by Wright County Attorney Tom Kelly;

40.   Defendant Tom Kelly, is and was the Wright County Attorney and is a licensed attorney;

41.   Defendant Amy Koch is Don Mashak’s Elected State Senator and Republican Majority Leader represented by the Minnesota Attorney General;

42.   Defendant Larry Hance is State Senator Amy Koch’s father and owns Hance Utility Services, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, located at 304 12th Ave S, Buffalo, MN 55313;

43.   Defendant Warren Limmer is a Minnesota State Senator represented by the Minnesota Attorney General;

44.   Defendant Mee Moua was a Minnesota Senator and former Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee represented by the Minnesota Attorney General;;

45.   Defendant Steve Smith is a lawyer and is a Minnesota State Representative and is the present Chair of the Minnesota House Judiciary Committee represented by the Minnesota Attorney General;

46.   Defendant Tim Mahoney is a Minnesota State Representative and was the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee during a relevant time period represented by the Minnesota Attorney General;

47.   Defendant Sandra Ericson was, and now again, is a Minnesota State Representative and a personal friend of State Senator  Defendant Amy Koch represented by the Minnesota Attorney General;

48.   Defendant Eric Magnuson, was the Chief Minnesota Supreme Court Justice and is a lawyer currently working for the Law Firm of Briggs and Morgan - 2200 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402;

49.   Dr. Stewart Sahlberg is a Doctor working for Allina Hospitals and Clinics, Inc dba  Allina Medical Clinic – St. Michael, a Minnesota Corporation located at 4300 Edgewood Dr NE Saint Michael, MN 55376 763-744-4000;

50.   The Federal Reserve System (hereafter “ FED” ) is the Country’s Central Banking System created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913;

51.   A Branch of the Federal Reserve System (FED)  is located 90 Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-204-5000;

52.   Judge Mary Yunker sits on the Bench of Sherburne County Minnesota in the City of Elk River represented by the Minnesota Attorney General;;

53.   Judge Timothy Bloomquist sits on the Bench of Kanabec  County Minnesota in the City of Mora represented by the Minnesota Attorney General;

54.   Dianna Longrie is a former Attorney of Plaintiff with offices located at 1321 Frost Ave. Maplewood, MN 55109;

55.   Lee Wolfgram is a former Attorney of Plaintiff  with offices located at 100 North 6^th St #445A Minneapolis MN 55403;

56.   Dannette Meeks-Hull and Michael hull, were an employee and part-time subcontractor, respectively,  of 1^st National Repossessors, inc.

57.   Dannete Meeks-Hull and Michael Hull residing  at 27015 BAYSHORE DRIVE, ISANTI MN 55040;

58.   Defendant Typhani Meeks-Krenzlok-Hull is the daughter of Dannette Meeks-Krenzlok-Hull residing with her parent;

59.   Defendant Samantha Meeks-Krenzlok-Hull is the daughter of Dannette Meeks-Krenzlok-Hull residing with her parent;

60.   Defendants John and Jane Doe are unknown or as yet unnamed parties to this litigation, pending further discovery;

61.   Plaintiff also names each of the Defendants as unprotected defendants without any immunities as per of their association with or membership in any formal or informal groups, associations, enterprizes and/or Conspiracies; and/or any formal or informal sub-groups, sub-associations, sub-enterprizes and conspiracies, jointly and severally liable;

62.   Plaintiff Don Mashak is the sole owner of 1^st National Repossessors, Inc, a Minnesota Corporation.

63.   Plaintiff Don Mashak is a member of the Press as defined by the US Constitution 1^st Amendment;

64.   That Plaintiff Don Mashak has pursued reform of the Minnesota Judiciary as is his Constitutional 1^st Amendment Right to “Petition the government for Redress of Grievances” for some 20 years;

65.   That said reform was a result of corruption in the Minnesota judiciary that Plaintiff encountered, in the early 1990’s;

66.   Plaintiff Mashak went to Washington DC in 2009 as part of the million person protest against the Health Care plan commonly known as Obamacare;

67.   Plaintiff Mashak has frequently and assertively expressed his legal opinion that the Federal Reserve Bank System is unconstitutional;

68.   Members of a Criminal Conspiracy by Bankers working for and associated with 1^st National Bank of Anoka NA (hereafter “FNA”), did threaten to destroy Plaintiff’s business, reputation and life if Plaintiff testified against said Bank.

69.   That as a result of FNA’s fraud, 150 to 200 innocent Minnesota Families had their vehicles wrongfully repossessed from them in violation of the UCC “Buyer in the Ordinary Course of Business” Principle; http://bit.ly/3xjjXH

70.   That these Bankers with FNA escalated their threats from destroying Plaintiff business to ultimately threatened to kill Plaintiff if he testified against FNA or provided any incriminating documents; http://bit.ly/3xjjXH

71.   That the Anoka County Attorney refused to acknowledge Plaintiff complaint;

72.   That the Minnesota Attorney Generals office at the time said that because FNA was Nationally Associated (NA) I had to bring the matter to the FBI;

73.   That the representations of the Minnesota Attorney General’s office were false;

74.   That the FBI said they confirmed my allegations about the fraud committed by FNA, and asked me if I would wear a wire and if I could get the FNA Bankers to repeat their threats evidencing witness tampering and other threats, including the death threats;

75.   That shortly thereafter, the Senior FBI agent on the case was replaced by a Rookie Agent;

76.   That said Rookie FBI agent did little or nothing with the case as instructed by his superiors;

77.   That eventually the Rookie FBI agent said the Minnesota Justice Department did not want to pursue the investigation;

78.   That when Plaintiff Mashak called the former Senior FBI agent assigned to the case in a panic, said agent responded approximately, ”I was afraid that might happen” and  “Don’t worry, bankers don’t usually make good on their death threats”;

79.   That Plaintiff Mashak prevailed in a civil case regarding these matters in which he represented himself Pro Se, being awarded $15, 000.00 dollars;

80.   Plaintiff’ Company did repossessions for Norwest Bank, NA, now Wells Fargo Bank NA.

81.   Norwest Bank, NA severed its relationship with Plaintiff after acquiring FNA.

82.   Norwest Bank, NA indicated the decision and process to terminated Plaintiff’s company from its approved agent list was comparable to throwing darts at a list of the approved agents;

83.   That Norwest Bank, NA, now Wells Fargo Bank NA, bought one of the banks suing FNA over this matter;

84.   That Norwest Bank, NA, now Wells Fargo Bank NA, used the leverage of that lawsuit, and the likelihood of criminal prosecution of the officers of FNA, to force FNA to sell to Norwest Bank, NA under terms reflecting the strength of said lawsuit;

85.   Richard Kovacevich, Present of then Norwest Bank, NA, now Wells Fargo Bank NA refused to cancel the death threat issued against Plaintiff;

86.   The Minnesota US Attorney at the relevant time was David Lillehaug;

87.   David Lillehaug was also the campaign Finance Manager of a now deceased US Senator at the time;

88.   David Lillehaug and Jeff Blodgett, the Chief of Staff for the dead Senator, agreed to not prosecute any of the Bankers, nor assist any of the innocent Minnesota Families in recovering their wrongfully repossessed vehicles, in exchange for at least one $50,000 to the now dead Senators Campaign;

89.   The witness tampering of Plaintiff to keep testimony and evidence out of the official record, is one example of how “Simulated Litigation” in the Minnesota Judiciary occurs;

90.   This traumatic event had a devastating effect on Plaintiff mentally and physically;

91.   Plaintiff contacted various State Senators and Representatives at the time, but all offered only condolences and no real help in seeking Judicial reform;

92.   Unable to get the Major Media to print the story (The Internet being very fledgling then), Plaintiff was unable to rally a sufficient number of like minded citizens to force the issue;

93.   Resigned to Defeat, Plaintiff sank into deep depression and decided the best strategy was just to shut up and wait for the “powers that be” to forget about him;

94.   Norwest Bank, NA, now Wells Fargo Bank NA, never forgot and continues to this day to retaliate against Plaintiff despite its previous agreement not to in the earlier litigation;

95.   In November of 1998, Plaintiff Mashak physically collapsed from the stress caused in being unable to resolve the conflict on what he had been indoctrinated to believe was the alleged Judao-Christian ethic of America and the still unrescinded death threat;  http://bit.ly/jTKJlh

96.   Plaintiff Don Mashak was in the hospital for almost 3 months;

97.   Plaintiff Don Mashak suffered Brain Damage before he was placed on life support for almost 3 weeks;

98.   When Plaintiff Mashak was released from the hospital, he was homeless and a vulnerable adult;

99.   Plaintiff Mashak was victimized by criminal elements over the next approximately 2 years;

100.         Plaintiff was subjected to physical violence and threats of death against, not only plaintiff, but his family and friends and associate;

101.         Law enforcement refused to do anything to assist Plaintiff from being victimized, despite Plaintiff many calls and police reports, as part of the FNA and Northwest Banks NA’s continued retaliation;

102.         During this time period, Plaintiff contemplated suicide numerous times;

103.         In approximately 2002, Plaintiff’s mental ability increased dramatically and by cunning and skill he escaped his tormentors and/or managed to have them arrested;

104.         That in 2003, the County of Wright, Tom Salkowski, Wright County Attorney Tom Kelly and Pat Sawatske attempted to use “Simulated Litigation” to have Plaintiff Mashak arrested for a “Septic Tank “ violation;

105.         For Security purposes, Plaintiff Mashak always maintains his address as a PO Box. Plaintiff Mashak received his property Tax Statements at that address for his entire residency in Wright County;

106.         Zoning and Planning Manager Tom Salkowski had corresponded with Plaintiff Mashak at said PO Box.

107.         Plaintiff Mashak explained to Defendant Salkowski that the prior owner indicated that the County was responsible for bringing the Septic up to Code because they changed the grade and width of the road next to said septic system;

108.         Plaintiff Mashak  received no further communication from Zoning and Planning after that;

109.         Plaintiff Mashak was arrested and had to post bail of 500 dollars a year later;

110.         Subsequent notices had been sent to the physical address, where there has never been a mailbox by myself or the prior owner;

111.         Said notice(s) were later found to be in the Court file marked undeliverable by the post office and unopened;

112.         Defendant Wright County Board Commissioner Pat Sawatske told Plaintiff Mashak that if he had the construction under way by the time the court hearing came, the hearing would be continued and the matter would eventually be dismissed;

113.         Plaintiff Mashak appealed the matter to the Minnesota Appellate Court on the basis that Plaintiff was never properly served, as the notice was in the Court file, unopened and marked undeliverable by the Post office. Plaintiff went on to evidence many letter from Wright County, regarding this matter, and property tax going to the PO Box;

114.         When I got to Court, Wright County Commissioner Pat Sawatske denied ever telling me that if the construction was substantially underway, then the Court Case would be continued and eventually dismissed;

115.         Plaintiff was told by the Wright County Attorneys office that if he did not drop the appeal, he would be going to jail that day.  Plaintiff was told the Judge was very upset that Plaintiff appealed the matter.

116.         Plaintiff was forced to agree under the coercion of being jailed, if he did not;

117.         To this day, Wright County Attorney Tom Kelly refuses to have that matter expunged from the record;

118.         This just said matter of simulated litigation was again retaliation by Plaintiff’s Government for, testifying truthfully in the FNA,  Norwest Bank, NA, Wells Fargo Bank, NA matter;

119.         At this point in time, realizing that FNA’s William Bunker, Roger Okerman and Wells Fargo Bank’s President, Richard Kovacevich were never going to stop retaliating, I began anew to seek Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability;

120.         With the coming of age of the internet, Plaintiff Mashak was now able to find like minded Minnesota Citizens that wanted Judicial Reform;

121.         To that end, an informal group of individuals and organization began meeting and discussing how to address corruption (now recognized as systemic corruption by the US Justice Department), in the Minnesota Judiciary;

122.         In or about 2005, a loose group of citizens and organizations began pressing hard for Minnesota judicial Reform and Accountability;

123.         In January of 2006, Defendant Dannette Meeks-Krenzlock-Hull and Mike Hull embezzled money from Plaintiff company and tried to start their own business in the same industry using Plaintiff’s client list; (More details on this in later paragraphs)

124.         In or about 2006 or 2007, Plaintiff started attending some of these Meetings of Citizen and  organizations seeking Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability;

125.         On August 1, 2007, Plaintiff Mashak health again collapse from the business retaliation and living for more than 10 years with the unrescinded death threats of FNA and Norwest Bank, NA. This time for about a week;   http://bit.ly/jTKJlh     http://bit.ly/lOB3LM  

126.         Plaintiff Mashak health set back occurred the day the I35W bridge collapsed;

127.         Plaintiff Mashak sought Medical Care at Allina Medical Clinic;

128.         Defendant Sahlberg was instructed by one or more of the Bankers or Defendants to delay or deny Plaintiff Medical Treatment;

129.         That Allina Medical Hospitals just denied the attempted murder attempt;

130.         That since that time Plaintiff Mashak lives in terror that medical personal will again delay or deny him medical treatment and resists seeing medical professional unless absolutely necessary for that reason;

131.         That Allina Medical never adequately addressed nor resolved this issue;

132.         The Judicial Reform group was becoming increasing frustrated that, despite the proper decorum, pleases and thank you’s, neither the Minnesota House or Senate Judiciary would agree to hear testimony and receive evidence of Corruption and/or Abuse of Power in the Minnesota Judiciary;

133.         In late winter 2008, a group of 4 persons assaulted Plaintiff Mashak and others in a home invasion;

134.         Plaintiff Mashak alleges that Defendant Wright County Attorney Tom Kelly and Defendant Wright County again engaged in Simulated Litigation to punish Plaintiff Mashak of exercising his first Amendment Rights of Free Speech and Petitioning the Government for Redress of Grievances, for seeking Judicial Reform and in furtherance of the promised retaliation for Testifying against FNA;

135.         The main actor was a convicted felon who brandished a sawed off shot gun.  Said main Felon rounded up all of the persons located in the lower level of his house and made terroristic threats.  Said main Felon struck Plaintiff Mashak in the eye with the butt of a shotgun, permanently impairing Plaintiff vision and breaking Plaintiff eye socket.  Said Felon tried to kidnap Plaintiff to kill him, but was interrupted because another person had got a call of to 911.  All 4 felons fled the scene but were caught a short distance away;

136.         As part of the Simulated Litigation, Wright County Attorney Tom Kelly told the police department to use a 20 year old photo of the main felon in a photo line up, hoping Plaintiff would be unable to identify them, so they could get off scott free;

137.         As a further part of the Simulated Litigation, to make sure that the Governments, FNA’s or Wells Fargo Bank’s assassins would not implicate them  in the attempted murder, Defendant Wright County Attorney only charged the convicted main felon with a couple charges NOTABLY leaving out 1) Convicted Felon in possession of firearm in commission of a crime, multiple charges of terroristic threats and attempted kidnapping nor attempted murder;

138.         As an alternate theory, Plaintiff Mashak asserts that the Defendants tried to have Mashak killed to silence his voice against judicial Corruption, Legal System Corruption and the unconstitutionality of the Federal Reserve System;

139.         Defendant Wright County Attorney Tom Kelly let the get away off the hook with only probation and no record if no same or similar for a year and no restitution;

140.         Defendant Wright County Attorney Tom Kelly let the other two felons off with 3 months in jail and no restitution to Plaintiff;

141.         Defendant Wright County Attorney Tom Kelly let the main felon off serving just about 12 months more than the time he had to serve for violating parole;

142.         Said main felon would already be out of prison, if said main felon did not kill someone else while in prison;

143.         Defendant Wright County Attorney Tom Kelly was more interested making sure the 4 felons did not testify against the parties that sent them and in punishing Plaintiff Mashak for testifying against FNA and pursuing Judicial Reform, than he was interested in the safety of the General Public;

144.         In 2009, While this Judicial Reform group decided to become more aggressive and focus on the Minnesota House Judiciary Committee, Plaintiff was determined to take a gentler tact with the Chair of the Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee, Mee Moua;

145.         Plaintiff soon became aware of why those members of the Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability Group were frustrated and felt justified in increasing their intensity; http://exm.nr/k7G8tR

146.         To this day, Plaintiff has never been able to speak to nor get a letter from Minnesota State Senator Mee Moua; http://exm.nr/g0DxKw  and http://exm.nr/jTFRbR

147.         Defendant Tim Mahoney was previously the Chair of the Minnesota State House Judicial Committee.

148.         Defendant Tim Mahoney refused to allow testimony and evidence of Corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary to be submitted to his committee;

149.         Defendant Tim Mahoney authorized or agreed with retaliation against Plaintiff Mashak and others for pushing the Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability agenda;

150.         Defendant Steve Smith is now the Chair of the Minnesota State House Judicial Committee.

151.         Defendant Steve Smith refused to allow testimony and evidence of Corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary to be submitted to his committee;

152.         Defendant Steve Smith authorized or agreed with retaliation against Plaintiff Mashak and others for pushing the Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability agenda;

153.         In January of 2010, Plaintiff found out that the Press was invited to a Public airing of a Case before the Minnesota Supreme Court at the Wright County, Buffalo City High School.

154.         When Plaintiff arrived, Plaintiff was threatened with arrest if I did not leave. http://exm.nr/kimu4W

155.         Plaintiff pointed out that Plaintiff was a member of the press and demanded admittance despite highly intense and intimidations of arrest by the Buffalo Police Department;

156.         Only because Plaintiff knew his rights and demanded to know who made the decision and stood up to an intense police officer, was I able to attend; http://exm.nr/kimu4W

157.         Defendant Eric Magnuson, Chief judge of the Minnesota Supreme Court at the time, was the once who crushed my Freedom of the Press;

158.         But Plaintiff was not allowed to ask any questions of the cowardly, tyrannical Minnesota Supreme Court;

159.         To this day, Plaintiff has not received one responsive response to any of his many letters and questions to the Minnesota Supreme Court;

160.         In 2009, Plaintiff became aware that his property taxes had recently doubled; http://exm.nr/jkoMJ8

161.         In 2009, Plaintiff became aware that Moody’s was warning that it might downgrade US Municipal bonds; http://exm.nr/lYnWZb 

162.         In 2009, Plaintiff went to Defendant Wright County Government Representatives to ask where all the money was going causing his taxes to double and why Moody’s was giving the Municipal down grade warning;  http://exm.nr/kc2Jiw

163.         Plaintiff quickly discovered that Defendant Wright County employees get 35 paid days of vacation per year after one year on the job (12 vacation, 12 sick, 11 Paid holiday);

164.         Defendant Wright County, from that point forward fought Plaintiff Mashak Tooth and Nail;

165.         Defendant Wright County told Plaintiff Mashak he would have to give a $400 down payment on an estimated $1000 plus bill to have the payroll data Plaintiff requested put together; http://exm.nr/llzunl

166.         Defendant Wright County quickly backed down on that obscene cost, when Plaintiff Pointed out that the Wright county Auditor Bob Hiivala must not be doing their job if they did not have the figures Plaintiff in a same or similar format… Plaintiff asked approximately, “How could the auditor audit the books without compiling payroll figures?”

167.         Defendants Jack Russek, Dick Norman and Pat Sawatzke played an active roll in denying Plaintiff Mashak access to the requested financial records and the subsequent retaliation to Plaintiff Mashak of daring to ask for said financial data;

168.         That Plaintiff Mashak sent Defendant Wright County one or more Freedom of Information Act Requests which have never been fully or adequately answered;

169.         That Defendant Wright County provided Plaintiff Mashak with data disks without indicating what programs they worked with;

170.         That Plaintiff Mashak figured out that some were in Lotus and some were in Excel;

171.         That Plaintiff then had to beg Wright County for the password;

172.         That Plaintiff then discovered that the data files had been “locked: so the columns could not be totaled, analyzed and compared;

173.         Plaintiff Mashak had intended to post all of the information he was requesting on the internet for the Benefit of his fellow Wright County Citizens;

174.         Plaintiff Mashak reasoned that if the Elected officials could not find the waste and fraud, the Wright County Property Tax payers would be able to if it was convenient for them to get to;

175.         That Plaintiff’s State Senator Defendant Amy Koch and Representative Bruce Anderson were unable or unwilling to assist Plaintiff in receiving said data;

176.         Plaintiff asked Bruce Anderson and Defendant Amy Koch to carry the following legislation:

Whereas all financial information of Municipalities (Cities, Counties, Schools, etc.) in the State of Minnesota is supposed to be a matter of public record;

Whereas Municipalities have acted very inappropriately in refusing to freely disclose financial information to the public;

Whereas all levels of Government in the USA are suffering from enormous Budget Shortfalls and Deficits;

Whereas auditors of all level of Government seem to be unable or unwilling to identify areas of financial waste and fraud in Municipalities;

Whereas elected officials are unable or unable to identify areas of financial waste and fraud in municipalities;

Whereas the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has been perverted to actually make it more difficult for the Public to get financial information from Municipalities;

Whereas it is essential to the continue well-being and existence of the USA that all levels of Government get their financial houses in order:

Be it Resolved, that the Minnesota Legislature should pass a bill as follows:

All Minnesota Municipalities are required to post their budgets and actual expenditures and revenues on the internet In terms understandable by the average high school graduate with no aggregates greater than $100.00.

That said records shall be maintained on the internet for 10 years and be easily downloadable to  fully functioning spreadsheets such as Microsoft Excel.

177.         The financial data that Plaintiff was requesting from Wright County is suppose to be a matter public record;

178.         Plaintiff Mashak finally gave up trying to get said financial information because Government officials just made it too hard to get ; http://exm.nr/jmBesL and decided to refocus on Judicial Reform;

179.         Plaintiff Mashak was told by Representative Bruce Anderson and Defendant State Senator Amy Koch that all legislation on Judicial Reform and Accountability needed to go through the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees;

180.         In 2009, Plaintiff Mashak attended the TEA Party Anti-Obamacare Rally in Washington DC that was attended by a million or more American Patriots;

181.         In 2009, Plaintiff Mashak became involved with the Mille Lacs County TEA Party;

182.         In early 2010, Plaintiff Mashak suggested to the Leaders of the Mille Lacs County TEA Party that they do a modified version of Nominal Group Process to Identify priorities and same did occur;

183.         One of the top priorities the Mille Lacs TEA Party group decided on was Minnesota judicial Reform and Accountability;

184.         Then former Minnesota State Representative Sandra Erickson quickly volunteered to Chair the Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability Committee of the Mille Lacs County TEA Party;

185.         Plaintiff Alleges that Minnesota State Senator Defendant Amy Koch told Defendant Sandra Erickson to torpedo the progress of the Milles County TEA Party Judicial Reform and Accountability Movement;

186.         Defendant Sandra Erickson did torpedo the efforts of the Mille Lacs County TEA Party Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability Committee.  And then resigned when the 2010 Minnesota Legislative Session was over or nearly over;

187.         In 2010, Plaintiff Mashak went on to become involved with a group that would be eventually known as the Minnesota North Star TEA Party Patriots (hereafter “NSTPP”);

188.         Plaintiff Mashak was a Co-Founder and Co-Leader of the NSTPP when it officially formed in Summer of 2010;

189.         As a member of NSTPP, Plaintiff Mashak was active in setting its agenda. Ideas like the first known Judicial Candidate Debate in the State of Minnesota for the 10^th Judicial District (15 of 24 candidates), Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability and Municipal Government Fiscal Transparency as priorities, and holding several Town halls and forums on or relating to the integrity of the Minnesota Judiciary and attempts to take the Citizens right to vote for State Judges in Meaningful, Contested elections;

190.         That for much of the last half of 2010, Plaintiff Mashak urged NSTPP to have a Nominal Group Process to set their agenda and priorities for the next year;

191.         During Fall of 2010, Minnesota Republican Party Operative, Defendant Randy Liebo, stopped supporting Judicial Reform and Accountability at the Direction of Former Minnesota Republican Governor Al Quie, author of the Quie Commission;

192.         That in or about January of 2011, NSTPP held the first Minnesota State TEA Party Caucus in the State Capital Building.  Said event was the Brainchild of Plaintiff Don Mashak;

193.         That when Defendant Minnesota State Senator Warren Limmer became aware of Plaintiff Mashak influence on NSTPP, he advised Defendant Randy Liebo to get rid of Plaintiff Mashak;

194.         Minnesota Republican Operative Defendant Randy Liebo related his conversation with Defendant Senator Warren Limmer as “Senator Limmer says that no one in the Legislature will work with NSTPP if Plaintiff Mashak is the Chair of the NSTPP Caucus;

195.         Defendant Senator Limmer, denied in writing that he had made any such statements;

196.         Defendant Limmer told Plaintiff Mashak and Defendant Randy Liebo that he would never allow Merit Selection Retention Election (MRSE) Bills come before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he is chair of while he was still the Chair;

197.         Defendant Limmer told Defendant Mashak he opposed MSRE’

198.         Defendant Limmer recently  MC’d a forum where only persons who supported MSRE spoke;

199.         When confronted with the written denial Defendant Walter Hudson and Defendant Randy Liebo insisted that Defendant Limmer had made said statements and was only lying to avoid consequences;

200.         Defendant Randy Liebo and Defendant Walter Hudson then added that further Senator Amy Koch had told them she wanted Plaintiff Mashak out of the TEA Party Movement;

201.         The reason that Defendants Limmer and Koch wanted Plaintiff Mashak out of the TEA Party Movement is that knew that Plaintiff Mashak agenda was Judicial Reform and Accountability and Fiscal Transparency, and the Minnesota Republican Party are opposed to those to issues;

202.         In early 2011, at the NSTPP Nominal Group Process event, Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability emerged as the highest priority of NSTPP.

203.         Plaintiff Mashak and his TEA Party Group TPTAR (TEA Party Transparency, Accountability and Reform)  turned out more participants at the Nominal Group Process Event than all the other TEA Party Groups in Minnesota Combined;

204.         Shortly after the Nominal Group Process, NSTPP held a private meeting to which Plaintiff Mashak and others were not invited;

205.         NSTPP refused to address the allotment of votes on the Board as some groups were casting 4 or 5 votes instead of their allotted 2 votes;

206.         Without addressing the vote issue and without following their own constitution, Roberts Rules, the Rule of Law or any of the standard due process that should have been afforded them, Plaintiff Don Mashak and another party were ejected from NSTPP without knowing what they were accused of or being allowed to present a defense;

207.         To this day, those persons who have wrongfully usurped NSTPP have not provided Plaintiff Mashak with the list of charges nor an opportunity to provide a defense;

208.         Other perspective Board Members and organizations that Plaintiff Mashak recruited for membership in NSTPP have been turned away because the Minnesota NSTPP and the entire National TEA Party Patriots organization has been usurped by the Republican Party;

209.         Persons as critical of the Republican Party as they are of the Democrat Party are being ejected or other driven out of the TEA Party movement by GOP Operatives and loyalists;

210.         Defendants Amy Koch, Warren Limmer, Steve Smith, Tim Mahoney and Mee Moua are responsible for or agreed to unlawful retaliation against Plaintiff Mashak for exercising his Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances;

211.         Al Quie, Defendant Amy Koch and Defendant Warren Limmer directed Randy Liebo and Walter Hudson to kick Plaintiff Mashak out of NSTPP;

212.         Defendants Amy  Koch and Larry Hance directed Steve Northenscold to tell Defendant Walter Hudson to kick Plaintiff Mashak out of NSTTP;

213.         Defendant Larry Hance told a member of NSTPP to kick Plaintiff Don Mashak out of NSTPP because of his stand on transparency of municipal budgets;

214.         Defendants Wright County, Dick Norman, Tom Kelly, Pat Sawatzke and Jack Russek advised Defendant Amy Koch that they did not want to provide Plaintiff Mashak with the financial information that Plaintiff Don Mashak requested, even if it was supposed to be public record;

215.         Plaintiff Mashak had not applied for any type of public assistance before this year and being force to do so has been emotionally devastating to him;

216.         Plaintiff Mashak applied for Medical Assistance and advised Wright County that his medical needs were urgent;

217.         At the direction of Defendants Dick Norman, Pat Sawatzke, Jack Russek and Tom Kelly, Wright County delayed medical coverage to Plaintiff Mashak for 2.5 months;

218.         Said delay in application was in punishment for and with the hope of killing Plaintiff Mashak;

219.         By the time Plaintiff Mashak was able to see a physician, his heart function was down to 15% and likely to be permanent or marginally improvable;

220.         That in the past approximate 6 years,  a group of Minnesota Citizens and organizations have repeatedly demanded the opportunity to “Petition the Government for redress of grievances” with regard to the Judiciary by seeking to give testimony and evidence to the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees;

221.         That during those same six years, hearings in the Legislature for the Merit Selection Retention Election bill “MRSE” [pronounced “Misery”](aka taking away the citizens’ constitutional right to vote for judges in meaningful contested elections) that the Minnesota Judiciary is pushing, were held almost anytime the proponents asked for said hearings;

222.         Plaintiff Don Mashak has sought to give said testimony to various Minnesota Governmental bodies for the past 24 years, but most recently and more assertively in the past approximate 4 years, as member of this loose coalition of Minnesota Citizens and Organizations aggressively demanding the opportunity to give testimony and evidence of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary to the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees;

223.         Plaintiff Don Mashak has also exercised his Constitutionally guaranteed 1^ST Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances by demanding financial information from various governmental Bodies to determine was his property and other taxes are increasing so dramatically;

224.         The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Supreme court have unlawfully and illegally  retaliated against Don Mashak in various ways for exercising his constitutionally guaranteed 1^st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances;

225.         Amongst the ways this retaliation has manifest itself is in the improper handling of unrelated litigation by Plaintiff Mashak and his Company against Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Michael Hull;

226.         As retaliation for Plaintiff Mashak’s Constitutional Right to Petition the Government for redress of Grievances, Defendants have Conspired to Obstruct Justice in the matter of Plaintiff Mashak and 1^st National Repossessors, Inc. (hereafter “FNR”) vs Dannette Meeks-Hull and Michael Hull;

227.         Defendants Meeks-Hull and Hull did steal property, embezzle money and otherwise cause loss and damage to Plaintiff’ while Plaintiff Mashak was out of the Country on vacation;

228.         Upon hearing she was about to be served papers, Defendant Meeks-Hull concocted a wild story of false sexual allegations against Plaintiff Don Mashak;

229.         Plaintiff Mashak took and passed a polygraph refuting the allegations;

230.         Defendants Meeks-Hull and Hull false allegations regarding Plaintiff Mashak have been promoted and used by State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Court to demonize and discredit Plaintiff Mashak;

231.         Plaintiff Mashak has had said Harassment Restraining Reversed by the Minnesota Appellate Court.

232.         Demonization and Discrediting of Leaders of Political Dissent is a common practice of Government in the United States (see COINTEL, FBI, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)

233.         Defendants State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Minnesota House, Minnesota Senate, Eric Magnuson, Amy Koch, Sandra Erickson, Warren Limmer, Mee Moua, Tim Mahoney and others directed Judge Yunker to use Simulated Litigation to fix Plaintiff Mashak’s case against Defendants Dannette Meeks-Krenzlock-Hull and Mike Hull;

234.         That said Defendants in Paragraph 214, use the Defendant Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards and the Defendant Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility to fraudulently dispose of allegation of wrongdoing by judges and lawyers, especially in cases of Simulated Litigation, as part of an ongoing criminal conspiracy;

235.         That Defendants David Paul and Pat Burns are the primary instruments of the fraudulent cover up and disposal of claims against judges and lawyers;

236.         That Defendants David Paul and Pat Burns often opine that the Legislature and Supreme Court do not give them the power to discipline Judges and/or attorneys, whichever their respective office is charged with’

237.         The Minnesota Judicial System often rules against litigants wrongfully and not in accordance with the Rule of Law, knowing that most citizens cannot afford and are not intelligent or persistent enough to bring their own appeal;

238.         This for the purpose of unlawfully retaliating against, and demonizing and discrediting Plaintiff Mashak;

239.         This Demonizing and discrediting of Plaintiff Mashak was both unlawful punishment of Plaintiff Mashak for seeking Minnesota Judicial Reform by exercising his Constitutional 1^st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for redress of Grievances and to make Plaintiff Mashak’s future attempts to reform the Minnesota Judiciary less credible and less effective;

240.         All retaliation against United States Citizens for exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed 1^st Amendment Rights to petition the government for redress of grievances are unlawful and illegal;

241.         Such retaliation stifles the public discourse necessary for the proper functioning of our Representative Constitutional Republic;

242.         Judge Yunker and each of Plaintiff’s attorneys and the Defenses attorneys have engaged in Simulated Litigation to fix these matters against Plaintiff Mashak;

243.         Judge Yunker has presided over this case and has demonstrated insurmountable bias against Plaintiff;

244.         Judge Yunker has frustrated and prevented Plaintiff Mashak and FNR from depositions, discovery and leave to amend their complaint to encompass more causes of action;

245.       Even though Defendants did not show up at the 7/9/2010 Pre-Trial hearing, Judge Yunker did not find in Plaintiff’ favor;

246.       Judge Yunker did not get the amended scheduling order out from the 7/9/2010 for months;

247.       As a result, for months Defense argued that they did not know the Discovery deadline had been extended and therefore did not have to answer Plaintiff’ Discovery;

248.       From July 9, 2010 to early September 2010, Judge Yunker did not return Plaintiff’ attorney Marl Olson’s calls and written communications for weeks concerning the amended scheduling order and motions to compel Discovery;

249.       Judge Yunker cancelled the 9/16/2010 hearing that would have allowed Plaintiff to amend their complaint, compel discovery, received Plaintiff’s unanswered Request for Admissions to Plaintiff’ as admitted;

250.       Judge Yunker would not allow any hearing to be heard, whether by teleconference or physical hearing from 9/30/2011 to 12/29/2010.

251.       Judge Yunker made up a term “suspensed motions” in an attempt to prevent Plaintiff from bringing forth motions and to prevent Plaintiff’ from getting evidence on the record.

252.       Judge Yunker hid all the Court file containing all the worst evidence against Defendants Meeks/Hull and Hull in her Chambers, so that demonization and discrediting of Plaintiff Mashak would continue unabated (and to prevent Plaintiff’ from having access to the file when the file needed to be consulted or referenced)

253.       Judge Yunker refused to hear any discovery related matters from 9/30/2010 to past the 12/17/2010 deadline.

254.       Yet somehow, Judge Yunker, in the approximate 10 days from 1/25/2011 to 2/4/2011, has found time to have a hearing twice, once her attempts to fix the case were successful.

255.       Judge Yunker and Sherburne failed to provide Plaintiff Mashak the Accommodations he is entitled to under the Americans with Disabilities Act resulting from Legal Abuse System and subset of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome;

256.         Judge Timothy Bloomquist aided and abetted the conspiracy to obstruct justice by refusing to intervene in judge Yunker’s refusal to put out a timely Scheduling order agreed to in the 7/9/2010 hearing that Defendant’s Meeks Hull and Hull did not attend in any way, shape or form;

257.         Judge Bloomquist said he had no authority to discuss the timeliness of providing the amended scheduling order to the parties;

258.         The Minnesota Supreme Court is in charge of the Discipline and licenses of Minnesota Attorneys;

259.         That is unconstitutional and a Conflict of Interest for Lawyers, Officers of the Judicial Branch to not surrender their licenses upon become members of the Legislative Branch;

260.         As a result, Minnesota Attorneys are more loyal to Judges they appear before than they are to the Clients they represent;

261.         Therefore, when an Minnesota Judge Telegraphs to Minnesota Attorneys the desired result they want in any particular litigation,  the attorneys are obliged to deliver;

262.         The predetermined “desired result” his known commonly as the “fix” or “the fix being in”;

263.         Over time, the practice and tradition has developed whereby Minnesota Attorneys “fact shape” cases to give Judges the ability to rule in manner the Judge wants the cased fixed;

264.         One common way of these fixes being effected is  by keeping evidence off the official record;

265.         Another common way is by one of the attorneys “accidently” not following the rules. For Example forgetting to file a motion or filing it in an untimely manner;

266.         Both of these previous two practices are calculated to allow the judge to rule on the case to rule in the manner the Judge predetermined by making sure the “official facts admitted on the record” allow the Judge to make the “fixed” determination;

267.         Don Mashak’s first attorney in the Meeks-Hull/Hull matter, Diana Longrie, aided and abetted the conspiracy to obstruct justice in a variety of ways;

268.         Dianna Longrie did not enter evidence, such as Don Mashak’s polygraph on the record;

269.         Dianna Longrie did not correctly cross examine Defendants Meeks-Hull and Hull regarding their outrageous sexual allegations about Plaintiff Mashak;

270.         Dianna Longrie, the day before the actual hearing on the claims that Plaintiff brought was to occur, informed Plaintiff she could not attend and that Don Mashak could not ask for a continuance;

271.         Dianna Longrie intentionally misinformed Plaintiff Mashak of the documents necessary to meet the requirements for the collection of a deficiency,

272.         Dianna Longrie did not deposition Meeks/Hull nor Hull;

273.         Dianna Longrie and Plaintiff Mashak agreed on fifty requests for admissions and related interrogatories to send to Defendants, but Dianna Longrie never sent this discovery;

274.         Dianna Longrie stopped returning Don Mashak’s Calls;

275.         Dianna Longrie failed to inform Plaintiff of a Rule 11 Motion brought by the Defense;

276.         Plaintiff were forced to fire Defendant Longrie because she stopped communicating and working on the case;

277.         The next Plaintiff Attorney was Joe O’Brien;

278.         Joe O’Brien represented Plaintiff from approximately November 2010 to June 2011;

279.         Attorney O’Brien missed various deadlines set by the Court;

280.         Attorney O’Brien stopped communicating with Plaintiff and actively avoided Plaintiff;

281.         Attorney O’Brien for 3 months would not return Plaintiff Case file;

282.         Attorney O’Brien did not return the file for 2 months after the Lawyers Board of Professional Responsibility was contacted;

283.         Plaintiff Mashak was informed by text message on or about June 15, 2010 that the file was left in an open car on his property;

284.         The file was missing many documents;

285.         The Minnesota Supreme Court specifically wrote the rules to allow things like this to occur when the Courts want to inconvenience litigants and drain litigants financially;

286.         Common Citizens can have their Driver’s License revoked for refusing to submit to alcohol tests but the Minnesota Supreme Court does not believe Lawyers should be subject to a similar loss of their Lawyers License for refusing to return client case files for months;

287.         Plaintiff Mashak was then forced to submit Requests for Admissions, interrogatories and Document Production requests and Appellate Briefs Pro Se because deadlines were imminently expiring;

288.         Shortly before the July 9, 2010 hearing, Plaintiff Mashak retained Attorney Mark Olson;

289.         Defendants did not appear in person or by Counsel at the 07/09/2010 hearing;

290.         Defendants retained counsel after the 07/09/2010 at the urging of the Court;

291.         Defendants refused to answer discovery claiming they were unaware the Discovery deadline had been extended;

292.         For almost two months, Judge Yunker refused to contact Plaintiff’ attorney;

293.         On or about September 2, 2010 Defense serve a motion for a rule 11 summary Judgment on Plaintiff;

294.         Attorney Mark Olson was attempting to get the Judge to send out the amended scheduling order, to set a hearing for a motion to compel discovery requests, request the Court enter Plaintiff unanswered Admissions as having been admitted,   and to submit the amended complaint;

295.         A September 16, 2010 hearing was cancelled by Judge Yunker to prevent Plaintiff from compelling Discovery, amending their complaint and having Plaintiff unanswered Requests for Admissions Admitted.

296.         The effect and intent of Judge Yunker was to prevent Plaintiff from entering evidence on the record and otherwise make it more difficult for Plaintiff to prevail;

297.         During this period of time, third parties were telling Plaintiff Mashak that Attorney Olson was “getting it from the front and the back” which Plaintiff understood to mean that while Plaintiff Mashak was demanding Attorney Olson push harder with the litigation; the Minnesota Judiciary was demanding Attorney Olson “fix” the case;

298.         Defendant Judge Yunker insists that Attorney Olson cancelled the hearing, though that is not what Attorney Olson has stated in writing as the matter was occurring nor in answering a complaint submitted by Plaintiff Don Mashak to the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board;

299.         Attorney Olson insisted in answering Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment primarily by saying it was served untimely by 3 days and Attorney Olson refused to submit a more extensive responsive answer to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment that included evidence and exhibits;

300.         The notes on the Court Computer says approximately that the September 16, 2010 hearing date was changed to allow defenses Motion for Summary Judgment to be timely; (Plaintiff has a photo of the computer screen that will be made available later)

301.         Plaintiff Mashak believes Judge Yunker cancelled the hearing date despite her assertions otherwise;

302.         Attorney Olson did not ask my permission to change the date as required and, if done unilaterally, cancelling a hearing date to compel discovery etc, just before a hearing to hear a Defense Motion for Summary Judgment would not be in Plaintiff’ best interest and would be an ethical violation by attorney Olson;

303.         Attorney Olson quit shortly before the September 30, 2010 hearing, over the controversies just previously mentioned in this complaint;

304.         At the September 30, 2010 hearing Judge Yunker set the deadline for Dispositive Motions and Discovery for December 17, 2010;

305.         On or about October 28, 2010, Plaintiff Mashak hired Defendant Lee Wolfgram as an attorney in this matter;

306.         Plaintiff Mashak early and often strongly advised Attorney Wolfgram that Defendant Judge Yunker would not extend the December 17, 2010 deadlines;

307.         Plaintiff Mashak told Defendant Wolfgram to Notice the Depositions of the Defendants and other parties of interest immediately;

308.         Plaintiff Mashak told Defendant Wolfgram to subpoena sources of derogatory information on the internet;

309.         Plaintiff Mashak told Defendant Wolfgram to submit the Amended Complaint and Attorney Wolfgram indicates the Judge is refusing to set a hearing anytime soon;

310.         Defendant Wolfgram never executes a subpoena for the source of derogatory information on the internet;

311.         Defendant Wolfgram later tells Plaintiff Mashak that he is just mailing the Amended Complaint to Judge Yunker because the amended complaint is a simple matter that the judge will rule on favorably without a hearing; 

312.         Defendant Wolfgram then later says their must be a hearing for the Amended Complaint but the Judge won’t set a hearing until December 29, 2010 after the December 17, 2010 deadline;

313.         Defendant Wolfgram Notices the Depositions of Defendants Meeks-Hull and Hull about 10 days before the Discovery deadline of December 17, 2010;

314.         Defendants Attorney claims they never go the faxed notice and are not available before the December 17, 2010 deadline and refuse any deposition before the December 17, 2010 deadline;

315.         Judge Yunker refuses a teleconference to resolve the impasse;

316.         Defendant Wolfgram assures Plaintiff Mashak that the Court has to extend the deadline for Discovery because refusing to set any hearings before the December 17, 2010 prevented Discovery and would be a violation of the rules;

317.         At the December 29, 2010 hearing Judge Yunker denies the depositions, denies compelling discovery, denies the amended complaint and refuses to extend the discovery deadline even though Judge Yunker refused to set any hearing before the December 17, 2010 hearing so the Discovery issues could be resolved;

318.         The remainder of the numbered paragraphs from here until the “Causes of Action” are from the Amended Complaint Judge Yunker refused to allow;

319.         On or about January 23, 2006 Defendant Dannette Meeks-Krenzlok (hereafter "Meeks" or "Ms Hull") terminated her employment with 1st National Repossessors, Inc. (hereinafter "FNR");

320.         On OR ABOUT January 23, 2006 Defendant Michael Hull, Defendant Meeks’ husband, terminated his sub-contractor relationship with FNR.

321.          1st National Repossessors, Inc. is wholly owned by Don Mashak (hereinafter "Mashak");

322.          At the time Meeks quit, Mashak was out of the country and due to return the next day;

323.         For a few weeks Michael Hull and Meeks had planned to quit FNR. In other words, both defendants knew they were going to quit their employment with FNR about the time Mashak left for vacation on December 31,2005;

324.         5) At various times during Meeks' employment (that commenced in 2004), Mashak overheard various comments by other company employees and agents that he felt were not ;

325.          In the spring of 2005, Mashak paid for Meeks, and his sister Deanna Mashak, to fly to Houston Texas to visit another repossession company for training;

326.         In the fall of2005 Mashak allowed Defendant Michael Hull to take Meeks for an unscheduled surprise vacation to celebrate their recent marriage;

327.         In September of 2004 Mashak cosigned for, took a 2nd lien in and executed a contract with "Right of Offset" so that Meeks could buy the 2000 Ford Excursion VIN IFMNU41S4YEC17692 (hereafter "2000 Ford Excursion"), as evidenced by a loan contract and 2nd lien contract;

328.         Various issues caused Plaintiff Mashak to question the competence of Defendant Meeks in late fall of 2005;

329.         Mashak decided he was going to try to squeeze in the vacation before he either motivated Meeks to improve her productivity or fire her because it would be a long time before someone else could be trained so Don Mashak could once again go on vacation;

330.         Mashak left on vacation December 31, 2005;

331.         While Mashak was out of town, Meeks was required to refer all issues of importance and urgency that came up to his sister, Deanna Mashak;

332.         Payroll was to be delivered to Deanna Mashak's house five days in advance of pay day so funds could be transferred. This was not a big issue because Meeks passed within a couple of blocks Deanna Mashak's house coming to and from home and the office;

333.         Defendant Meeks laid down an ultimatum that she would quit if the payroll was not on time for the January 16, 2006 payday; and then she failed to deliver the payroll to Deanna Mashak before Deanna Mashak had to leave for work on the 16th• This contrivance would later be her basis for quitting;

334.         While Mashak was on vacation, James Hocket was directed to pick up the company mail from the post office box a few days a week and deliver it to the office;

335.         On a number of occasions while Mashak was on vacation, Tom Corder (the owner of the business across the hall from FNR) told Mashak that the FNR office was closed several times for long periods of times during normal business hours;

336.         Plaintiff Mashak expressed his concerns to Meeks via phone and she became hostile and belligerent;

337.         Mashak backed off on the confrontation and questioning, feeling helpless and powerless to do anything thousands of miles away;

338.         Thereafter, Meeks corrected her observable behavior as was relayed to Mashak by persons sent to check up on the office found Meeks there;

339.         Mashak then decided that there would be no grace period for Meeks to improve her performance; and, she would no longer be able to charge the company when she was not ;

340.         At some point in time while Mashak was gone) Meeks erased the last approximately 3 months of email communications off her company owned computer after making written and electronic copies for herself;

341.         Meeks erased the three or four months of email in the general email box to her; and, between herself and Mashak and others to cover up her theft of company proprietary information and communications that might demonstrate that she was stealing proprietary information;

342.         This was done by Meeks to start her own company and/or go to work for a competitor;

343.         Meeks also erased payroll and other records off the computer system before Mashak returned;

344.          Meeks also stole her personnel files, her husband)s records and any other of her relatives who had been FNR employees and/or agents before Mashak returned from vacation;

345.         Meeks stole the files to destroy her the contract that included non-compete and non-disclosure provisions; and, to destroy any other incriminating information pertaining to her husband and relatives;

346.         Meeks also stole the file containing the loan documents for the 2000 Ford Excursion;

347.         While Mashak was on vacation, Meeks purposely and maliciously failed to deposit checks in Plaintiff’ Business Account;

348.         Meeks and Defendant Hull also stole company property, files and documents from Plaintiff Mashak' s business;

349.         Some of the stolen property included a cell phone, a camera, keys to the office and keys to Mashak’s personal car among other items;

350.         Tom Corder, the owner of a business across the hall from FNR, told Mashak that he saw Meeks transporting computer equipment (that belonged to Mashak and/or FNR) in her vehicle;

351.          Shortly before Plaintiff Mashak’s return, Meeks then informed Mashak that she was quitting;

352.          Mashak's flight was delayed due to a snow storm and as a result the office was going to be unmanned without the keys from Meeks;

353.         Meeks told Plaintiff she had none of Plaintiff’ property until Plaintiff Mashak asked her about the office keys, which Meeks admitted to having and needing to return;

354.         Meeks assured Mashak she would take and had no other property belonging to Plaintiff.

355.         Mashak asked Meeks to make arrangements to allow Deanna Mashak to pick up the keys or to bring her the keys to her residence;

356.         When Meeks showed up, she refused to leave the keys with Deanna Mashak's daughters, despite instructions to do so, in yet another attempt to harass, annoy and cause immeasurable problem for Don Mashak. This is another display of the contempt for, and lack of fear Defendant Meeks now alleges she had of Mashak;

357.         Mashak returned on or about January 24, 2006;

358.         When Mashak returned, he first noticed the keys to his personal car missing. As the days went by, Mashak found several other items such as files, cell phone, camera, personal property and data missing. Mashak also found data deleted from the computers, especially payroll data;

359.          James Hockett stated that he had brought in several large deposits of money while Mashak was on vacation and they were not reflected in the bank deposit records;

360.         Most Notably, the day James Hocket startled Meeks by stating Mashak would be back in a day or two, Hocket verified he left approximately $3000.00 to be deposited; however, the deposit records for that day only showed about $600.00 was deposited;

361.         Following Plaintiff Mashak’s return, various company vendors and clients made vague references to Mashak about Meeks calling them up and bad-mouthing Mashak and FNR, but gave no specific details and were generally dismissive of the allegations;

362.         Mashak found a discrepancy in the payroll. While there was only one vehicle for a person whose last name was Erkilla-Witt, the payroll that Meeks submitted showed one half of a debtors hyphenated last name had been used on the payroll ledger to evidence $100.00 to be paid to Agent Lee Baldwin, and the other half of the debtors hyphenated last name was used to evidence $100 to be paid to Defendant Meeks' husband Defendant Michael Hull;

363.         Mashak contacted Lee Baldwin and asked if Defendant Hull had any involvement in the said repossession involving the debtor with the hyphenated last name. Lee Baldwin said Defendant Michael Hull had no involvement in the repossession whatsoever. Furthermore, while the notes on the Erkil1a-Witt computer records are initialed by Meeks, there is no note of her husband having anything to do with the vehicle;

364.         Mashak verily believes that any reasonable person would see the separating of the hyphenated name as the deliberate, duplicitous attempt to prevent Mashak from realizing the double payment;

365.         The fact that there are no notes in the computer record for that account that mention Defendant Michael Hull or mention the need to move the vehicle, speaks to the false nature of the defense that Mashak said he would pay anything to have Defendant Michael Hull do anything with the vehicle;

366.         Meeks did not inform Deanna Mashak that she was quitting, even though she was instructed to communicate all urgent and major issues to Deanna Mashak;

367.         Defendant Meeks and Defendant Michael Hull at first denied having and/or stealing any company property;

368.         Several more times, both Defendants denied having any property of Plaintiff.

369.         Defendants did not return the company property that they had at their house before Mashak returned;

370.         Mashak asserts that the failure to return the property on or before Defendants' last day is much more consistent with Defendants having any company property in their possession with intent to steal it, than with the contention that it was items that Meeks had at home to work on after normal work hours and just forgot to return;

371.         At some point after Mashak returned, Tom Corder told Mashak about an incident in which Meeks' vehicle had a window broken out of it. In viewing the damage Tom Corder noticed the computer equipment in the vehicle;

372.         Plaintiff Mashak later  noticed computers and equipment missing from the back storage room;

373.         Mashak and his sister Deanna Mashak went to Defendants Meeks and Hulls' residence with the Anoka Sheriff's Department a few days after Mashak got back in town in January 2006 to recover whatever property they could, along with missing vehicles and a tow dolly;

374.         Law Enforcement required that Mashak and his sister wait at the curb;

375.         The deputy returned from their door with a few files and some keys;

376.         Mashak and Deanna Mashak left with the files, the tow dolly and a vehicle that Defendants had previously denied having;

377.         Plaintiff Mashak wrote Defendants a couple of letters in the weeks after he returned and had his attorneys write letters;

378.         Defendant Meeks has admitted she had psychological issues before she began employment with Mashak and FNR;

379.         Meeks told Mashak a story in December of2005 wherein she claimed that earlier in her life her ex-husband was a big time drug dealer and that their marriage ended when he allegedly held a gun to Defendant Meeks' head while snorting cocaine from a huge pile like a scene out of the movie "Scarface";

380.         Defendant Meeks, by her own admission, acknowledged that she had previously sought medical help for her psychological problems;

381.         Defendant Meeks also told Mashak she was in the witness protection program for testifying against her ex-husband;

382.         Plaintiff Mashak alleges Defendant Meeks only sought psychiatric help after she received the notice that Plaintiff were aware of her criminal activities;

383.         Plaintiff Mashak asserts that if Defendant Meeks had an alleged nervous breakdown, it is the result her of realizing her various frauds and thefts had been discovered;

384.         Defendant Meeks insisted to the Anoka County Sheriffs Department that the property that was returned via the Anoka Sheriffs Department was all the property they had;

385.         Plaintiff Mashak's attorneys sent Defendants more letters demanding the return of stolen property, data and files. Finally, about a couple weeks later, after more denials of having company property, Defendant Hull returned yet more property, including the keys to Mashak's personal car to Plaintiff’ attorneys’ office;

386.         Other agents and employees of FNR and Deanna Mashak began telling Mashak that Meeks and her husband Michael Hull were trying to start there own repossession business after they left FNR;

387.         In spring of 2006, Mashak learned that Meeks was working at another Twin Cities repossession company and called there to inform them of the non-compete agreement;

388.         In July or August of2006, Defendants tried to trade in the 2000 Ford Excursion, without disclosing the second lien held by Mashak;

389.         Defendants apparently believed that the theft of the loan file would successfully end Mashak' s proof of second lien on the vehicle which they attempted to trade it in violation of Minn. Stat. §609.62;

390.         Plaintiff Mashak has other causes of action to recover monetary damages from Defendants, one as simply being the cosigner and two, because of the uninsured damages the car experienced while in the care, custody and control of Defendants Meeks and Hull and/or their agents and assigns;

391.         When Walker Car sales called, Plaintiff Mashak asked for $2000.00 to release the lien. Walker decided to undo the deal, rather than pay the payoff;

392.          In an attempt to damage Mashak's credit, Meeks insisted the vehicle had to be repossessed; and, Defendant Meeks said she would not allow Mashak to take possession directly;

393.         Further Defendant Meeks insisted the 2000 Ford Excursion be repossessed so Plaintiff Mashak would be forced to pay it off rather than continue to make payments on it;

394.         The credit union holding the loan repossessed the vehicle;

395.         Defendants insisted the vehicle was in great shape as did the credit union; however, they would not let Mashak see it before he paid for it;

396.         Mashak paid off the loan with the credit union in cash but was not allowed to pick it up that day;

397.         Steve Lolls, Mashak's business associate, said he was interested in buying the 2000 Ford Excursion for his wife for between $9000.00 and $10,000.00, if it was in good condition;

398.         When Mashak and Steve Lolls showed up to pick up the 2000 Ford Excursion from the credit union, it was severely damaged;

399.         Due to the condition of the vehicle Steve Lolls backed out of buying it;

400.         Neither the credit union nor Defendants would provide any explanation for what had happened to the vehicle nor the insurance information so that Mashak could make an insurance claim;

401.          Defendants thereafter claimed that they bought the vehicle in that poor condition; however, their claims are refuted by the person they bought the vehicle from who stated there was only one dent on the comer and some superficial scratches; and, there was nothing close to the terrible condition the unit was in when Mashak redeemed the vehicle;

402.         Mashak sent a notice of Right to Redeem and Sale to Defendants;

403.         Due to the poor condition of the vehicle, and increasing gas prices, Mashak initially didn't get any good bids for the vehicle;

404.         Mashak sent Defendants a notice and accounting of deficiency in a timely manner in June of 2007;

405.         Defendants failed to pay the deficiency;

406.         Thereafter, Mashak offered to give the vehicle back and let Defendants out of all costs directly involving it if they paid the original $6,900.00 Mashak paid the credit Union;

407.         Defendants did not accept that offer;

408.         The 2000 Ford Excursion was sold in June of2007 for $5,500.00;

409.         In January of2008, Mashak filed a small claims court claim against Defendants;

410.         Defendants avoided service of process for several months and moved to Isanti County;

411.         Defendants' new address was discovered by a in late November or early December 2008;

412.         The day after Mashak gave notice to the courts of the need to change venue, Meeks served a harassment restraining order on Mashak, claiming the entire small claim was baseless.;

413.         The trial court granted the order, which was based upon false evidence, testimony and motive. [Court File No. 30-CV -08-1298] Plaintiff Mashak asserts that Defendant Meeks made the claim of harassment in bad faith, when it became apparent she could no longer avoid service of process and would be held accountable for her criminal acts;

414.         Plaintiff Mashak alleges that all of said false statements were made with malice, with the express intention of Defendants furthering their own interests and/or  causing Plaintiff Mashak severe mental and financial duress.

415.         Mashak has taken and passed a polygraph with regards to the most egregious of Defendant Meeks’ allegation;

416.         Plaintiff’ have obtained the affidavits of several employees and agent in the relevant time period who dispute Defendants allegation in this regard;

417.         Defendant Meeks is known to not be credible, as evidenced by affidavits of various employees, agents and clients. When Meeks sought employment with Plaintiff, she represented she previously was a Hennepin Country Sheriffs Deputy, which was false.  Some of FNR's clients stated that Meeks also told them she had been a Hennepin County sheriff Deputy;

418.         Defendant Meeks had a power struggle with one of FNR's agents and that agent investigated and demonstrated that Defendant Meeks had lied about being a sheriffs deputy; and, was a actually a staff-worker in the child protection unit;

419.         Meeks now denies ever saying she was a Hennepin County Sheriffs Deputy. In fact, she apparently stole her personnel file to prevent discovery of her lie;

420.         Plaintiff reserve right to transform to a class action suit for all persons who have been injured by for petitioning the State of Minnesota for Redress of Grievances and/or injured by the failure of the State of Minnesota to properly oversee its employees and agencies, primarily those in the Minnesota Judiciary;

SECTION OF PARAGRAPHS ONLY DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT STATE OF MINNESOTA

421.         The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights is a Social Contract between the Government of the United State of America and, WE THE PEOPLE, the Citizens of the United States;

422.         The Founding Fathers of the United States of America (hereafter “USA”) incorporated their belief in Natural Law and Natural Rights into the USA Constitution and Declaration of Independence with their reference to “unalienable Rights”

423.          In Entering into the Social Contract which is the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights, WE THE PEOPLE, give up some our Freedom and agree to be Bound by Rules and Laws of the Government that we can live in a more harmonious Society.

424.         The Founding Fathers of the United States of America built Checks and Balances, Transparency and Accountability in the anticipation of nature of mankind in not being virtuous.

425.         Since the ratification of the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights the USA Government has passed or made numerous laws and rules which tend to constrain the checks, balances, transparency and accountability that the Founding Fathers intended.

426.         Failure of the Government to protect, enforce or ensure the inalienable Rights of anyone of WE THE PEOPLE, except in times of declared emergency or as the result of a official finding of criminal guilt, is a breach of the Social Contract.

427.         The Minnesota Constitution is a Social Contract between the Government of Minnesota and, WE THE PEOPLE, the Citizens of Minnesota;

428.         Over time, Minnesota judges and other elected officials have passed legislation and rules reducing their transparency and accountability to WE THE PEOPLE.

429.         The Rules for the Minnesota Judiciary are written from a perspective of protecting Minnesota Judges from Citizen Complaints rather than protecting Citizens from Judges who are corrupt or Abuse their power.

430.         Denying Citizens their right to Petition the Government for redress of Grievances is unconstitutional and a Breach of the Social Contract.

431.         The ability of the Citizens to be able to fully and feely Petition their Government without actual retaliation, or threat of retaliation, is a cornerstone of our Representative Constitutional Republic.

432.         All legislation regarding the Minnesota Judiciary begins in either the Minnesota House or Senate Judiciary Committees.

433.         A lawyer is an officer of the Court and also a State Office Title position.

434.         No Citizen is allowed to hold more than one State Office Title Position at any one time..

435.         Lawyers who become Legislators and/or other elected officials must give up their State Lawyer Office position upon being elected to not be in violation of the “one state office position only at any given time” rule.

436.         Lawyers who are the Chairpersons for the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees often act to prevent the hearing and passage of legislation that the Minnesota Supreme Court opposes.

437.         It is a standard practice of both major political parties to have a lawyer be the Chair of at least one of the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees so they can effectively block passage of any legislation the Minnesota Supreme Court opposes.

438.         The Minnesota Supreme Court often lobbies the Minnesota Legislature on Judicial Matters.

439.         The Minnesota Supreme Court Lobbies the Minnesota Legislature for legislation in its best interests.

440.         The Minnesota Supreme Court Lobbies the Minnesota Legislature against legislation that would make the Minnesota Judiciary more transparent and accountable.

441.         The Lobbying of the Minnesota Legislature by the Minnesota Supreme Court gives rise to a public perception of impropriety.

442.         During the past five years, The Minnesota Supreme Court has lobbied the Minnesota Legislature to not permit Minnesota Citizens to Petition for redress of Grievances concerning corruption and abuse of power in the Minnesota Judiciary.

443.         The Lobbying of the Minnesota Legislature by the Minnesota Supreme Court gives rise to a public perception that Minnesota Legislature is compromised and derelict in its duty to act as a check and balance on the Minnesota Supreme Court.

444.         The Lobbying of the Minnesota Legislature by the Minnesota Supreme Court gives rise to a public perception that Minnesota Legislature is compromised and derelict in its duty to oversee and discipline the Minnesota Supreme Court.

445.         The Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct says: “Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives.  They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.”

446.         Having Attorneys, whose licenses and discipline are subject to the vagaries of Judges, hold chairperson positions in Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees gives rise to the public perception of impropriety in the Judiciary.

447.         Corruption is Systemic in the Minnesota Judiciary.

448.         The wording of the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards have been deliberately crafted to artificially suppress the public perception of the extent of the corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

449.         The Minnesota Legislature and the Minnesota Supreme Court refuse to allow all complaints about judges to be seen by all the Citizens of the State of Minnesota.

450.         The number of complaints each judge receives and the number of complaints that are sustained would be good information for Minnesota voters to have when voting for Judges.

451.         The wording of the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards has been deliberately crafted to suppress the public’s awareness of the true extent of the corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

452.         The wording of the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards has been deliberately crafted to prohibit the Board from acting at all or to otherwise make it difficult for a Citizen to sustain a finding of wrongdoing against a Minnesota Judge.

453.         Minnesota Government Administrative Judges are exempt from jurisdiction of the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board. (unemployment, workman’s compensation, etc)

454.         The wording of the rules for the Minnesota Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility Board have been deliberately crafted to suppress the public’s awareness of the true extent of the corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

455.         The wording of the Rules for the Minnesota Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility Board have been deliberately crafted to prohibit the Board from acting or otherwise make it difficult for a Citizen to sustain a finding of wrongdoing against a Minnesota attorney.

456.         The findings by the Quie Commission that there is little or no corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary are false.

457.         Merit Selection Retention Elections (hereafter “MSRE”) make Minnesota Judges less accountable to the Citizens of the State of Minnesota.

458.         The bias and injustice that Plaintiff Mashak is suffering at the hands of the Minnesota Judiciary is ruthless strategy to undermine Plaintiff Mashak’s opposition MSRE by demonizing and discrediting Plaintiff Mashak.

459.         Allowing Judges to personally determine whether they were bias or not is a policy ripe for abuse.

460.         Minnesota Judges are allowed to accept up to $149.00 in tips per day from as many people as they want without being required to report it.

461.         Minnesota Judges can take tips over $149.00 per day but have to report them.

462.         The Current Rules of the Minnesota Judiciary allow Judges to accept an unlimited amount of tips each day.

463.         Allowing judges to accept tips is a policy ripe for abuse.

464.         As when the Mob calls an assassination a “hit” it is still an assassination, when Minnesota Judges call a Bribe a tip, it is still a bribe.

465.         Preventing the Constitutionally mandated testimony and submission of evidence to the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees by Plaintiff Mashak and other Minnesota Citizens over the past more than five years was intended to prevent the exposure of the criminal corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

466.         Plaintiff Mashak has been denied his rights to a full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of his case as a Plaintiff against Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull.

467.         Plaintiff has been denied his right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication in retaliation by the various Defendants for daring to attempt to exercise his Constitution 1^st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Grievances relating to Corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

468.         The bias and injustice that Plaintiff Mashak has experienced in the Minnesota Courts is illegal retaliation for daring to hold a corrupt Minnesota Judiciary accountable.

469.         The motive of the Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice is to punish Don Mashak for attempting to exercise his Constitutional First Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances especially as it relates to Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability;

470.         A goal of the Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice is to demonize and discredit Plaintiff Mashak in his continuing efforts for Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability by giving credibility to Defendant Dannette Meeks-Hulls false vile sexual allegations about Plaintiff Mashak.

471.         False allegations of a sexual nature is a well known tactic recognized in the legal community as desperate response of female criminal Defendants in attempting to defend against real criminal allegations, when the accuser is a male.

472.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court and Defendant Yunker unlawfully prevented Plaintiff Mashak from amending his complaint because it contained claim referencing a Statute nullifying the Defendant Meeks-Hull’s harassment restraining order:

COUNT FOUR - Abuse of Process

473.                        Plaintiff realleges and reincorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -472

474.                        Defendants alleged in said action that Mashak was stalking them and engaging in harassing behavior toward them;

475.                        Mashak had engaged in no such activity against the Defendants and in fact was merely attempting to lawfully utilize the court system to seek lawful redress against said Defendants;

476.                         Defendants on the other hand improperly abused the court system to wrongfully obtain harassment relief in an attempt to thwart Mashak's lawful attempt to seek legal redress;

477.                        The harassment statutes were not intended to act as a shield against justified litigation; rather, they are intended to prevent a person or persons from engaging in harassing activities as defined by the statutes;

478.                        In obtaining the harassment order in this matter Plaintiff wrongfully engaged in perjury and misrepresentation;

479.                        As a result of Plaintiff ' abuse of process the harassment order issued, which has caused damages to Mashak in excess of $50,000;

480.                        In addition to monetary damages incurred by Mashak, the findings in the harassment action and resultant order continue to inflict great harm and damage to the Plaintiff' business and personal reputations;

481.                        The only way to rectify the prior and continuing damage is to vacate the harassment order in its entirety and to expunge the proceeding;

Statutory authority for the vacation and expungement of the harassment order is set forth in Minn. Stat. §548.14,

"Any judgment obtained in a court of record by means of perjury, subornation of perjury, or any fraudulent act, practice, or representation of the prevailing party, may be set aside in an action brought for that purpose by the aggrieved party in the same judicial district within three years after the discovery by the aggrieved party of such perjury or fraud. In such action the court may either enjoin the enforcement of the judgment or command the satisfaction thereof, may compel the party procuring the same to restore any property received by virtue thereof, and may make such other or further order or judgment as justice shall require; but no right or interest of a third party acquired under such judgment in good faith, and without knowledge of the wrong complained of, shall be affected by the action herein provided for; provided, if during the pendency of such action the enforcement of such judgment or an action thereon shall become barred by the statute of limitations, and such judgment is sustained, the same may be enforced, or an action commenced thereon, within one year after such action is finally determined. "

Mashak seeks said vacation and expungement herein;

482.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court represented to Plaintiff Mashak that he would receive a full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication as Plaintiff against Defendant Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull.

483.         The Minnesota Judiciary did not give Plaintiff full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of the matter of Plaintiff vs Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull;

484.         The Minnesota Judiciary intentionally did not give Plaintiff full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of Plaintiff vs Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull;

485.         The Minnesota Supreme Court induced Plaintiff Mashak into paying hundreds of dollars in fees based on the representation the Minnesota Court would give Plaintiff full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of the matter at hand;

486.         There is a standing Quid Pro Quo arrangement in the Minnesota Judiciary that Judges will cover for the misdeeds of other Judges whenever possible.

487.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court entered into a conspiracy with the other Defendants when its agents sought to fix the outcome of the litigation to a result unfavorable for Plaintiff.

488.         In the alternative to criminal Conspiracy, Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court was negligent in the oversight of its employees who fixed said case against the interest of Plaintiff.

489.         Various Citizens contacted Defendant Chief Judge Bloomquist regarding issues with Co-Defendant Judge Yunker in which Don Mashak was a Plaintiff in August, September and November of 2010.

490.         Defendant Judge Bloomquist indicated he was only an administrative Judge and could do nothing about any of the complaints with Judge Yunker.

491.         Defendant Judge Bloomquist was erroneous in his statements to Plaintiff Mashak.

492.         As the 10^th Judicial District Chief Judge, Defendant Bloomquist did have the authority to contact Judge Yunker and facilitate issuing of the new Scheduling order once it was more than 30 days from when originally promised.

493.         As the 10^th Judicial District Chief Judge, Defendant Bloomquist did have the authority to make sure that Plaintiff were being given access to timely hearings.

494.         Having a Judge hear and determine for themselves if they have acted in a biased matter is counter-intuitive given human nature.

495.         Defendant Judge Yunker’s handling of Plaintiff case clearly demonstrates that she was biased against Plaintiff.

496.         Defendant Judge Bloomquist’s refusal to instruct Judge Yunker to issue a scheduling order which had not been issued for more than 30 days demonstrates his complicity in the criminal conspiracy.

497.         There is written correspondence between Mark Olson and Plaintiff Mashak that the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 was cancelled by the Court.

498.         There is written documentation on the Court Computer system that the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 was cancelled by agreement of Attorney Mark Olson.

499.         Attorney Mark Olson has denied to Plaintiff Don Mashak that he agreed to cancel the hearing scheduled on or about September 16, 2010 stating it was sole decision of the Court.

500.         There is an irreconcilable conflict between what Mark Olson and the Court Computers say in writing is the reason the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 was cancelled.

501.         The hearing scheduled on or about September 16, 2010 was canceled to prevent Plaintiff from compelling discovery and amending their complaint.

502.         Plaintiff had a Right to Hearings to resolve Discovery Issues, to Amend their complaint and for other legitimate Motion practice in a timely manner before the December 17, 2010 deadline.

503.         The Court had a duty to extend the December 17, 2010 deadline if it could not hold a timely hearing before said deadline so as to allow Motion practice to Compel Discovery, Resolve Deposition issues, to amend the complaint, to allow evidence to be put on the record and for other necessary motion practice.

504.         The Court refused to set any hearings, not even a teleconference, from September 30, 2010 to after its own, self imposed, December 17, 2010 Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline.

505.         Defendants Yunker, Bloomquist, Wolfgram and Longrie colluded to fix the outcome of this case to be unfavorable to Plaintiff Mashak;

506.         Defendants Yunker, Bloomquist, Wolfgram and Longrie colluded to fix the outcome of Plaintiff case at the direction of Representatives of the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Supreme Court.

507.         Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull testimony was false and only fabricated in an attempt to defend against Plaintiff legitimate causes of action that they had stole money and property, et. al. from Plaintiff, while Plaintiff Mashak was on vacation out of the Country.

508.         The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Courts had to criminally conspire to obstruct justice by keeping evidence of Plaintiff off the record because said evidence devastated the fraudulent testimony of Defendant Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull.

509.         The term “Suspensed Motions”, as used by Defendant Judge Yunker, are not defined in the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Minnesota General Rules of Practice.

510.         Using the term “suspensed motions” was a means of “telegraphing” and/or otherwise discreetly communicating to Plaintiff Attorney Wolfgram that Judge Yunker did not want the motions so labeled and the evidence contained therein, heard and made part of the record.

511.         Any attorney acting to a reasonable level of proficiency would know that serving an Amended Complaint after a Discovery Deadline would allow the target of the Discovery to object to Discovery as “irrelevant” or “beyond the scope” if they were not relevant to the causes of action contained in the complaint in effect at the time the Discovery was answered.

512.         Manipulating Discovery and which evidence gets on the official Court record are techniques commonly used by the Minnesota Courts and lawyers to fix cases.

513.         An objective of the Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice was to “fix” the outcome of the litigation by preventing Plaintiff from having Discovery and by preventing Plaintiff’ from entering evidence on the official record.

514.         As part of the ongoing, systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary, Judicial District Chief Judges in Minnesota routinely deny or fail to resolve complaints that Citizens have with Judges.

515.         Defendant Judge Bloomquist’s aiding and abetting of Judge Yunker in preventing Plaintiff Discovery and entry of evidence by Plaintiff on the official record were his contributions to the conspiracy to obstruct justice.

516.         It is unlawful and unconstitutional for any part of the Minnesota Judicial System to deny Plaintiff their Right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation they bring before the any State Court.

517.         It is offensive, unlawful and unconstitutional to deprive Plaintiff Mashak of his right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation he brings before any State Court for any reason.

518.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules of the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that an attorney can participate in “fixing” the outcome of a particular case with little or no risk of great punishment.

519.         A Quid Pro Quo arrangement exists between Judges and Lawyers of Litigants whereby if Lawyers follow the lead of Judges in acquiring the outcome of the case the Judge desires, the Lawyer receives Kudos and other consideration.

520.         If a Lawyer does not follow the lead of a Judge in shaping any particular litigation to the outcome the Judge desires, said attorney is “black listed” in the Legal Community.

521.         Judges, through the Minnesota Supreme Court, Control the Licenses and Discipline of Minnesota Attorneys.

522.         Because of the vagaries associated with the execution of the duties of licensing and disciplining of Attorneys by Judges, Attorneys must be mindful of the subtle requests and directives of any Minnesota Judge.

523.         For a variety of reasons, Minnesota Attorneys are more loyal to Judges they appear before than to the Clients they allegedly are required to they represent to the best of their ability.

524.         Plaintiff’ attorneys were more loyal to the Court than they were to either of their two clients, Plaintiff Mashak and Plaintiff First National Repossessors, Inc.

525.         Plaintiff attorneys did not represent Plaintiff to the best of their abilities.

526.         The Purpose of suppressing Discovery, Motions and the submission of evidence on the record in Plaintiff’ litigation against Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull was to prevent discovery of the corruption in the Minnesota judiciary by Demonizing and Discrediting Plaintiff Mashak;

527.         There is a Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice which involves demonizing and discrediting Plaintiff Mashak in any litigation he brings before a Minnesota Court.

528.         The Minnesota Supreme Court participated in attempting to demonize and discredit Don Mashak by allowing Judge Yunker to fix the outcome of this case against the best interests of Plaintiff.

529.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that it is almost impossible for anyone to sustain even a legitimate complaint against a judge;

530.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that the Board of Judicial Standards does not have jurisdiction over and/or the ability to take action to resolve complaints Citizens have about Judges;

531.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court knew that mishandling of Plaintiff Mashak’s case would likely have severe medical and psychological impact upon Plaintiff Mashak;

532.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court knew that Plaintiff Mashak’s main concern regarding this litigation was restoring his reputation.

533.         The Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards most often tells persons with Complaints about Minnesota Judges that their sole recourse is to appeal;

534.         Most persons who have complaints about Minnesota Judges lack the resources to appeal matters related to complaints against Minnesota Judges.

535.         Minnesota Attorneys often rely upon the clients’ ignorance of the law and trust in their lawyers to fix court cases without their clients realizing what has happened.

536.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court purposely ignored complaints about Judge Yunker by Don Mashak detrimental to Plaintiff’ legal position and inconsistent with the Rule of Law.

537.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court acted outside the Rule of Law in the manner in which it handled Plaintiff’ complaints;

538.         Defendant Judge Bloomquist’s representation that he could not address Plaintiff Mashak’s complaints about Judge Junker were in whole or in part, false.

539.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court knows that as more time goes by with Plaintiff name impugned by the “fixed” decision, the less likely Plaintiff will ever be to restore their good names.

540.         Other persons, including but not limited to your Co-Defendants and/or their representatives, “telegraphed” or otherwise communicated to you the result they would like to see this matter have.

541.         Judge Yunker has been accused of and demonstrated to have misstated the facts in cases in the past.

542.         The State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Supreme Court and Judge Bloomquist did not properly oversee State Employee Mary Yunker.

543.         Minnesota Judges often have their staff discreetly make communications that are otherwise forbidden by the Rules and Law.

544.         The Minnesota Supreme Court relies on propaganda and censorship to create the perspective that there is little or no corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

545.         Minnesota Lawyers are more loyal to the Judges they appear before than their own paying Clients.

546.         Court appointed Public Defenders are more loyal to the Courts than they are to persons they represent.

547.         The bias and corruption Plaintiff Mashak is experiencing is an extension of the original criminal Conspiracy where Minnesota Bankers Wrongfully repossessed vehicles from 150-200 innocent Minnesota families.

548.         In the early 1990’s the Minnesota Attorney General told Plaintiff Mashak they could do nothing about witness tampering and death threats because 1^st National Bank of Anoka, NA was a nationally organized bank.

549.         The Minnesota Attorney General was incorrect in telling Plaintiff Mashak that they could not investigate Plaintiff Mashak’s allegations of witness tampering and death threats only because 1^st National Bank of Anoka, NA was a nationally organized bank.

550.         The retaliation that Plaintiff Mashak is experiencing is the result of the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Supreme trying to cover up their involvement in allowing a bank to wrongfully repossess vehicles from innocent Minnesota Citizens.

551.         Defendants are aiding and abetting the bankers’ promises to destroy Plaintiff Mashak’s life if he testified and/or provided evidence against the bankers.

552.         Plaintiff Mashak was forced to accept $15000.00 in settlement of litigation he brought in the early 1990’sor risk being killed.

553.         Based on the facts shown here http://bit.ly/gyrDjZ  and contained in Hennepin County MN Court files 93 – 016429, 27CV88-22383 and 91-002759;

employees and officers of 1^st National Bank of Anoka, NA and other bankers should have been prosecuted by the Minnesota Attorney General and the innocent Minnesota families that had their vehicle wrongfully repossessed should have been made whole.

554.         Judge John Sommerville, Judge Kevin Burke and the Minnesota Attorney General should have at least forced the subject bankers to rescind their death threats towards Plaintiff Don Mashak.

555.         Plaintiff Don Mashak has been forced to live with an unrescinded death threat for 20 years or longer.

556.         Then US Minnesota Attorney David Lillehaug and Senator Chief of Staff Jeff Blodgett decided that a large contribution to a deceased Minnesota US Senator was more important than the justice of making the 150-200 innocent Minnesota Citizens whole.

557.         Then US Minnesota Attorney David Lillehaug and Senator Chief of Staff Jeff Blodgett decided that a large contribution to a now deceased US Senator was more important than investigating charges of witness tampering and death threats relating to this matter.

558.         Defendants have resorted to threats and coercion to repress those attempting to exercise their Constitutional Right to petition the Government for Redress of Grievances;

559.         Representatives of the Conspiracy have bragged that they have destroyed Plaintiff Mashak’s creditability and reputation and reduced him to the status of “bungling eccentric”;

560.         The Minnesota Supreme Courts unlawful manipulation of the courts to attempt to repress Don Mashak’s voice of political dissent was unlawful and unconstitutional;

561.         The Minnesota Judicial System denied Plaintiff’ Discovery, Depositions and the right put evidence on the record and the right to amend their complaint. 

562.         The Minnesota Supreme Court through their agency, the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards allowed Attorney Joe O’Brien to keep Plaintiff’ case file for 3 months for the purpose of exhausting Plaintiff Mashak physically, psychologically and financially.

563.         Minnesota Drivers who do not submit to sobriety tests have their Driver’s license immediately revoked.

564.          The Minnesota Supreme Court has no similar Rule revoking a lawyer’s license if they fail to return a client’s files with a reasonable period of time.

565.         Attorney Mark Olson gave a written reason for the hearing on or about September 16, 2010 being canceled as being the Court Cancelled it.

566.         The Court Computers say that Plaintiff’ Attorney Mark Olson wanted to cancel the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010.

567.         The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Supreme Court rely upon the ability of Lawyers to fix Court cases.

568.         The greater loyalty Lawyers have to Judges rather than clients is a result of both the written and unwritten rules put in place by the Minnesota Legislature and the Minnesota Supreme Court.

569.         The Minnesota Supreme Court is responsible for the licensing and disciplining Minnesota lawyers.

570.         The Standard of Integrity for the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Supreme Court is “Plausible Deniability”

571.         The State of Minnesota and Minnesota Supreme Court are making an example out of Plaintiff Mashak for anyone else who would dare to be critical of them.

572.         Minnesota Lawyers fix Court cases by betraying the trust of their clients and relying on the fact that most clients do not understand the fundamentals of how the judicial system is supposed to work.

573.         It is a strategy of the Minnesota Supreme Court to punish and repress persons who dissent politically by making their court experiences unnecessarily lengthy, tedious and expensive.

574.         The Minnesota Judiciary retaliates against citizens who exercise their right to petition for redress of grievances by scheming to make it more difficult for them to prevail in any litigation they happen to be involved in.

575.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has actively unlawfully and unconstitutionally worked to prevent the transparency and accountability that testimony and evidence of Judicial Corruption and/or Abuse of Power presented to either the Minnesota House and/or Senate Judiciary Committees would bring.

576.         There is an unwritten rule that provides for retaliation and ostracism for attorneys that run against incumbent Minnesota Judges.

577.         With regard to Child Support issues, the Minnesota Judiciary has a greater propensity to make rulings enhancing the revenues to the State of Minnesota and/or its agencies rather than the best interests and/or requests of the family.

578.         The Rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court allow Minnesota Judges to ignore their own rules and Minnesota Statutes.

579.         Minnesota Judges are not randomly assigned to Court Cases.

580.         As the result of activity of Court Personnel anticipating which Judge is next up in the Computer rotation and waiting to submit a case when the desired judge is next up in the rotation,  a particular judge can be assured a particular case.

581.         Records of all complaints regarding Minnesota Judges and the results of subsequent investigations and disciplinary actions should be a matter of public record so Minnesota Citizens can make informed voting decisions in meaningful, contested Judicial Elections.

582.         Minnesota Judges regularly tamper with transcripts and evidence.

583.         Judicial Immunity is a policy ripe for abuse.

584.         Judicial Immunity does not apply to deliberate criminal acts.

585.         The failure of the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Minnesota Attorney General and the MN US Attorney to force the bankers that threatened Don Mashak with death if he testified to rescind their death threat, is a breach of the Social Contract.

586.         It is more important to the Minnesota Judiciary and the State of Minnesota that one wealthy banker to gets deny his involvement in criminal activities and boast to the world that their grand child sitting on their lap will be a future leader than it is to provide justice to 150-200 innocent Minnesota families that had their vehicles wrongfully repossessed.

587.         The Minnesota Judiciary has departed from its own rules and standard practices in the case of Plaintiff vs Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull.

588.         2 years and $16000 should have been enough to get 2 depositions done.

589.         The Minnesota Constitution calls for the Minnesota Legislature to oversee the Minnesota Judiciary.

590.         The State of Minnesota has actively participated in the conspiracy to cover up the Corruption in the Minnesota Judicial System.

591.         The State of Minnesota has actively participated in the conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff Mashak of his right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation he is involved in before the Minnesota Judicial System.

592.         The Minnesota Legislature has unconstitutionally abdicated its duty to oversee and discipline the Minnesota Judiciary to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

593.         The Minnesota Legal system should form an unbiased Citizens’ Grand Jury to investigate Plaintiff Mashak’s allegations.

594.         It is a reasonable to assume that any Government Body that would kill the Constitutional Rights of its Citizens for 6 years would also resort to threats and coercion to repress those attempting to exercise their Constitutional Right to petition the Government for Redress of Grievances.

595.         All of what I have previously described in the preceding paragraphs give rise in the Minnesota Public to the appearance of impropriety in the Minnesota Judiciary.

596.         Demonizing and Discrediting the leaders of Political dissent is a common practice of American Government [See FBI COINTELPRO Rev. Dr. MLK Jr. http://bit.ly/Fdy8 ]

END PARAGRAPHS ONLY DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT STATE OF MINNESOTA

THIS SECTION OF PARAGRAPHS ONLY DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT

597.         The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights is a Social Contract between the Government of the United State of America and, WE THE PEOPLE, the Citizens of the United States;

598.         The Founding Fathers of the United States of America (hereafter “USA”) incorporated their belief in Natural Law and Natural Rights into the USA Constitution and Declaration of Independence with their reference to “unalienable Rights”

599.          In Entering into the Social Contract which is the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights, WE THE PEOPLE, give up some our Freedom and agree to be Bound by Rules and Laws of the Government that we can live in a more harmonious Society.

600.         The Founding Fathers of the United States of America built Checks and Balances, Transparency and Accountability in the anticipation of nature of mankind in not being virtuous.

601.         Since the ratification of the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights the USA Government has passed or made numerous laws and rules which tend to constrain the checks, balances, transparency and accountability that the Founding Fathers intended.

602.         Failure of the Government to protect, enforce or ensure the inalienable Rights of anyone of WE THE PEOPLE, except in times of declared emergency or as the result of a official finding of criminal guilt, is a breach of the Social Contract.

603.         The Minnesota Constitution is a Social Contract between the Government of Minnesota and, WE THE PEOPLE, the Citizens of Minnesota;

604.         Over time, Minnesota judges and other elected officials have passed legislation and rules reducing their transparency and accountability to WE THE PEOPLE.

605.         The Rules for the Minnesota Judiciary are written from a perspective of protecting Minnesota Judges from Citizen Complaints rather than protecting Citizens from Judges who are corrupt or Abuse their power.

606.         Denying Citizens their right to Petition the Government for redress of Grievances is unconstitutional and a Breach of the Social Contract.

607.         The ability of the Citizens to be able to fully and feely Petition their Government without actual retaliation, or threat of retaliation, is a cornerstone of our Representative Constitutional Republic.

608.         All legislation regarding the Minnesota Judiciary begins in either the Minnesota House or Senate Judiciary Committees.

609.         A lawyer is an officer of the Court and also a State Office Title position.

610.         No Citizen is allowed to hold more than one State Office Title Position at any one time..

611.         Lawyers who become Legislators and/or other elected officials must give up their State Lawyer Office position upon being elected to not be in violation of the “one state office position only at any given time” rule.

612.         Lawyers who are the Chairpersons for the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees often act to prevent the hearing and passage of legislation that the Minnesota Supreme Court opposes.

613.         It is a standard practice of both major political parties to have a lawyer be the Chair of at least one of the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees so they can effectively block passage of any legislation the Minnesota Supreme Court opposes.

614.         The Minnesota Supreme Court often lobbies the Minnesota Legislature on Judicial Matters.

615.         The Minnesota Supreme Court Lobbies the Minnesota Legislature for legislation in its best interests.

616.         The Minnesota Supreme Court Lobbies the Minnesota Legislature against legislation that would make the Minnesota Judiciary more transparent and accountable.

617.         The Lobbying of the Minnesota Legislature by the Minnesota Supreme Court gives rise to a public perception of impropriety.

618.         During the past five years, The Minnesota Supreme Court has lobbied the Minnesota Legislature to not permit Minnesota Citizens to Petition for redress of Grievances concerning corruption and abuse of power in the Minnesota Judiciary.

619.         The Lobbying of the Minnesota Legislature by the Minnesota Supreme Court gives rise to a public perception that Minnesota Legislature is compromised and derelict in its duty to act as a check and balance on the Minnesota Supreme Court.

620.         The Lobbying of the Minnesota Legislature by the Minnesota Supreme Court gives rise to a public perception that Minnesota Legislature is compromised and derelict in its duty to oversee and discipline the Minnesota Supreme Court.

621.         The Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct says: “Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives.  They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.”

622.         Having Attorneys, whose licenses and discipline are subject to the vagaries of Judges, hold chairperson positions in Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees gives rise to the public perception of impropriety in the Judiciary.

623.         Corruption is Systemic in the Minnesota Judiciary.

624.         The wording of the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards have been deliberately crafted to artificially suppress the public perception of the extent of the corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

625.         The Minnesota Legislature and the Minnesota Supreme Court refuse to allow all complaints about judges to be seen by all the Citizens of the State of Minnesota.

626.         The number of complaints each judge receives and the number of complaints that are sustained would be good information for Minnesota voters to have when voting for Judges.

627.         The wording of the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards has been deliberately crafted to suppress the public’s awareness of the true extent of the corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

628.         The wording of the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards has been deliberately crafted to prohibit the Board from acting at all or to otherwise make it difficult for a Citizen to sustain a finding of wrongdoing against a Minnesota Judge.

629.         Minnesota Government Administrative Judges are exempt from jurisdiction of the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board. (unemployment, workman’s compensation, etc)

630.         The wording of the rules for the Minnesota Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility Board have been deliberately crafted to suppress the public’s awareness of the true extent of the corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

631.         The wording of the Rules for the Minnesota Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility Board have been deliberately crafted to prohibit the Board from acting or otherwise make it difficult for a Citizen to sustain a finding of wrongdoing against a Minnesota attorney.

632.         The findings by the Quie Commission that there is little or no corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary are false.

633.         Merit Selection Retention Elections (hereafter “MSRE”) make Minnesota Judges less accountable to the Citizens of the State of Minnesota.

634.         The bias and injustice that Plaintiff Mashak is suffering at the hands of the Minnesota Judiciary is ruthless strategy to undermine Plaintiff Mashak’s opposition MSRE by demonizing and discrediting Plaintiff Mashak.

635.         Allowing Judges to personally determine whether they were bias or not is a policy ripe for abuse.

636.         Minnesota Judges are allowed to accept up to $149.00 in tips per day from as many people as they want without being required to report it.

637.         Minnesota Judges can take tips over $149.00 per day but have to report them.

638.         The Current Rules of the Minnesota Judiciary allow Judges to accept an unlimited amount of tips each day.

639.         Allowing judges to accept tips is a policy ripe for abuse.

640.         As when the Mob calls an assassination a “hit” it is still an assassination, when Minnesota Judges call a Bribe a tip, it is still a bribe.

641.         Preventing the Constitutionally mandated testimony and submission of evidence to the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees by Plaintiff Mashak and other Minnesota Citizens over the past more than five years was intended to prevent the exposure of the criminal corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

642.         Plaintiff Mashak has been denied his rights to a full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of his case as a Plaintiff against Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull.

643.         Plaintiff has been denied his right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication in retaliation by the various Defendants for daring to attempt to exercise his Constitution 1^st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Grievances relating to Corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

644.         The bias and injustice that Plaintiff Mashak has experienced in the Minnesota Courts is illegal retaliation for daring to hold a corrupt Minnesota Judiciary accountable.

645.         The motive of the Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice is to punish Don Mashak for attempting to exercise his Constitutional First Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances especially as it relates to Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability;

646.         A goal of the Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice is to demonize and discredit Plaintiff Mashak in his continuing efforts for Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability by giving credibility to Defendant Dannette Meeks-Hulls false vile sexual allegations about Plaintiff Mashak.

647.         False allegations of a sexual nature is a well known tactic recognized in the legal community as desperate response of female criminal Defendants in attempting to defend against real criminal allegations, when the accuser is a male.

648.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court and Defendant Yunker unlawfully prevented Plaintiff Mashak from amending his complaint because it contained claim referencing a Statute nullifying the Defendant Meeks-Hull’s harassment restraining order:

COUNT FOUR - Abuse of Process

649.                        Plaintiff reallege and reincorporates by reference, paragraphs 1 -648

650.                        Defendants alleged in said action that Mashak was stalking them and engaging in harassing behavior toward them;

651.                        Mashak had engaged in no such activity against the Defendants and in fact was merely attempting to lawfully utilize the court system to seek lawful redress against said Defendants;

652.                         Defendants on the other hand improperly abused the court system to wrongfully obtain harassment relief in an attempt to thwart Mashak's lawful attempt to seek legal redress;

653.                        The harassment statutes were not intended to act as a shield against justified litigation; rather, they are intended to prevent a person or persons from engaging in harassing activities as defined by the statutes;

654.                        In obtaining the harassment order in this matter Plaintiff wrongfully engaged in perjury and misrepresentation;

655.                        As a result of Plaintiff ' abuse of process the harassment order issued, which has caused damages to Mashak in excess of $50,000;

656.                        In addition to monetary damages incurred by Mashak, the findings in the harassment action and resultant order continue to inflict great harm and damage to the Plaintiff' business and personal reputations;

657.                        The only way to rectify the prior and continuing damage is to vacate the harassment order in its entirety and to expunge the proceeding;

Statutory authority for the vacation and expungement of the harassment order is set forth in Minn. Stat. §548.14,

"Any judgment obtained in a court of record by means of perjury, subornation of perjury, or any fraudulent act, practice, or representation of the prevailing party, may be set aside in an action brought for that purpose by the aggrieved party in the same judicial district within three years after the discovery by the aggrieved party of such perjury or fraud. In such action the court may either enjoin the enforcement of the judgment or command the satisfaction thereof, may compel the party procuring the same to restore any property received by virtue thereof, and may make such other or further order or judgment as justice shall require; but no right or interest of a third party acquired under such judgment in good faith, and without knowledge of the wrong complained of, shall be affected by the action herein provided for; provided, if during the pendency of such action the enforcement of such judgment or an action thereon shall become barred by the statute of limitations, and such judgment is sustained, the same may be enforced, or an action commenced thereon, within one year after such action is finally determined. "

Mashak seeks said vacation and expungement herein;

658.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court represented to Plaintiff Mashak that he would receive a full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication as Plaintiff against Defendant Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull.

659.         The Minnesota Judiciary did not give Plaintiff full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of the matter of Plaintiff vs Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull;

660.         The Minnesota Judiciary intentionally did not give Plaintiff full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of Plaintiff vs Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull;

661.         The Minnesota Supreme Court induced Plaintiff Mashak into paying hundreds of dollars in fees based on the representation the Minnesota Court would give Plaintiff full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of the matter at hand;

662.         There is a standing Quid Pro Quo arrangement in the Minnesota Judiciary that Judges will cover for the misdeeds of other Judges whenever possible.

663.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court entered into a conspiracy with the other Defendants when its agents sought to fix the outcome of the litigation to a result unfavorable for Plaintiff.

664.         In the alternative to criminal Conspiracy, Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court was negligent in the oversight of its employees who fixed said case against the interest of Plaintiff.

665.         Various Citizens contacted Defendant Chief Judge Bloomquist regarding issues with Co-Defendant Judge Yunker in which Don Mashak was a Plaintiff in August, September and November of 2010.

666.         Defendant Judge Bloomquist indicated he was only an administrative Judge and could do nothing about any of the complaints with Judge Yunker.

667.         Defendant Judge Bloomquist was erroneous in his statements to Plaintiff Mashak.

668.         As the 10^th Judicial District Chief Judge, Defendant Bloomquist did have the authority to contact Judge Yunker and facilitate issuing of the new Scheduling order once it was more than 30 days from when originally promised.

669.         As the 10^th Judicial District Chief Judge, Defendant Bloomquist did have the authority to make sure that Plaintiff were being given access to timely hearings.

670.         Having a Judge hear and determine for themselves if they have acted in a biased matter is counter-intuitive given human nature.

671.         Defendant Judge Yunker’s handling of Plaintiff case clearly demonstrates that she was biased against Plaintiff.

672.         Defendant Judge Bloomquist’s refusal to instruct Judge Yunker to issue a scheduling order which had not been issued for more than 30 days demonstrates his complicity in the criminal conspiracy.

673.         There is written correspondence between Mark Olson and Plaintiff Mashak that the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 was cancelled by the Court.

674.         There is written documentation on the Court Computer system that the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 was cancelled by agreement of Attorney Mark Olson.

675.         Attorney Mark Olson has denied to Plaintiff Don Mashak that he agreed to cancel the hearing scheduled on or about September 16, 2010 stating it was sole decision of the Court.

676.         There is an irreconcilable conflict between what Mark Olson and the Court Computers say in writing is the reason the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 was cancelled.

677.         The hearing scheduled on or about September 16, 2010 was canceled to prevent Plaintiff from compelling discovery and amending their complaint.

678.         Plaintiff had a Right to Hearings to resolve Discovery Issues, to Amend their complaint and for other legitimate Motion practice in a timely manner before the December 17, 2010 deadline.

679.         The Court had a duty to extend the December 17, 2010 deadline if it could not hold a timely hearing before said deadline so as to allow Motion practice to Compel Discovery, Resolve Deposition issues, to amend the complaint, to allow evidence to be put on the record and for other necessary motion practice.

680.         The Court refused to set any hearings, not even a teleconference, from September 30, 2010 to after its own, self imposed, December 17, 2010 Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline.

681.         Defendants Yunker, Bloomquist, Wolfgram and Longrie colluded to fix the outcome of this case to be unfavorable to Plaintiff Mashak;

682.         Defendants Yunker, Bloomquist, Wolfgram and Longrie colluded to fix the outcome of Plaintiff case at the direction of Representatives of the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Supreme Court.

683.         Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull testimony was false and only fabricated in an attempt to defend against Plaintiff legitimate causes of action that they had stole money and property, et. al. from Plaintiff, while Plaintiff Mashak was on vacation out of the Country.

684.         The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Courts had to criminally conspire to obstruct justice by keeping evidence of Plaintiff off the record because said evidence devastated the fraudulent testimony of Defendant Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull.

685.         The term “Suspensed Motions”, as used by Defendant Judge Yunker, are not defined in the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Minnesota General Rules of Practice.

686.         Using the term “suspensed motions” was a means of “telegraphing” and/or otherwise discreetly communicating to Plaintiff Attorney Wolfgram that Judge Yunker did not want the motions so labeled and the evidence contained therein, heard and made part of the record.

687.         Any attorney acting to a reasonable level of proficiency would know that serving an Amended Complaint after a Discovery Deadline would allow the target of the Discovery to object to Discovery as “irrelevant” or “beyond the scope” if they were not relevant to the causes of action contained in the complaint in effect at the time the Discovery was answered.

688.         Manipulating Discovery and which evidence gets on the official Court record are techniques commonly used by the Minnesota Courts and lawyers to fix cases.

689.         An objective of the Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice was to “fix” the outcome of the litigation by preventing Plaintiff from having Discovery and by preventing Plaintiff’ from entering evidence on the official record.

690.         As part of the ongoing, systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary, Judicial District Chief Judges in Minnesota routinely deny or fail to resolve complaints that Citizens have with Judges.

691.         Defendant Judge Bloomquist’s aiding and abetting of Judge Yunker in preventing Plaintiff Discovery and entry of evidence by Plaintiff on the official record were his contributions to the conspiracy to obstruct justice.

692.         It is unlawful and unconstitutional for any part of the Minnesota Judicial System to deny Plaintiff their Right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation they bring before the any State Court.

693.         It is offensive, unlawful and unconstitutional to deprive Plaintiff Mashak of his right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation he brings before any State Court for any reason.

694.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules of the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that an attorney can participate in “fixing” the outcome of a particular case with little or no risk of great punishment.

695.         A Quid Pro Quo arrangement exists between Judges and Lawyers of Litigants whereby if Lawyers follow the lead of Judges in acquiring the outcome of the case the Judge desires, the Lawyer receives Kudos and other consideration.

696.         If a Lawyer does not follow the lead of a Judge in shaping any particular litigation to the outcome the Judge desires, said attorney is “black listed” in the Legal Community.

697.         Judges, through the Minnesota Supreme Court, Control the Licenses and Discipline of Minnesota Attorneys.

698.         Because of the vagaries associated with the execution of the duties of licensing and disciplining of Attorneys by Judges, Attorneys must be mindful of the subtle requests and directives of any Minnesota Judge.

699.         For a variety of reasons, Minnesota Attorneys are more loyal to Judges they appear before than to the Clients they allegedly are required to they represent to the best of their ability.

700.         Plaintiff’ attorneys were more loyal to the Court than they were to either of their two clients, Plaintiff Mashak and Plaintiff First National Repossessors, Inc.

701.         Plaintiff attorneys did not represent Plaintiff to the best of their abilities.

702.         The Purpose of suppressing Discovery, Motions and the submission of evidence on the record in Plaintiff’ litigation against Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull was to prevent discovery of the corruption in the Minnesota judiciary by Demonizing and Discrediting Plaintiff Mashak;

703.         There is a Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice which involves demonizing and discrediting Plaintiff Mashak in any litigation he brings before a Minnesota Court.

704.         The Minnesota Supreme Court participated in attempting to demonize and discredit Don Mashak by allowing Judge Yunker to fix the outcome of this case against the best interests of Plaintiff.

705.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that it is almost impossible for anyone to sustain even a legitimate complaint against a judge;

706.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that the Board of Judicial Standards does not have jurisdiction over and/or the ability to take action to resolve complaints Citizens have about Judges;

707.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court knew that mishandling of Plaintiff Mashak’s case would likely have severe medical and psychological impact upon Plaintiff Mashak;

708.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court knew that Plaintiff Mashak’s main concern regarding this litigation was restoring his reputation.

709.         The Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards most often tells persons with Complaints about Minnesota Judges that their sole recourse is to appeal;

710.         Most persons who have complaints about Minnesota Judges lack the resources to appeal matters related to complaints against Minnesota Judges.

711.         Minnesota Attorneys often rely upon the clients’ ignorance of the law and trust in their lawyers to fix court cases without their clients realizing what has happened.

712.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court purposely ignored complaints about Judge Yunker by Don Mashak detrimental to Plaintiff’ legal position and inconsistent with the Rule of Law.

713.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court acted outside the Rule of Law in the manner in which it handled Plaintiff’ complaints;

714.         Defendant Judge Bloomquist’s representation that he could not address Plaintiff Mashak’s complaints about Judge Junker were in whole or in part, false.

715.         Defendant Minnesota Supreme Court knows that as more time goes by with Plaintiff name impugned by the “fixed” decision, the less likely Plaintiff will ever be to restore their good names.

716.         Other persons, including but not limited to your Co-Defendants and/or their representatives, “telegraphed” or otherwise communicated to you the result they would like to see this matter have.

717.         Judge Yunker has been accused of and demonstrated to have misstated the facts in cases in the past.

718.         The State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Supreme Court and Judge Bloomquist did not properly oversee State Employee Mary Yunker.

719.         Minnesota Judges often have their staff discreetly make communications that are otherwise forbidden by the Rules and Law.

720.         The Minnesota Supreme Court relies on propaganda and censorship to create the perspective that there is little or no corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

721.         Minnesota Lawyers are more loyal to the Judges they appear before than their own paying Clients.

722.         Court appointed Public Defenders are more loyal to the Courts than they are to persons they represent.

723.         The bias and corruption Plaintiff Mashak is experiencing is an extension of the original criminal Conspiracy where Minnesota Bankers Wrongfully repossessed vehicles from 150-200 innocent Minnesota families.

724.         In the early 1990’s the Minnesota Attorney General told Plaintiff Mashak they could do nothing about witness tampering and death threats because 1^st National Bank of Anoka, NA was a nationally organized bank.

725.         The Minnesota Attorney General was incorrect in telling Plaintiff Mashak that they could not investigate Plaintiff Mashak’s allegations of witness tampering and death threats only because 1^st National Bank of Anoka, NA was a nationally organized bank.

726.         The retaliation that Plaintiff Mashak is experiencing is the result of the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Supreme trying to cover up their involvement in allowing a bank to wrongfully repossess vehicles from innocent Minnesota Citizens.

727.         Defendants are aiding and abetting the bankers’ promises to destroy Plaintiff Mashak’s life if he testified and/or provided evidence against the bankers.

728.         Plaintiff Mashak was forced to accept $15000.00 in settlement of litigation he brought in the early 1990’sor risk being killed.

729.         Based on the facts shown here http://bit.ly/gyrDjZ  and contained in Hennepin County MN Court files 93 – 016429, 27CV88-22383 and 91-002759;

employees and officers of 1^st National Bank of Anoka, NA and other bankers should have been prosecuted by the Minnesota Attorney General and the innocent Minnesota families that had their vehicle wrongfully repossessed should have been made whole.

730.         Judge John Sommerville, Judge Kevin Burke and the Minnesota Attorney General should have at least forced the subject bankers to rescind their death threats towards Plaintiff Don Mashak.

731.         Plaintiff Don Mashak has been forced to live with an unrescinded death threat for 20 years or longer.

732.         Then US Minnesota Attorney David Lillehaug and Senator Chief of Staff Jeff Blodgett decided that a large contribution to a deceased Minnesota US Senator was more important than the justice of making the 150-200 innocent Minnesota Citizens whole.

733.         Then US Minnesota Attorney David Lillehaug and Senator Chief of Staff Jeff Blodgett decided that a large contribution to a now deceased US Senator was more important than investigating charges of witness tampering and death threats relating to this matter.

734.         Defendants have resorted to threats and coercion to repress those attempting to exercise their Constitutional Right to petition the Government for Redress of Grievances;

735.         Representatives of the Conspiracy have bragged that they have destroyed Plaintiff Mashak’s creditability and reputation and reduced him to the status of “bungling eccentric”;

736.         The Minnesota Supreme Courts unlawful manipulation of the courts to attempt to repress Don Mashak’s voice of political dissent was unlawful and unconstitutional;

737.         The Minnesota Judicial System denied Plaintiff’ Discovery, Depositions and the right put evidence on the record and the right to amend their complaint. 

738.         The Minnesota Supreme Court through their agency, the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards allowed Attorney Joe O’Brien to keep Plaintiff’ case file for 3 months for the purpose of exhausting Plaintiff Mashak physically, psychologically and financially.

739.         Minnesota Drivers who do not submit to sobriety tests have their Driver’s license immediately revoked.

740.          The Minnesota Supreme Court has no similar Rule revoking a lawyer’s license if they fail to return a client’s files with a reasonable period of time.

741.         Attorney Mark Olson gave a written reason for the hearing on or about September 16, 2010 being canceled as being the Court Cancelled it.

742.         The Court Computers say that Plaintiff’ Attorney Mark Olson wanted to cancel the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010.

743.         The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Supreme Court rely upon the ability of Lawyers to fix Court cases.

744.         The greater loyalty Lawyers have to Judges rather than clients is a result of both the written and unwritten rules put in place by the Minnesota Legislature and the Minnesota Supreme Court.

745.         The Minnesota Supreme Court is responsible for the licensing and disciplining Minnesota lawyers.

746.         The Standard of Integrity for the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Supreme Court is “Plausible Deniability”

747.         The State of Minnesota and Minnesota Supreme Court are making an example out of Plaintiff Mashak for anyone else who would dare to be critical of them.

748.         Minnesota Lawyers fix Court cases by betraying the trust of their clients and relying on the fact that most clients do not understand the fundamentals of how the judicial system is supposed to work.

749.         It is a strategy of the Minnesota Supreme Court to punish and repress persons who dissent politically by making their court experiences unnecessarily lengthy, tedious and expensive.

750.         The Minnesota Judiciary retaliates against citizens who exercise their right to petition for redress of grievances by scheming to make it more difficult for them to prevail in any litigation they happen to be involved in.

751.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has actively unlawfully and unconstitutionally worked to prevent the transparency and accountability that testimony and evidence of Judicial Corruption and/or Abuse of Power presented to either the Minnesota House and/or Senate Judiciary Committees would bring.

752.         There is an unwritten rule that provides for retaliation and ostracism for attorneys that run against incumbent Minnesota Judges.

753.         With regard to Child Support issues, the Minnesota Judiciary has a greater propensity to make rulings enhancing the revenues to the State of Minnesota and/or its agencies rather than the best interests and/or requests of the family.

754.         The Rules promulgated by the Minnesota Supreme Court allow Minnesota Judges to ignore their own rules and Minnesota Statutes.

755.         Minnesota Judges are not randomly assigned to Court Cases.

756.         As the result of activity of Court Personnel anticipating which Judge is next up in the Computer rotation and waiting to submit a case when the desired judge is next up in the rotation,  a particular judge can be assured a particular case.

757.         Records of all complaints regarding Minnesota Judges and the results of subsequent investigations and disciplinary actions should be a matter of public record so Minnesota Citizens can make informed voting decisions in meaningful, contested Judicial Elections.

758.         Minnesota Judges regularly tamper with transcripts and evidence.

759.         Judicial Immunity is a policy ripe for abuse.

760.         Judicial Immunity does not apply to deliberate criminal acts.

761.         The failure of the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Minnesota Attorney General and the MN US Attorney to force the bankers that threatened Don Mashak with death if he testified to rescind their death threat, is a breach of the Social Contract.

762.         It is more important to the Minnesota Judiciary and the State of Minnesota that one wealthy banker to gets deny his involvement in criminal activities and boast to the world that their grand child sitting on their lap will be a future leader than it is to provide justice to 150-200 innocent Minnesota families that had their vehicles wrongfully repossessed.

763.         The Minnesota Judiciary has departed from its own rules and standard practices in the case of Plaintiff vs Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull.

764.         2 years and $16000 should have been enough to get 2 depositions done.

765.         The Minnesota Constitution calls for the Minnesota Legislature to oversee the Minnesota Judiciary.

766.         The State of Minnesota has actively participated in the conspiracy to cover up the Corruption in the Minnesota Judicial System.

767.         The State of Minnesota has actively participated in the conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff Mashak of his right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation he is involved in before the Minnesota Judicial System.

768.         The Minnesota Legislature has unconstitutionally abdicated its duty to oversee and discipline the Minnesota Judiciary to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

769.         The Minnesota Legal system should form an unbiased Citizens’ Grand Jury to investigate Plaintiff Mashak’s allegations.

770.         It is a reasonable to assume that any Government Body that would kill the Constitutional Rights of its Citizens for 6 years would also resort to threats and coercion to repress those attempting to exercise their Constitutional Right to petition the Government for Redress of Grievances.

771.         All of what I have previously described in the preceding paragraphs give rise in the Minnesota Public to the appearance of impropriety in the Minnesota Judiciary.

772.         Demonizing and Discrediting the leaders of Political dissent is a common practice of American Government [See FBI COINTELPRO Rev. Dr. MLK Jr. http://bit.ly/Fdy8 ]

END PARAGRAPHS DIRECTED ONLY AT MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT

PARAGRAPHS IN THIS SECTION ONLY DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT LONGRIE

773.         Plaintiff Don Mashak retained Defendant Attorney Longrie to represent Plaintiff Don Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc. in litigation against Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull in or about January 2009.

774.         Plaintiff Mashak fully disclosed all the issues with the case at that time;

775.         Plaintiff Mashak also hired Defendant Attorney Longrie represent Plaintiff Mashak in a Bogus harassments Counter-Claim that Defendant Meeks-Hull had interposed as a defense to the original litigation against Defendant Meeks-Hull and Defendant Hull.

776.         Defendant Attorney Longrie assured Plaintiff Mashak that he could well represent Plaintiff in said litigation;

777.         Defendant Attorney Longrie assured Plaintiff Mashak that attorney Longrie would represent Plaintiff Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc to the Best of her ability;

778.         Defendant Attorney Longrie served process for the original litigation upon Defendants Meeks-Hull and Hull.

779.         Defendant Attorney Longrie did not represent Plaintiff to the best of her ability.

780.         Defendant Attorney Longrie intentionally did not Represent Plaintiff to the best of his ability;

781.         Defendant Attorney Longrie induced Plaintiff Mashak into giving her thousands of dollars based on the representation Defendant Attorney Longrie made that he would represent Plaintiff to the best of his ability;

782.         Defendant Attorney Longrie entered into a conspiracy with the other Defendants to cause the outcome of the litigation in this matter to result in an unfavorable outcome for Plaintiff.

783.         Defendant Attorney Longrie did not Amend the Complaint in the manner Plaintiff Mashak requested though she indicated she had;

784.         Defendant Attorney Longrie only redrafted the original complaint rather than add the additional causes of action that Plaintiff Mashak had indicated;

785.         Defendant Attorney Longrie waited to the last minute to tell Plaintiff Mashak she could not attend the Small Claims Court hearing in the original matter;

786.         Defendant Attorney Longrie told Plaintiff Mashak he could not continue the hearing;

787.         In sending Plaintiff Mashak off to small claims Court unrepresented, Defendant Attorney Longrie deliberately left out documents necessary to make the repossession deficiency claim on the 2000 Ford Excursion.

788.         Defendant Attorney Longrie deliberately fixed the outcome of the harassment restraining order to be unfavorable to Plaintiff Mashak by not properly cross-examining Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull.

789.         With regard to the harassment restraining hearing, Defendant Attorney Longrie failed to point out discrepancies and conflicts in the testimony of Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull;

790.         With regard to the harassment restraining hearing, Defendant Attorney Longrie failed to point out to the Court that only persons hired by Plaintiff Mashak to attempt to Serve Process on Meeks-Hull and Hull attempted to contact Meeks-Hull and Hull.

791.         With regard to the harassment restraining hearing, Defendant Attorney Longrie failed to point out that Plaintiff Mashak was only seen at Meeks-Hull and Hull’s former residence after they moved out and then only while attempting to get information to Serve Process upon them.

792.         With regard to the harassment restraining hearing, Defendant Attorney Longrie failed to call Plaintiff Mashak’s witnesses out of order even when told that they had to leave because of other scheduling conflicts.

793.         With regard to the harassment restraining hearing, Defendant Attorney Longrie failed to ask Deanna Mashak questions established she and Plaintiff Mashak’s nieces lived less than 5 miles from and regularly shopped for years at, Dannette Meeks-Hull then employment, Debs Women’s clothing store.

794.         With regard to the harassment restraining hearing, Defendant Attorney Longrie failed to ask Deanna Mashak questions that that directly contradicted allegations of Dannette Meeks-Hull, that Plaintiff Mashak sent Deanna Mashak and his nieces into “Deb’s” to spy while Plaintiff Mashak waited in the parking lot.

795.         Defendant Attorney Longrie and Plaintiff Mashak drafted and agreed upon 50 Requests for Admissions and related Interrogatories and Document Production Requests in late summer of 2009.

796.         Defendant Attorney Longrie never sent the Discovery referred to in the just previous Request for Admissions despite assuring Plaintiff Mashak that she had;

797.         Defendant Attorney Longrie never amended the Complaint to include all the other causes of actions that Plaintiff Mashak discussed with her/

798.         In September and October of 2009, Defendant Attorney Longrie’s voice mail was nearly always full and she did not respond to the emails of Plaintiff Mashak.

799.         As a result of communication issues, Plaintiff Mashak was forced to either drive an hour to her office to see her for an update on the case.

800.         Defendant Attorney Longrie and Judge Yunker colluded to fix the outcome of this case to be unfavorable to Plaintiff Mashak;

801.         Defendant Attorney Longrie failed to advise Plaintiff Mashak of a Rule 11 motion by the lawyer for Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull.

802.         Defendant Attorney Longrie fabricated a letter saying she notified Plaintiff Mashak and had Joe O’Brien put it in the case file;

803.         There is no postage reflecting envelope of the letter Defendant Dianna Longrie alleges she used to notify Plaintiff Mashak of the Rule 11 motion.

804.         It would be normal practice for an attorney to note their calendar of a Dispositive Motion such as an Rule 11 motion, and timely remind their client of the need to respond.

805.         Defendant Attorney Longrie admits she made no phone calls and sent no emails to Plaintiff Mashak to further remind him of the Dispositive Rule 11 motion.

806.         Defendant Attorney Longrie’s failure to send follow up communications to Plaintiff Mashak regarding a urgent Dispositive Rule 11 motion indicates that Defendant Attorney Longrie did not represent Plaintiff Mashak to the best of her ability.

807.         The term “Suspensed Motions”, as used by Judge Yunker, are not defined in the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Minnesota General Rules of Practice.

808.         Manipulating Discovery and which evidence gets on the official Court record are techniques commonly used by the Minnesota Courts to fix cases.

809.         An objective of the Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice was to “fix” the outcome of the litigation by preventing Plaintiff from having Discovery and by preventing Plaintiff’ from entering evidence on the official record.

810.         The motive of the Conspiracy was to punish Don Mashak for attempting to exercise his Constitutional First Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances especially as it relates to Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability;

811.         A goal of the Conspiracy was to demonize and discredit Plaintiff Mashak in his continuing efforts for Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability by giving credibility to Defendant Dannette Meeks-Hulls false vile sexual allegations about Plaintiff Mashak.

812.         False allegations of a sexual nature is a well known tactic recognized in the legal community as desperate response of female criminal Defendants in attempting to defend against real criminal allegations, when the accuser is a male.

813.         Co-Defendant Judge Yunker’s attempts and successes in preventing Plaintiff Discovery and entry of evidence by Plaintiff on the official record were her contributions to the conspiracy;

814.         It is unlawful and unconstitutional for any part of the Minnesota Judicial System to deny Plaintiff their Right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation they brings before the any State Court.

815.         It is more offensive, unlawful and unconstitutional to deprive Plaintiff Mashak of his right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation he brings before any State Court.

816.         The Minnesota Supreme Court have written the Rules of the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that an attorney can participate in “fixing” (unlawfully altering) the outcome of a particular case with little or no risk of great punishment.

817.         A Quid Pro Quo arrangement exists between Judges and Lawyers of Litigants whereby if Lawyers follow the lead of Judges in acquiring the outcome of the case the Judge desires, the Lawyer receives Kudos and other consideration.

818.         If a Lawyer does not follow the lead of a Judge in shaping any particular litigation to the outcome the Judge desires, said attorney is “black listed” in the Legal Community.

819.         Judges, through the Minnesota Supreme Court, Control the Licenses and Discipline of Minnesota Attorneys.

820.         Because of the vagaries associated with the execution of the duties of licensing and disciplining of Attorneys by Judges, Attorneys must be mindful of the subtle requests and directives of any Minnesota Judge.

821.         For a variety of reasons, Minnesota Attorneys are more loyal to Judges they appear before than to the Clients they allegedly are required to they represent to the best of their ability.

822.         Defendant Attorney Longrie was and is more loyal to Judge Yunker than she was to either of his two clients, Plaintiff Mashak and Plaintiff First National Repossessors, Inc.

823.         The Purpose of suppressing Discovery, Motions and the submission of evidence on the record in Plaintiff’ litigation against Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull was to prevent discovery of the corruption in the Minnesota judiciary by Demonizing and Discrediting Plaintiff Mashak;

824.         There is a Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice which involves demonizing and discrediting Plaintiff Mashak in any litigation he brings before a Minnesota Court.

825.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that it is almost impossible for anyone to sustain even a legitimate complaint against a judge;

826.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that the Board of Judicial Standards does not have jurisdiction over and/or the ability to take action to resolve complaints Citizens have about Judges;

827.         Defendant Attorney Longrie knew that his mishandling of Plaintiff Mashak’s case would likely have severe medical and psychological impact upon Plaintiff Mashak;

828.         Defendant Attorney Longrie knew that Plaintiff Mashak’s main concern regarding this litigation was restoring his reputation.

829.         The Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards most often tells persons with Complaints about Minnesota Judges that their sole recourse is to appeal;

830.         Most persons who have complaints about Minnesota Judges lack the resources to appeal matters related to complaints against Minnesota Judges.

831.         Minnesota Attorneys often rely upon the client’s ignorance of the law and trust in their lawyers to fix court cases without their clients knowing.

832.         Defendant Attorney Longrie purposely handled litigation by Plaintiff against Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull in manner detrimental to Plaintiff’ legal position.

833.         Defendant Attorney Longrie gave much bad legal advice to Plaintiff Mashak;

834.         Defendant Attorney Longrie did not represent Plaintiff in good faith.

835.         All the documents necessary for Plaintiff Mashak to prevail on the issue of the repossession deficiency for the 2000 Ford Excursion were contained in the file and documents provided to Defendant Attorney Longrie.

836.         Defendant Attorney Longrie knows that as more time goes by with Plaintiff name impugned by the “fixed” decision, the less likely Plaintiff will ever be to restore their good names.

837.         Persons outside of your office, including but not limited to your Co-Defendants and/or their representatives, “telegraphed” or otherwise communicated to you the result they would like to see this matter have.

838.         From at least September 1, 2099 to October 28, 2009 you did not communicate with Plaintiff Mashak in a manner and frequency required by our contract and the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Ethics.

END PARAGRAPHS ONLY DIRECTED AT DEFENDANT LONGRIE

PARAGRAPHS IN THIS SECTION ONLY DIRECTED AT DEFENDANT YUNKER

839.         Judge Mary Yunker was assigned to the Trial De Novo of Plaintiff Don Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc. in litigation against Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull.

840.         The Court represented to Plaintiff Mashak that he would receive a full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of the matter at hand;

841.         The Court did not give Plaintiff full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of the matters at hand;

842.         The Court intentionally did not give Plaintiff full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of the matters at hand;

843.         The Courts induced Plaintiff Mashak into paying hundreds of dollars in fees based on the representation the Court would give Plaintiff full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of the matter at hand;

844.         Defendant Yunker entered into a conspiracy with the other Defendants to cause the outcome of the litigation in this matter to result in an unfavorable outcome for Plaintiff.

845.         At the 1^st Pretrial hearing on or about July 9, 2010, Judge Yunker refused to give Plaintiff default Judgment even though Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull failed to make any appearance or provide any excuse.

846.         At the hearing, on or about July 9, 2010, the Court said it would retain the originally scheduled trial date of on or about September 16, 2010 as a date reserved to hear discovery motions.

847.         At that same hearing on or about July 9, 2010, Judge Yunker said she would issue a scheduling order reflecting an extension of the various scheduling order  deadlines, including the Discovery Deadline.

848.         After the on or about July 9, 2010 hearing, Defendants Meeks-Hull and Hull retained Counsel.

849.         Defendant Meeks-Hull and Hull new counsel refused to answer Discovery, claiming they had not been informed of the new Discovery Deadline.

850.         Despite repeated requests by Plaintiff, Judge Yunker would not issue the promised, revised Scheduling order nor set a hearing to compel Discovery.

851.         Judge Yunker refused to communicate with Plaintiff’ Attorney Mark Olson for Months from July until on or about September 1, 2010.

852.         On or about September 1, 2010, the Court advised Plaintiff Attorney, Mark Olson, that the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 was cancelled due to scheduling Conflict.

853.         On or about September 1, 2010 Defense served a Motion for Rule 11 Summary Judgment upon Plaintiff.

854.         Judge Yunker cancelled the hearing Scheduled on or about September 16, 2010, in an attempt to fix the outcome of this matter by denying Plaintiff Discovery and to prevent Plaintiff from getting evidence on the official Record.

855.         In or near the month of September 2010, Judge Yunker “telegraphed” or otherwise indicated to Plaintiff’ attorney Mark Olson that the Court wanted this matter fixed adversely against Plaintiff.

856.         From the point that Judge Yunker indicated to Plaintiff attorney that the Court wanted this matter fixed, a conflict in how the case should proceed erupted between Plaintiff Mashak and Plaintiff attorney Mark Olson.

857.         There is written correspondence between Mark Olson and Plaintiff Mashak that the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 was cancelled by the Court.

858.         There is written documentation on the Court Computer system that the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 was cancelled by agreement of Attorney Mark Olson.

859.         There is an irreconcilable conflict between what Mark Olson and the Court Computers say in writing is the reason the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 was cancelled.

860.         Judge Yunker did not enter a new Scheduling order until on or about September 30, 2010.

861.         On September 29, 2010, Judge Yunker set a Discovery and Dispositive Motion deadline of December 17, 2010

862.         From September 30, 2010 until December 29, 2010, The Court would not set a hearing for a motion for Plaintiff’ to Amend their Complaint;

863.         From September 30, 2010 until December 29, 2010, The Court would not set a hearing for a motion to compel Discovery;

864.         From September 30, 2010 until December 29, 2010, The Court would not set a hearing for a motion for Plaintiff’ to Amend their Complaint;

865.         From September 30, 2010 until December 29, 2010, The Court would not set a hearing, not even a teleconference, to hear issues regarding the depositions of Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull;

866.         Plaintiff had a Right to Hearings to resolve Discovery Issues, to Amend their complaint and for other legitimate Motion practice in a timely manner before the December 17, 2010.

867.         The Court had a duty to extend the December 17, 2010 deadline if it could not set a timely hearing before said deadline for Motion practice to Compel Discovery, Resolve Deposition issues, to amend the complaint, to allow evidence to be put on the record and for other necessary motion practice.

868.         The Court refused to set any hearings, not even a teleconference, from September 30, 2010 to before its own, self imposed, December 17, 2010 Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline.

869.         Defendant Yunker and Defendants Wolfgram and Longrie colluded to fix the outcome of this case to be unfavorable to Plaintiff Mashak;

870.         The term “Suspensed Motions”, as used by Defendant Judge Yunker, are not defined in the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Minnesota General Rules of Practice.

871.         Using the term “suspensed motions” was a means of “telegraphing” and/or otherwise discreetly communicating to Plaintiff Attorney Wolfgram that Judge Yunker did not want the motions so labeled and the evidence contained therein, heard and made part of the record.

872.         Any attorney acting to a reasonable level of proficiency would know that serving an Amended Complaint after a Discovery Deadline would allow the target of the Discovery to object to Discovery as “irrelevant” or “beyond the scope” if they were not relevant to the causes of action contained in the complaint in effect at the time the Discovery was answered.

873.         Several times from October 28, 2010 to December 17, 2010 Plaintiff Attorney Wolfgram contacted the Court to set up hearings, even just teleconferences, and was refused.

874.         Manipulating Discovery and which evidence gets on the official Court record are techniques commonly used by the Minnesota Courts and lawyers to fix cases.

875.         An objective of the Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice was to “fix” the outcome of the litigation by preventing Plaintiff from having Discovery and by preventing Plaintiff’ from entering evidence on the official record.

876.         The motive of the Conspiracy was to punish Don Mashak for attempting to exercise his Constitutional First Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances especially as it relates to Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability;

877.         A goal of the Conspiracy was to demonize and discredit Plaintiff Mashak in his continuing efforts for Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability by giving credibility to Defendant Dannette Meeks-Hulls false vile sexual allegations about Plaintiff Mashak.

878.         False allegations of a sexual nature is a well known tactic recognized in the legal community as desperate response of female criminal Defendants in attempting to defend against real criminal allegations, when the accuser is a male.

879.         Defendant Judge Yunker’s attempts and successes in preventing Plaintiff Discovery and entry of evidence by Plaintiff on the official record were her contributions to the conspiracy;

880.         It is unlawful and unconstitutional for any part of the Minnesota Judicial System to deny Plaintiff their Right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation they brings before the any State Court.

881.         It is offensive, unlawful and unconstitutional to deprive Plaintiff Mashak of his right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation he brings before any State Court.

882.         The Minnesota Supreme Court have written the Rules of the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that an attorney can participate in “fixing” the outcome of a particular case with little or no risk of great punishment.

883.         A Quid Pro Quo arrangement exists between Judges and Lawyers of Litigants whereby if Lawyers follow the lead of Judges in acquiring the outcome of the case the Judge desires, the Lawyer receives Kudos and other consideration.

884.         If a Lawyer does not follow the lead of a Judge in shaping any particular litigation to the outcome the Judge desires, said attorney is “black listed” in the Legal Community.

885.         Judges, through the Minnesota Supreme Court, Control the Licenses and Discipline of Minnesota Attorneys.

886.         Because of the vagaries associated with the execution of the duties of licensing and disciplining of Attorneys by Judges, Attorneys must be mindful of the subtle requests and directives of any Minnesota Judge.

887.         For a variety of reasons, Minnesota Attorneys are more loyal to Judges they appear before than to the Clients they allegedly are required to they represent to the best of their ability.

888.         Plaintiff attorneys were more loyal to Judge Yunker than they were to either of their two clients, Plaintiff Mashak and Plaintiff First National Repossessors, Inc.

889.         The Purpose of suppressing Discovery, Motions and the submission of evidence on the record in Plaintiff’ litigation against Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull was to prevent discovery of the corruption in the Minnesota judiciary by Demonizing and Discrediting Plaintiff Mashak;

890.         There is a Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice which involves demonizing and discrediting Plaintiff Mashak in any litigation he brings before a Minnesota Court.

891.         Judge Yunker participated in attempting to demonize and discredit Don Mashak by fixing the outcome of this case against the best interests of Plaintiff.

892.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that it is almost impossible for anyone to sustain even a legitimate complaint against a judge;

893.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that the Board of Judicial Standards does not have jurisdiction over and/or the ability to take action to resolve complaints Citizens have about Judges;

894.         Defendant Yunker knew that his mishandling of Plaintiff Mashak’s case would likely have severe medical and psychological impact upon Plaintiff Mashak;

895.         Defendant Yunker knew that Plaintiff Mashak’s main concern regarding this litigation was restoring his reputation.

896.         The Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards most often tells persons with Complaints about Minnesota Judges that their sole recourse is to appeal;

897.         Most persons who have complaints about Minnesota Judges lack the resources to appeal matters related to complaints against Minnesota Judges.

898.         Minnesota Attorneys often rely upon the client’s ignorance of the law and trust in their lawyers to fix court cases without their clients knowing.

899.         Defendant Yunker purposely handled litigation by Plaintiff against Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull in a manner detrimental to Plaintiff’ legal position.

900.         Defendant Yunker acted outside the Rule of Law in the manner in which she handled Plaintiff’ case;

901.         Defendant Yunker did not give Plaintiff full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of their litigation.

902.         All the documents necessary for Plaintiff Mashak to prevail on the issue of the repossession deficiency for the 2000 Ford Excursion were contained in Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment.

903.         Said Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment and the related exhibits were amongst the Motions and evidence Judge Yunker tried to exclude by referring to them as “Suspensed Motions”.

904.         It is disingenuous and illegal for Judge Yunker to refuse to set hearings for motions, refuse to hear motions and exclude evidence from the record for the purpose of fixing the outcome of a case.

905.         Judge Yunker fixed the outcome of this case by excluding and/or having other persons exclude motions and evidence from the official Court Record.

906.         Defendant Yunker knows that as more time goes by with Plaintiff name impugned by the “fixed” decision, the less likely Plaintiff will ever be to restore their good names.

907.         Other persons, including but not limited to your Co-Defendants and/or their representatives, “telegraphed” or otherwise communicated to you the result they would like to see this matter have.

908.         Judge Yunker as been accused of and demonstrated to have misstated the facts in cases in the past.

909.         Minnesota Judges often have their staff discreetly make communications that are otherwise forbidden by the Rules and Law.

910.         Having a Judge hear and determine for themselves if they have acted in a biased matter is counter-intuitive and gives the appearance of impropriety in the Minnesota Judiciary.

911.         Plaintiff brought a motion for Judge Yunker to remove herself for bias and she denied said motion.

912.         It is a strategy of Minnesota Government to punish and repress persons who dissent politically by making their court experiences unnecessarily lengthy, tedious and expensive.

END PARAGRAPHS ONLY DIRECTED AT DEFENDANT YUNKER

PARAGRAPHS IN THIS SECTION ONLY DIRECTED AT DEFENDANT WOLFGRAM

913.         Plaintiff Don Mashak retained Defendant Attorney Wolfgram to represent Plaintiff Don Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc. in litigation against Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull on or about October 28, 2010.

914.         Plaintiff Mashak fully disclosed all the problems with the case at that time;

915.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram assured Plaintiff Mashak that he could well represent Plaintiff in said litigation;

916.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram assured Plaintiff Mashak that attorney Wolfgram would represent Plaintiff Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc to the Best of his ability;

917.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram did not represent Plaintiff to the best of his ability.

918.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram intentionally did not Represent Plaintiff to the best of his ability;

919.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram induced Plaintiff Mashak into giving him thousands of dollars based on the representation Defendant Attorney Wolfgram made that he would represent Plaintiff to the best of his ability;

920.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram entered into a conspiracy with Judge Yunker and other Defendants to cause the outcome of the litigation in this matter to result in an unfavorable outcome for Plaintiff.

921.         Several times Plaintiff Mashak told Defendant Attorney Wolfgram to seek accommodation for Plaintiff Mashak’s disabilities under the Americans (ADA) with Disabilities act.

922.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram never communicated Plaintiff Mashak ADA accommodation request to the Court until after Plaintiff Mashak began the process himself.

923.         The purpose of Defendant Attorney Wolfgram in not communicating Plaintiff Mashak’s ADA accommodation request to the Court, was to allow Defendant Attorney Wolfgram to take advantages of Plaintiff Mashak’s disability in “fixing” the outcome of this case.

924.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram did not bring on for hearing Plaintiff motion to amend their complaint until after the Discovery deadline of December 17, 2010;

925.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram knew that if the complaint was not amended before Discovery was complete that Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull could just object to certain Discovery as irrelevant and/or beyond the scope of the current complaint;

926.         Plaintiff Mashak told Defendant Attorney Wolfgram to Notice the Depositions for Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull as soon as possible, on or about October 28, 2010.

927.         Plaintiff Mashak repeatedly told Defendant Attorney Wolfgram that Judge Yunker would not extend the December 17, 2010 from on or about October 28, 2011 to December 17, 2011.

928.         Defendant Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull were previously noticed for a deposition in June of 2011 but said Deposition was postponed;

929.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram waited until a week or 10 days before the December 17, 2010 deadline to Notice the attorney of Defendant Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull for Deposition;

930.         The attorney for Defendants Meeks-Hull and Hull alleged he did not receive the Notice of Deposition and refused to produce his clients

931.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram told Plaintiff Mashak that Judge Yunker refused all hearings, including a teleconference, to resolve the issues regarding the Depositions;

932.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram told Plaintiff Mashak that Judge Yunker’s Court refused to set any hearing before the December 17, 2011 deadline;

933.         Defendant Wolfgram told Plaintiff Mashak that the Motion for Amended Complaint would be mailed and heard without a hearing long before any deadlines expired;

934.         Despite assurances to Plaintiff Mashak that the Amended Complaint would be heard without a hearing before the December 17, 2010 hearing, in fact Defendant Attorney Wolfgram did not bring the Amended Complaint on for an actual hearing until after the December 17, 2010 hearing.

935.         One of the reasons, Defendant Attorney Wolfgram did not timely file and Move the Motion to Amend the Complaint out to prevent the cause of action to overturn the harassment restraining order from being overturned on the basis of Abuse of Process and fraudulent testimony.

936.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram told Plaintiff Mashak several times before the December 17, 2010 Dispositive Motions and Discovery Deadline that everything was on track to be completed before the Discovery or Dispositive Motion Deadline.

937.         Judge Yunker referred to certain Motions that Plaintiff Mashak brought at the September 29, 2010 hearing as “Suspensed Motions”.

938.         The term “Suspensed Motions”, as used by Judge Yunker, are not defined in the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Minnesota General Rules of Practice.

939.         In using that term, Judge Yunker “telegraphed” or otherwise discreetly communicated to Defendant Attorney Wolfgram that she wanted said Motions not to be heard.

940.         In using that term, Judge Yunker “telegraphed” or otherwise discreetly communicated to Defendant Attorney Wolfgram that she did not want the evidence and exhibits contained in those motions to be entered onto the official court record.

941.         The Court Adjourned and Defendant Attorney Wolfgram launched into a reason why Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment and the related exhibits should not be heard by the Court and entered into the record.

942.         The reason given by Defendant Attorney Wolfgram to Plaintiff Mashak as to why Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment should not be heard by the Court and the exhibits entered into the record were false and fraudulent.

943.         As a result, none of those motions nor evidence contained therein were heard by the court and the evidence not entered on the record, allowing Judge Yunker to ignore the evidence in ruling against Plaintiff.

944.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram fraudulently induced Plaintiff Mashak not to bring Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment on for hearing for the purposes of fixing the outcome of the case to the outcome desired by Judge Yunker;

945.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram redrafted Plaintiff Mashak’s June Discovery to Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull for the purpose of delaying Defenses deadline for answers until on or about December 17, 2010.

946.         Given the time constraints, a better course of action for discovery would have been to move to compel discovery to Plaintiff Mashak’s previously served Discovery from June of 2011.

947.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram initially told Plaintiff Mashak that Defendant Wolfgram could not compel Discovery because the Court would not set a hearing date.

948.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram did not want Plaintiff Mashak to go to inspect Documents produced by Defendants’ Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull as there were documents their that would hinder the conspiracy to fix the case against Plaintiff’.

949.         An objective of the Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice was to “fix” the outcome of the litigation by preventing Plaintiff from having Discovery and by preventing Plaintiff’ from entering evidence on the official record.

950.         The motive of the Conspiracy was to punish Don Mashak for attempting to exercise his Constitutional First Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances especially as it relates to Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability;

951.         A goal of the Conspiracy was to demonize and discredit Plaintiff Mashak in his continuing efforts for Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability by giving credibility to Defendant Dannette Meeks-Hulls false vile sexual allegations about Plaintiff Mashak.

952.         False allegations of a sexual nature is a well known tactic recognized in the legal community as desperate response of female criminal Defendants in attempting to defend against real criminal allegations, when the accuser is a male.

953.         Co-Defendant Judge Yunker’s attempts and successes in preventing Plaintiff Discovery and entry of evidence by Plaintiff on the official record were her contributions to the conspiracy;

954.         It is unlawful and unconstitutional for any part of the Minnesota Judicial System to deny Plaintiff their Right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation they brings before the any State Court.

955.         It is even more offensive, unlawful and unconstitutional to deprive Plaintiff Mashak of his right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation he brings before any State Court.

956.         The Minnesota Supreme Court have written the Rules of the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that an attorney can participate in “fixing” (unlawfully altering) the outcome of a particular case with little or no risk of great punishment.

957.         A Quid Pro Quo arrangement exists between Judges and Lawyers of Litigants whereby if Lawyers follow the lead of Judges in acquiring the outcome of the case the Judge desires, the Lawyer receives Kudos and other consideration.

958.         Conversely, if a Lawyer does not follow the lead of a Judge in shaping any particular litigation to the outcome the Judge desires, said attorney is “black listed” in the Legal Community.

959.         Judges, through the Minnesota Supreme Court, Control the Licenses and Discipline of Minnesota Attorneys.

960.         Because of the vagaries associated with the execution of the duties of licensing and disciplining of Attorneys by Judges, Attorneys must be mindful of the subtle requests and directives of any Minnesota Judge.

961.         For a variety of reasons, Minnesota Attorneys are more loyal to Judges they appear before than to the Clients they allegedly are required to they represent to the best of their ability.

962.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram was and is more loyal to Judge Yunker than he was to either of his two clients, Plaintiff Mashak and Plaintiff First National Repossessors, Inc.

963.         On or about January 7, 2011, after the last hearing that hearing that Defendant Attorney Wolfgram represented Plaintiff, Defendant Wolfgram said to Plaintiff Mashak approximately, “We have destroyed your credibility and reputation and reduced you to little more than a ‘bungling eccentric’”

964.         The “We” in the just previous Request for Admission was intended to mean Judge Yunker, the rest of the Defendants and other members of the Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice;

965.         The Purpose of suppressing Discovery, Motions and the submission of evidence on the record in Plaintiff’ litigation against Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull was to prevent discovery of the corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary by Demonizing and Discrediting Plaintiff Mashak;

966.         There is a Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice which involves demonizing and discrediting Plaintiff Mashak in any litigation he brings before a Minnesota Court.

967.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that it is almost impossible for anyone to sustain even a legitimate complaint against a judge;

968.         The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that the Board of Judicial Standards does not have jurisdiction over and/or the ability to take action to resolve complaints Citizens have about Judges;

969.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram knew that his mishandling of Plaintiff Mashak’s case would likely have severe medical and psychological impact upon Plaintiff Mashak;

970.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram knew that Plaintiff Mashak’s main concern regarding this litigation was restoring his reputation.

971.         The Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards most often tells persons with Complaints about Minnesota Judges that their sole recourse is to appeal;

972.         Most persons who have complaints about Minnesota Judges lack the resources to appeal matters related to complaints against Minnesota Judges.

973.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram often waited to the last moment to have Plaintiff Mashak to review documents to avoid Plaintiff Mashak giving full scrutiny to any such documents.

974.         Minnesota Attorneys often rely upon the client’s ignorance of the law and trust in their lawyers to fix court cases without their clients knowing.

975.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram purposely handled litigation by Plaintiff against Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull in manner detrimental to Plaintiff’ legal position.

976.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram gave much bad legal advice to Plaintiff Mashak;

977.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram did not represent Plaintiff in good faith.

978.         Evidence and exhibits contained in Plaintiff’ various Motions set to be heard at the September 29, 2011 hearing should have been entered into the record and would have proven most of Plaintiff arguments and pleadings.

979.         All the documents necessary for Plaintiff Mashak to prevail on the issue of the repossession deficiency for the 2000 Ford Excursion were contained in the exhibits and evidence part and parcel of Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgment which Defendant Attorney Wolfgram refused to move and/or submit into evidence.

980.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram’s demand that Plaintiff Mashak bring Plaintiff’s checkbook to the last hearing and give Defendant Wolfgram a check before the hearing was because Defendant Attorney Wolfgram knew that Defendant Attorney Wolfgram had purposely thrown the case.

981.         Defendant Attorney Wolfgram knows that as more time goes by with Plaintiff name impugned by the “fixed” decision, the less likely Plaintiff will ever be to restore their good names.

982.         Persons outside of your office, including but not limited to your Co-Defendants and/or their representatives, “telegraphed” or otherwise communicated to you the result they would like to see this matter have.

END SECTION OF PARAGRAPHS DIRECTED ACT DEFENDANT BLOOMQUIST

NEXT SECTION OF PARAGRAPHS DIRECTED ACT DEFENDANT BLOOMQUIST

983.         Judge Tim Bloomquist is the Chief Judge for the Minnesota 10^th Judicial District.

984.         Plaintiff Don Mashak contacted Defendant Timothy Bloomquist regarding various issues with Judge Yunker in the litigation of Plaintiff Don Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc. against Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull.

985.         The Court represented to Plaintiff Mashak that he would receive a full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of the matter at hand;

986.         The Court did not give Plaintiff full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of the matters at hand;

987.         The Court intentionally did not give Plaintiff full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of the matters at hand;

988.         The Courts induced Plaintiff Mashak into paying hundreds of dollars in fees based on the representation the Court would give Plaintiff full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of the matter at hand;

989.         There is a standing Quid Pro Quo arrangement in the Minnesota Judiciary that other Judges will cover for the misdeeds of other Judges whenever possible.

990.         Defendant Bloomquist entered into a conspiracy with the other Defendants to cause the outcome of the litigation in this matter to result in an unfavorable outcome for Plaintiff.

991.         Various Citizens contacted Defendant Chief Judge Bloomquist regarding issues with Co-Defendant Judge Yunker in which Don Mashak was a Plaintiff in August, September and November of 2010.

992.         Don Mashak contacted Defendant Chief Judge Bloomquist regarding issues with Co-Defendant Judge Yunker in which Don Mashak was a Plaintiff in August, September and November of 2010.

993.         Defendant Judge Bloomquist told the Citizens he could only speak to Plaintiff Mashak with regard to these concerns.

994.         In August 2010, concerns were expressed to Defendant Judge Bloomquist that Judge Yunker would not issue the new Scheduling order she had promised on or about July 9, 2010.

995.         Defendant Judge Bloomquist indicated he was only an administrative Judge and could do nothing about the Scheduling order.

996.         A Scheduling order is about as administrative as any issue in the Judiciary can get.

997.         In September 2010, concerns were expressed to Defendant Judge Bloomquist that Judge Yunker had cancelled a hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 and would not allow a hearing to compel discovery.

998.         Defendant Judge Bloomquist indicated he was only an administrative Judge and could do nothing about Judge Yunker cancelling the hearing and refusing to set a hearing to compel Discovery.

999.         In September 2010, concerns were expressed to Defendant Judge Bloomquist that Judge Yunker was refusing to schedule any motion hearings before a December 17, 2010 deadline for Discovery and Dispositive Motions.

1000.     Defendant Judge Bloomquist indicated he was only an administrative Judge and could do nothing about Judge Yunker refusing to allow Plaintiff to schedule hearing dates in advance of the December 17, 2010 deadline.

1001.     In or about February 2011, Judge Bloomquist was asked to remove Judge Yunker for bias and refused.

1002.     Having a Judge hear and determine for themselves if they have acted in a biased matter is counter-intuitive and gives the appearance of impropriety in the Minnesota Judiciary.

1003.     Judge Yunker heard a motion Plaintiff’s Motion to remove Judge Yunker for Bias and found that she was not biased.

1004.     Judge Yunkers handling of Plaintiff case clearly demonstrates that she was biased against Plaintiff.

1005.     There is written correspondence between Mark Olson and Plaintiff Mashak that the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 was cancelled by the Court.

1006.     There is written documentation on the Court Computer system that the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 was cancelled by agreement of Attorney Mark Olson.

1007.     There is an irreconcilable conflict between what Mark Olson and the Court Computers say in writing is the reason the hearing scheduled for on or about September 16, 2010 was cancelled.

1008.     Plaintiff had a Right to Hearings to resolve Discovery Issues, to Amend their complaint and for other legitimate Motion practice in a timely manner before the December 17, 2010.

1009.     The Court had a duty to extend the December 17, 2010 deadline if it could not set a timely hearing before said deadline for Motion practice to Compel Discovery, Resolve Deposition issues, to amend the complaint, to allow evidence to be put on the record and for other necessary motion practice.

1010.     The Court refused to set any hearings, not even a teleconference, from September 30, 2010 to before its own, self imposed, December 17, 2010 Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline.

1011.     Defendant Bloomquist and Defendants Wolfgram and Longrie colluded to fix the outcome of this case to be unfavorable to Plaintiff Mashak;

1012.     The term “Suspensed Motions”, as used by Defendant Judge Bloomquist, are not defined in the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Minnesota General Rules of Practice.

1013.     Using the term “suspensed motions” was a means of “telegraphing” and/or otherwise discreetly communicating to Plaintiff Attorney Wolfgram that Judge Bloomquist did not want the motions so labeled and the evidence contained therein, heard and made part of the record.

1014.     Any attorney acting to a reasonable level of proficiency would know that serving an Amended Complaint after a Discovery Deadline would allow the target of the Discovery to object to Discovery as “irrelevant” or “beyond the scope” if they were not relevant to the causes of action contained in the complaint in effect at the time the Discovery was answered.

1015.     Several times from October 28, 2010 to December 17, 2010 Plaintiff Attorney Wolfgram contacted the Court to set up hearings, even just teleconferences, and was refused.

1016.     Manipulating Discovery and which evidence gets on the official Court record are techniques commonly used by the Minnesota Courts and lawyers to fix cases.

1017.     An objective of the Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice was to “fix” the outcome of the litigation by preventing Plaintiff from having Discovery and by preventing Plaintiff’ from entering evidence on the official record.

1018.     As part of the ongoing, systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary, Judicial District Chief Judges in Minnesota routinely deny or fail to resolve complaints that Citizens have with Judges.

1019.     The motive of the Conspiracy was to punish Don Mashak for attempting to exercise his Constitutional First Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances especially as it relates to Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability;

1020.     A goal of the Conspiracy was to demonize and discredit Plaintiff Mashak in his continuing efforts for Minnesota Judicial Reform and Accountability by giving credibility to Defendant Dannette Meeks-Hulls false vile sexual allegations about Plaintiff Mashak.

1021.     False allegations of a sexual nature is a well known tactic recognized in the legal community as desperate response of female criminal Defendants in attempting to defend against real criminal allegations, when the accuser is a male.

1022.     Defendant Judge Bloomquist’s aiding and abetting of Judge Yunker preventing Plaintiff Discovery and entry of evidence by Plaintiff on the official record were his contributions to the conspiracy;

1023.     It is unlawful and unconstitutional for any part of the Minnesota Judicial System to deny Plaintiff their Right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation they brings before the any State Court.

1024.     It is offensive, unlawful and unconstitutional to deprive Plaintiff Mashak of his right to full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of any litigation he brings before any State Court.

1025.     The Minnesota Supreme Court have written the Rules of the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that an attorney can participate in “fixing” the outcome of a particular case with little or no risk of great punishment.

1026.     A Quid Pro Quo arrangement exists between Judges and Lawyers of Litigants whereby if Lawyers follow the lead of Judges in acquiring the outcome of the case the Judge desires, the Lawyer receives Kudos and other consideration.

1027.     If a Lawyer does not follow the lead of a Judge in shaping any particular litigation to the outcome the Judge desires, said attorney is “black listed” in the Legal Community.

1028.     Judges, through the Minnesota Supreme Court, Control the Licenses and Discipline of Minnesota Attorneys.

1029.     Because of the vagaries associated with the execution of the duties of licensing and disciplining of Attorneys by Judges, Attorneys must be mindful of the subtle requests and directives of any Minnesota Judge.

1030.     For a variety of reasons, Minnesota Attorneys are more loyal to Judges they appear before than to the Clients they allegedly are required to they represent to the best of their ability.

1031.     Plaintiff attorneys were more loyal to the Court than they were to either of their two clients, Plaintiff Mashak and Plaintiff First National Repossessors, Inc.

1032.     The Purpose of suppressing Discovery, Motions and the submission of evidence on the record in Plaintiff’ litigation against Defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Mike Hull was to prevent discovery of the corruption in the Minnesota judiciary by Demonizing and Discrediting Plaintiff Mashak;

1033.     There is a Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice which involves demonizing and discrediting Plaintiff Mashak in any litigation he brings before a Minnesota Court.

1034.     Judge Bloomquist participated in attempting to demonize and discredit Don Mashak by allowing Judge Yunker to fix the outcome of this case against the best interests of Plaintiff.

1035.     The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that it is almost impossible for anyone to sustain even a legitimate complaint against a judge;

1036.     The Minnesota Supreme Court has written the Rules for the Board of Judicial Standards in such a way that the Board of Judicial Standards does not have jurisdiction over and/or the ability to take action to resolve complaints Citizens have about Judges;

1037.     Defendant Bloomquist knew that his mishandling of Plaintiff Mashak’s case would likely have severe medical and psychological impact upon Plaintiff Mashak;

1038.     Defendant Bloomquist knew that Plaintiff Mashak’s main concern regarding this litigation was restoring his reputation.

1039.     The Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards most often tells persons with Complaints about Minnesota Judges that their sole recourse is to appeal;

1040.     Most persons who have complaints about Minnesota Judges lack the resources to appeal matters related to complaints against Minnesota Judges.

1041.     Minnesota Attorneys often rely upon the clients’ ignorance of the law and trust in their lawyers to fix court cases without their clients knowing.

1042.     Defendant Bloomquist purposely complaints about Judge Yunker by Don Mashak detrimental to Plaintiff’ legal position and inconsistent with the Rule of Law.

1043.     Defendant Bloomquist acted outside the Rule of Law in the manner in which she handled Plaintiff’ complaints;

1044.     Defendant Judge Bloomquist’s representation that he could not address Plaintiff Mashak’s complaints about Judge Junker was completely or in part, false.

1045.     Defendant Bloomquist failure to address Plaintiff Mashak’s Complaint resulted in Plaintiff not getting full, fair, just, equitable and unbiased adjudication of their litigation.

1046.     Defendant Bloomquist knows that as more time goes by with Plaintiff name impugned by the “fixed” decision, the less likely Plaintiff will ever be to restore their good names.

1047.     Other persons, including but not limited to your Co-Defendants and/or their representatives, “telegraphed” or otherwise communicated to you the result they would like to see this matter have.

1048.     Judge Yunker as been accused of and demonstrated to have misstated the facts in cases in the past.

1049.     Judge Bloomquist did not property oversee State Employee Mary Yunker.

1050.     Minnesota Judges often have their staff discreetly make communications that are otherwise forbidden by the Rules and Law.

END SECTIONS OF PARAGRAPHS DIRECTED AT DEFENDANT WOLFGRAM

To see the rest of the Complaint and the Causes of Action Click here http://bit.ly/rnBT4m



TellMyPolitician



Posted by:

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


.
Minnesota Injustice: True Court Horror Cases - With Names


GREAT MOVIE - A Father's Rights http://blip.tv/afathersrights/​a-father-s-rights-5317137