You are on page 1of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Case File No. 12-1935 Don Mashak and 1at National Repossessors, Inc.

Plaintiff - Appellant - Respondent


V. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Lee Wolfgram, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s),

Defendants - Appellees - Respondents


US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM Minnesota Supreme Court (refused to hear) Minnesota Appellate Court A11-638 Minnesota District Court 30-CV-09- 429

NOTICE OF PETITION FOR FRAP 35 EN BANC AND/OR FRAP 40 PANEL HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner Mashaks FRAP 35 AND FRAP 40 Motion will be heard on a date and at a location that will be set upon the motion being fully briefed (responsive briefs to FRAP 35 motions are not permitted under the rules unless the court so orders) and filed. Dated: July 18, 2012 Don Mashak 612-326-6070 Pro Se and In Propia Persona POB 231 Albertville, MN 55301

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT


Case File No. 12-1935 Don Mashak and 1at National Repossessors, Inc.

Plaintiff - Appellant - Respondent


V. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Lee Wolfgram, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s),

Defendants - Appellees - Respondents


US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM Minnesota Supreme Court (refused to hear) Minnesota Appellate Court A11-638 Minnesota District Court 30-CV-09- 429

PETITION FOR FRAP 35 EN BANC AND/OR FRAP 40 PANEL HEARING TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE OF HEARING TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF PETITIONER UNDER FRAP 35(b) POINTS OF LAW OR FACT OVERLOOKED BY THE LOWER COURT DEFINITIONS INTRODUCTION ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF REHEARING UNDER FRAP 35 AND FRAP 40
I)

1 2-4 5 6-7 8-12 12-13 13 13-16 17-21

It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota 17 Courts to unlawfully and unconstitutionally engage in Reprisal against Petitioner Mashak for exercising his 1st Amendment right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. II) It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Courts to unlawfully & unconstitutionally engage in Reprisal against Petitioner Mashak for exercising his 1st Amendment right to Freedom of the Press. http://examiner.com, http://WETHEPEOPLETAR.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/DMashak etc 17 III) 2 It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota

Courts to unlawfully and unconstitutionally engage in Reprisal against Petitioner Mashak for exercising his 1st Amendment right to Free Speech. 17 IV) It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Courts to unlawfully and unconstitutionally engage in Reprisal against Petitioner Mashak for exercising his 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Assembly. 17 It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Courts to achieve their reprisal against Appellant by denying Appellant Mashak his Natural Law Right to Due Process and adjudicating his lawsuits in otherwise unrelated matters in a manner not in accordance with the proper administration of just. 17-18
V)

It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Courts to achieve their reprisal against Appellant by denying Appellant Mashak his Right to have his otherwise unrelated litigation determined in a manner inconsistent with the principle of the properly applied Rule of Law to the unmachinated, freely admitted relevant facts in evidence. 18
VI)

VII) It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Courts to use simulated litigation, fact shaping and abuse of Power to enable their reprisal against Appellant in such in a manner not in accordance with the proper administration of justice, nor the proper application of the Rule of Law to the unmachinated, freely admitted relevant facts in evidence nor Appellants Natural Law Right to Due Process. 18 It is a manifest injustice and not in accordance with the proper administration of justice to force Petitioner to appear before a Minnesota State Court that has clandestinely ruled in an unpublished opinion Minnesota Lawyers do not have to treat their clients ethically(Fabian,May&Anderson v Volkommer MN A10-1205); 18-19
VIII)

IX) The Legal Community in Minnesota has arrived at a policy that Lawyers cant commit crimes; That any complaint a client has against a Minnesota Lawyer, including theft by swindle, is a civil matter; 19 X) The Rules, policies, constraints and personalities involved with the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board (MNLPRB) and the Board of Judicial Standards (BJS), render them ineffective in protecting the public. 19 XI) Law Enforcement Agencies, including the FBI, either deny receiving faxes and mail or refer persons complaining about judges and lawyers to either MNLPRB or BJS. 19 XII) Minnesota Citizens are denied direct access to Grand Juries and an elaborate Convoluted series of road blocks to any Grand Jury are in place. 19 XIII) The convoluted rules in the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct address the issue of gifts (otherwise known to the public as bribes aka a Rose by any other name would still smell as sweet) in three disjointed parts which in essence allow Minnesota Judges to take an unlimited number of bribes per day as long as they are from different 3

people in amounts less than $150.00. This gives the appearance of impropriety. 19-20 XIV) Any party to any litigation, except in the case of a court order in that specific case to the contrary, should be able to discreetly voice record the proceedings and/or the Courts should have the ability to record all visual and audio activity in the Court room and implement a record keepings system to make finding and accessing those records easy and free to parties to the litigation. To many allegations of Court Transcripts being altered exist to not take the steps to make sure that transcript altering cannot occur. 20 The lower Court refuses to allow Petitioner a IFP transcript, forcing Petitioner to rely up his memory. 20
XV)

XVI) It is a manifest injustice to quash the claims of First National Repossessors, Inc. solely because, after spending $20,000.00 on attorneys, Petitioner is unable to afford to pay an attorney and/or Petitioner has become aware that no Minnesota Lawyer has to treat clients ethically (MN A10-1205) 20 XVII) The Minnesota Courts are systemically corrupt and Petitioner Mashak should not be forced to be subject to their unlawful and unconstitutional reprisal for attempting to exercise his 1st Amendment Rights, Among the Right to Free Speech, the Right to Assembly, Freedom of the Press and THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL. This reprisal having to do with hundreds of Minnesota Citizens asking for the opportunity to give evidence and testimony in the Minnesota State Courts to the Minnesota State House and Senate Judiciary Committees and being denied that opportunity for now coming on eight years. 20
XVIII) Decision based on fraud and material misrepresentations;

20 XIX) Petitioners former Attorney, Respondent Lee Wolgram Order Dismissed with Prejudice despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary; 20 XX) This Court must act boldly. A Cornerstone of our Republic is that its citizens must be able to freely express their concerns about the government. The Reprisal that this Litigant has suffered will chilling suppress other persons from criticizing their Government, as guaranteed by the first Amendment. What has occurred here is something WE THE PEOPLE would expect to see in 3rd world or communist nations, not our Representative, Constitutionally limited, Republic. This is not what is taught in High School Civics classes; If this is the reality, then start teaching reality to young folks that they can have the fore-knowledge that reprisal is likely and make an informed decision about criticizing the government and being savaged with reprisal, or Patriotically accepting the consequences. By their acts, the Respondents have deprived Petitioner Mashak of his unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 20-21 CONCLUSION 21 AFFIDAVIT OF DON MASHAK 22 ORDER 23-24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

25

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT


Case File No. 12-1935 Don Mashak and 1at National Repossessors, Inc.

Plaintiff - Appellant - Respondent


V. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Lee Wolfgram, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s),

Defendants - Appellees - Respondents


US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM Minnesota Supreme Court (refused to hear) Minnesota Appellate Court A11-638 Minnesota District Court 30-CV-09- 429

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTS Petitioner Don Mashak, appearing Pro Se and In Propia Persona, certifies the following: 1) The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is: Donald T. Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc. 2) The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: N/A 3) All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percetn or more of the stock of the party or amicus curie represented by me are: NONE
4) The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party

or amicus now represent by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court are: SEE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Dated: July 18, 2012 Don Mashak Pro Se and In Propia Persona POB 231 Albertville, MN 55301 612-326-6070 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT


Case File No. 12-1935 Don Mashak and 1at National Repossessors, Inc.

Plaintiff - Appellant - Respondent


V. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Lee Wolfgram, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s),

Defendants - Appellees - Respondents


US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM Minnesota Supreme Court (refused to hear) Minnesota Appellate Court A11-638 Minnesota District Court 30-CV-09- 429

FRAP 35 & 40 FED RCP 60 U. S. v. Rosciano, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1974, 499 F.2d 173. Federal Courts 521 George E. Warren Corp. v. U.S., C.A.Fed.2003, 341 F.3d 1348, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 31, 543 U.S. 808, 160 L.Ed.2d 10. Courts 90(2) Watson v. Geren, C.A.2 2009, 587 F.3d 156. Federal Courts 744 U. S. v. Lynch, C.A.D.C.1982, 690 F.2d 213, 223 U.S.App.D.C. 100. Courts 90(2) Greenhow v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1988, 863 F.2d 633. Courts 90(2) National Labor Relations Board v. Brown & Root, Inc., C.A.8 1953, 206 F.2d 73. Federal Courts 744 C. Stephenson & F. Marcham, Sources of English Constitutional History 125 (1937). Eastern R.R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961). California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972). See also NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 913-15 (1982); Missouri v. NOW, 620 F.2d 1301 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 842 (1980) United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876), Hague v. CIO 307 U.S. 496 (1939). Cox v New Hampshire,312 US 569 (1941); Kunz v New York; 340 US 290 (1951); Niemotko v Maryland,340 US 268 (1951) Azikiwe v. Nig. Airways Ltd., No. CV-03-6387, 2006 WL 2224450, at * (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2006) 2009 Adhoc MN Judicial Reform meeting video http://bit.ly/ylWyAM and here http://bit.ly/r1DDao CHILDRESS & DAVIS, supra note 4, 1.01, at 1-3 (citing James D. Phillips, The Appellate Review Function: Scope of Review, 47 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 1, 1 (1984)); Edward H. Cooper, Civil Rule 52(a): Rationing & Rationalizing the Resources of Appellate Review, 63 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 645, 649 (1988) Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 984 n.13, 34 U. S.P.Q.2d 1321, 1333 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), affil, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1216, 36 U.S.P.Q 2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1995); seealso Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684, 690, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir.2001) BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 435 (6th ed. 1990) In theory, the appellate court decides the issue in a de novo review, [a] new; afresh; a second time, as if the trial tribunal had not before rendered a decision on the issue.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Infra Section II.A.1] (2) the review will be strict, but there will be some deference to the trial tribunal in interpreting the law;[ See infra Section II.A.2 ] and (3) the appellate court will not defer at all in the relatively rare case when the trial tribunal must establish a new legal principle (i.e., in a case of first impression)..[See infra Section II.A.3] Paul R. Michel, Appellate Advocacy: One Judges View, 1 FED. CIR. B.J. 1, 4-5 (1991) there may be an underlying issue of fact, making review less deferential than would at first appear. 6 Glaverbel Societe Anonyme & Fosbel, Inc. v. Northlake Marketing & Supply, Inc., 45 F.3d 1550, 1557, 33 U.S.P.Q 2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cit. 1995) A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1039, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc) Paul R. Michel, Appellate Advocacy: One Judges View, 1 FED. CIR. B.J. 1, 4-5 (1991). Taitz v. Astrue, No. 11-402, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119453 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2011) (Lamberth, J.). Families for Freedom v. CBP, No. 10 Civ. 2785, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113143 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (Scheindlin, J.). FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b); Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 202 (1950) Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., Calderon, 56 F.Supp. 2d at 999 (citing Bank of Waunake v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). 1ST, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments Whistleblower protections Declaration of Independence Americans with Disabilities Act ADA FindLaw.com Wikipedia.com Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers Common Sense The Rule of Law Natural Law Right to Due Process

7 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT


Case File No. 12-1935 Don Mashak and 1at National Repossessors, Inc.

Plaintiff - Appellant - Respondent


V. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Lee Wolfgram, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s),

Defendants - Appellees - Respondents


US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM Minnesota Supreme Court (refused to hear) Minnesota Appellate Court A11-638 Minnesota District Court 30-CV-09- 429

STATEMENT OF PETITIONER UNDER FRAP 35(b)


Petitioner submits this Rule 35/40 motion in deference to a recent order he received in Federal Appellate Case 12-2221. Petitioner had sent a FRCP 59/60 motion in that matter and the Court noticed Petitioner that the perhaps the correct motion would be according to FRAP 35/40 and extended the time to submit the appropriate motion to 7/16/2012. Said Rule 35/40 motion has been delivered. Shortly after Petitioner had sent the incorrect 59/60 Motion to the 6th Circuit Court, Petitioner sent a Rule 60 Motion to this same Court. Petitioner has not received a response to said motion. In anticipation of a similar notice that FRAP 35/40 are the possible correct motions and in anticipation of receiving a similar extension of time, Petitioner has taken it upon himself to submit this Rule 35/40 motion. (I have received no response to the Rule 59 Motion I submitted to the lower court on this matter at the same time the Rule 60 motion was sent to the 8th Appellate Court. Petitioner would ask this court for wide latitude in assessing this litigation. This original litigation should have been settled in this Petitioner favor long ago. Petitioner has spent more that $20,000.00 on attorneys. Yet, in the Petitioner has never been afforded the opportunity to deposition anyone. The interrogatories and Document Production Requests were machinated to appear so late that there was no opportunity to compel discovery. For 3 months, a Judge refused to schedule any hearings, physical or verbal, and then decreed that the motions finally submitted were untimely. After the Judge announced the unfavorable judgment, former Petitioner Attorney Lee Wolfgram admitted the case was fixed against me. Amongst the things he said were words to the effect that We have reduced you to the appearance of a bumbling eccentric We meaning the Court and himself, and the greater Judicial/Lawyer fraternity. In considering this Petition/Motion, please take into the account the emotional and physical status of this victim of system corruption. My business of 24 years is essentially defunct, My house is in foreclosure (8th Circuit Appeals 12-2221), My finances are

destroyed. For the first time in 52 years of my life, I am disgusted to have to say I receive public assistance. There is no doubt in my mind that my life has been shortened by 10-20 years by the stress of this litigation. And on some days, Petitioner often believes death may be a short few minutes, hours, days or weeks away when certain conditions present themselves. Further, complicating Petitioners ability to respond to the best of his ability is the Legal Abuse Syndrome (Closely related to PTSD) which cause him to be unable to concentrate and/or read for anything but short periods of time. This matter comes before this Court because the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota State Courts chose to use the underlying litigation as a means for unlawful and unconstitutional punishment and reprisal for Petitioner Mashak perceived leader of a group of hundreds of Minnesota Citizens attempting to exercise their 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances without fear of punishment or reprisal. Further, local Municipal Governments have refused to produce their budgets and actual spending and revenue, despite persistence and Freedom of Information Act Requests. Therefore Petitioner has also petitioned the government to pass legislation requiring all Minnesota Municipalities 8 to post their budgets and actual revenue and spending on the internet in laymans terms with no aggregates greater than $100.00. http://bit.ly/PlJzWt Does Petitioners Government really get to deny him Government Financial Records and then punish him for being persistent in demanding them? The thus far negative outcome for Petitioner Mashak are the direct result of the punishment and reprisal for Petitioner Mashak daring to exercise his fundamental 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of grievances. This Court must act boldly as the freedom of the People to Petition the Government for redress of Grievances is a cornerstone to the continued vitality to our Representative, Constitutionally Limited, Republic. If Citizens cannot criticize their government without fear of reprisal then liberty and our Republic are on the brink of collapse. The ruling in this matter is antithetical to the following US Supreme Court rulings: The right of petition took its rise from the modest provision made for it in chapter 61 of Magna Carta (1215). C. Stephenson & F. Marcham, Sources of English Constitutional History 125 (1937). The failure of King George to honor the colonist Right to Petition was a major reason for the Declaration of Independence: 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. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. -- Declaration of Independence Eastern R.R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961). The right of petition is one of the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, and we cannot, of course, lightly impute to Congress an intent to invade these freedoms. Today, however, the right of peaceable assembly is, in the language of the Court, ''cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental. . . . [It] is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions--principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause. . . . The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed. Those who assist in the conduct of such meetings cannot be branded as criminals on that score. The question . . . is not as to the auspices under which the meeting is held but as to its purposes; not as to the relation of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects.'' Furthermore, the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for ''a redress of grievances,'' in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the Government of its powers in furtherance of the

interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters. Eastern R.R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961). And Findlaw.com California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972). See also NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 913-15 (1982); Missouri v. NOW, 620 F.2d 1301 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 842 (1980) (boycott of States not ratifying ERA may not be subjected to antitrust suits for economic losses because of its political nature). Historically, therefore, the right of petition is the primary right, the right peaceably to assemble a subordinate and instrumental right, as if the First Amendment read: ''the right of the people peaceably to assemble'' in order to ''petition the government. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876), United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552 (1876), Furthermore, the right of petition has expanded. It is no longer confined to demands for ''a redress of grievances,'' in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the Government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters.211 The right extends to the ''approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of ac cess to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition. The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for any thing else connected with the powers or the duties of the national government, is an attribute of national 9 citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States. The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. The Hague Case.--Illustrative of this expansion is Hague v. CIO 307 U.S. 496 (1939). in which the Court, though splintered with regard to reasoning and rationale, struck down an ordinance which vested an uncontrolled discretion in a city official to permit or deny any group the opportunity to conduct a public assembly in a public place. Justice Roberts, in an opinion which Justice Black joined and with which Chief Justice Hughes concurred, found protection against state abridgment of the rights of assembly and petition in the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ''The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.' [Id. at 515. For another holding that the right to petition is not absolute, see McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985) (the fact that defamatory statements were made in the context of a petition to government does not provide absolute immunity from libel). ] Justices Stone and Reed invoked the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for the result, thereby claiming the rights of assembly and petition for aliens as well as citizens. ''I think respondents' right to maintain it does not depend on their citizenship and cannot rightly be made to turn on the existence or non-existence of a purpose to disseminate information about the National Labor Relations Act. It is enough that petitioners have prevented respondents from holding meetings and disseminating information whether for the organization of labor unions or for any other lawful purpose.'' Id. at 525. This due process view of Justice Stone has carried the day over the privileges and immunities approach. Hague v. CIO 307 U.S. 496 (1939) and FindLaw.com; Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941); Kunz v. New York; 340 U.S. 290 (1951) ; Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951) Respondents State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Courts departed from the principles of the Natural Law Right to Due Process, the proper administration of Justice and the fundamental philosophy of the

Rule of Law being properly applied to the nonmachinated, freely admitted facts in evidence. To achieve their goal of punishment and reprisal, the Respondents State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Courts engaged in Simulated Litigation, Fact Shaping and the Abuse of Discretion and Power. This following tool that the Defendant/Respondents used against Petitioner Mashak demonstrates the mindset of the entire Minnesota State Judicial System. The State of Minnesota District, Appellate and Supreme Court via its clandestine, unpublished rulings in Fabian, May and Anderson v Volkommer A10-1205 have set a precedent fundamentally antithetical to the Natural Law Right to Due Process, the certain unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of independence and contrary to the intent of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. In this ruling, the Minnesota District, Appellate and Supreme Court ruled Minnesota Lawyers do not have to treat their clients ethically. These Minnesota Courts specifically said that the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct is not an implied Covenant of a legal services contract between a Minnesota Lawyer and their client. The Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct ( MN LCPC http://1.usa.gov/Qa3jm1 ) governs not only the conduct of a litigants own attorney but also that of opposing counsel. This ruling must be struck down. Though the present matter is a civil matter, imagine the implications to a criminal defendant, especially one with a Public Defender. Without the requirement of the MN LCPC, will any Public Defender be able to withstand the pressure of politics already present in that position? In this present civil matter, Petitioner asserts that the right to be loyally and vigorously represented by Counsel as a matter of Public Policy. This right is further derived from the Natural Law Right of Due Process, as one of the unalienable rights referenced in the Declaration of Independence and is further part and parcel of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments. Petitioner Mashak was fraudulently induced by the material misrepresentions of the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Courts and the Minnesota BAR that all Minnesota Lawyers must act ethically and in accordance with MN LCPC. The MN A10-1205 ruling was a clandestine, unpublished ruling that Petitioner did not learn about until after his former attorney Defendant/Respondent and Petitioners other attorneys had already thrown the case. 10 It is antithetical to the proper administration of justice to allow Petitioner to lose a case when he reasonably relied upon the advice of counsel, yet not knowing that said counsel had no obligation to treat him ethically. The ruling in Fabian v Volkommer A10-1205 is antithetical to the following US Supreme Court rulings. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 111 S.Ct. 2720, 115 L.Ed.2d 888, 59 USLW 4858, U.S.Nev., June 27, 1991 (NO. 89-1836) ... Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309, U.S.Mich., January 19, 1948 (NO. 73) Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 486 U.S. 466, 108 S.Ct. 1916, 100 L.Ed.2d 475, 56 USLW 4532, 19881 Trade Cases P 68,063, U.S.Ky., June 13, 1988 (NO. 87-16) . Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509, U.S.Iowa, December 14, 1981 (NO. 80-824) Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291, 70 USLW 4205, 70 USLW 4216, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2737, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3311, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 161, U.S., March 27, 2002 (NO. 00-9285) Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584, 47 A.F.T.R.2d 81-523, 30 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1101, 81-1 USTC P 9138, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,817, 1980-81 Trade Cases P 63,797, 1981-1 C.B. 591, 7 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 785, U.S.Mich., January 13, 1981 (NO. 79-886) See also Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495, 511, 67 S.Ct. 385, 393-394, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) . Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 40 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 860, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec.

P 36,087, 89 L.Ed.2d 747, 54 USLW 4359, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d 321, U.S.Idaho, April 21, 1986 (NO. 841288) Obviously this proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance. Based on Petitioners knowledge of the his 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, his Natural Law Right to Due Process, Public Policy, the unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence, and the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment, Petitioner believes this appeal requires an answer to one or more precedent-setting questions of exception importance; 1) Can any layer of Government punish and retaliate against citizens seeking to exercise their 1st Amendment Right to Petition the government for Redress of of Grievances? 2) Is it proper for the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Courts to deviate from the proper administration of justice to inflict punishment and reprisal upon any citizen for exercising their 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances; 3) Is every litigant that comes before the Court have the Right to be represented by a lawyer/attorney that is bound by oath, Court Rules and Law to represent their client ethically, honestly, loyally and vigorously? 4) Do criminal defendants have the Right to be represented by a lawyer/attorney that is bound by oath, Court Rules and Law to represent their client ethically, honestly, loyally and vigorously? 5) Are Public Defenders bound by an oath, Court Rules and Law to represent their client(s) ethically, honestly, loyally and vigorously? 6) Is it a material misrepresentation(false advertising) of the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Courts, the Minnesota BAR, and Minnesota Lawyers to post the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct in various places, including the internet, and then refer potential clients to said document knowing that clandestine, unpublished A10-1205 ruling causes it it to have no effect of law? 7) Can a Minnesota Lawyer really reveal to their client that they fixed the case against them and utter words to the effect We have given you the appearance of a bumbling eccentric and get the Courts to protect them by dismissing all claims against them by said client, with prejudice? 8) Do municipal Governments really get to deny Citizens Government Financial Records and then punish Citizens for being persistent in demanding them (Petition for Redress of Grievances)? Consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the courts decisions.
11

POINTS OF LAW OR FACT OVERLOOKED BY THE LOWER FEDERAL COURT


A) The deviations of the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota State Courts from the Natural Law Right to Due Process, the proper administration of Justice and departure from the principle of the Rule of Law properly applied to the nonmachinated, freely admitted relevant facts in evidence were intended as unlawful and unconstitutional punishment and reprisal for Petitioner Mashak exercising his 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances, as will as his Right to Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly and the Free Press. B) Petitioner it unable to find a Minnesota Lawyer who will represent him ethically, honestly, loyally and vigorously. Petitioner became aware of the justice destroying A10-1205 ruling sometime in 2011. Despite extensive searching, Petitioner has been unable to find any Minnesota Lawyer willing to amend their legal services contract to indicate they will treat Petitioner ethically, honestly, loyally and vigorously and subject them standard of Conduct provided for in the MN LCPC.

C) For almost 3 months, the State District Court would not allow hearings to be set either physically or by telephone. Yet, the Court then found that Plaintiffs Motions and Notices of Deposition were untimely. It is not compliance with Due Process that a Court refuse to set hearings for Motions for almost 3 months and then declare the motions and related matters untimely. It is noteworthy that the first hearing the Court would set was a week or more after the Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline the Court had previously said would not be changed under any circumstances. D) Just after the hearing in which the State District Court ruled against Plaintiff, Wolfgram admitted to and stated one of the purposes of the fraud and the complicity. Mr. Wolfgram uttered words to the effect We have reduced you to the appearance of a bumbling incompetent The We indicating the Court and other Conspirators. The reasons being to demonize and discredit Plaintiff as a leader of the Minnesota Judicial TAR movement. How systemically corrupt must the Minnesota Courts be that Defendant Wolfgram would be so confident that he would admit to the fraud, the conspiracy and one of the purposes of the conspiracy. E) Almost Identical Sets of Documents missing from both the Court and Client File. The client file Defendant Wolfgram returned to Plaintiff Mashak was missing certain large amounts of documents Plaintiff Mashak needed to file appellate briefs. Almost an exactly identical group of documents were missing from the Courts file when Plaintiff sought to replace them their. Said documents were missing from the Courts file for weeks. Only when Plaintiff went to file a police report were the missing documents found in the Judges Chambers. However, by then the deadline for filing the brief had passed. F) The fact that almost the identical documents were missing from both the Court and Client file is beyond coincidence. Defendant Wolfgram and the Court must have spoken to coordinate the removal of nearly identical documents for two different files, The Court file in possession of the Court and the Client file that had been in possession of Defendant Wolfgram when the same, almost identical set of documents went missing; G) For at least 2 months prior to the Discovery deadline, Plaintiff Mashak directed his Attorney Wolfgram to serve Notices of Deposition upon Defendants Meeks-Hull and Hull and others. Defendant Wolfgram did not. Defendant Wolfgram did not allegedly Notice the Depositions until about a week before the Discovery Deadline. H) The Lower State Court Descisions should be set aside pursuant to FED RCP 59/60. Rule 60(b) INVALIDATING A JUDGEMENT FOR FRAUD AND THE SIGNIFIGANCE OF FEDERAL RULE 60 b by Dean Wagner jstor.com http://bit.ly/LWOWiK When it can be proved that a judgment of a court was obtained by fraud, the question arises whether or not it can be set aside and new trial had. Two different procedures are to be distinguished.: 2) An Independent action to set the judgment aside brought in the same court or a different Court. I) How is it possible for the Plaintiff to pay $20,000.00 over two years and NOT GET ONE SINGLE DEPOSTION despite demanding them as he deemed them crucial almost from the beginning. J) Petitioner Mashak demonstrated that the Minnesota State Courts are systemically corrupt and unfit. Petitioner Mashak should not be forced to be subject to their unlawful and unconstitutional reprisal for attempting to exercise his 1st Amendment Rights? 12 These points are on the record and in the Pleadings. How could the Majistrate Judge and the Judge ignore these facts, some undeniable and corroborated by the record itself, and dismiss with prejudice all of Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Wolfgram but let stand all the counterclaims of Defendant Wolfgram against Mashak? The simple answer is only by huge error or deliberate act. THE LOWER COURT PLAINLY ERRORED OR IGNORED THE EVIDENCE IN DISMISSING PLAINTIFF MASHAKS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT MASHAK WITH PREDJUDICE, meaning he can never assert them again. CLEARLY AND UNDENIABLY FRAUDS HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY OTHERS WHICH HAVE CAUSED A JUDGMENT ADVERSE TO PETITIONER MASHAK TO BE ENTERED.

DEFINITIONS State of Minnesota may be referred to as the Defendant State of MN, Appellant State of MN or Respondent State of Minnesota. Minnesota Supreme Court may be referred to as Defendant MN Supreme Court and/or the Defendant Minnesota Courts or Minnesota Courts Petitioners for attorney Diana Longrie may be referred to as Longrie Defendant Longrie, Appellant Longrie or Respondent Longrie. Mary Yunker may be referred to as Yunker, Defendant Yunker, Appellant Yunker or Respondent Yunker. Timothy R. Bloomquist may be referred to as Bloomquist, Defendant Bloomquist, Appellant Bloomquist or Respondent Bloomquist. Dannette Meeks-Hull, may be referred to as Meeks-Hull, Defendant Meeks-Hull, Appellant Meeks-Hull or Respondent Meeks-Hull . Michael Hull, may be referred to as Hull, Defendant Hull, Appellant Hull or Respondent Hull . Dannette Meeks-Hull and Michael Hull together may be known as Meeks-Hull and Hull Don Mashak may also be referred to as Mashak or Plaintiff Mashak or Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff Mashak or Plaintiff Petitioner Mashak Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (for Lawyers) may also be referred to as MN LCPC Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may also be referred to as FED RCP Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure may also be referred to as FRAP Simulated Litigation means the Court reaching a decision with the appearance that it was done pursuant to the Rule of Law properly applied to the freely admitted relevant facts in evidence and in accordance with the proper administration of justice, but it was not. Most often this happens with the Court or the powers that be telegraph to the attorneys of the litigants the outcome they desire. The Court and the attorneys of the litigants engage in some behavior, activities or agreement that allows the Court to make the desired based facts in evidence. However, the lawyers of the litigants control the Facts in Evidence on the official Court record by engaging in fact shaping. Fact Shaping means when the Court and the lawyers of the Court control what evidence get on the official record in a manner that will allow the Court to make the desired decision, rather than the Court reaching its decision in accordance with the proper administration of justice defined as the Rule of Law properly applied to the free admitted relevant facts in evidence. Telegraph or Telegraphing means certain gestures and/or phrases used between the Court and the Lawyers of Litigants to suggest a direction or course of action, often in violation of the principles of the proper administration of justice and the Rule of Law. Most often they are so subtle and rely upon experience as a lawyer, that the actual civilian litigant does not even perceive them.

INTRODUCTION
THIS SHOULD BE A CRIMINAL MANNER INVESTIGATED BY GOVERNMENT PROFESSIONALS LIKE THE FBI, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, THE MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT INSTEAD, AFTER SPENDING $20,000.00 AND HAVING MY BUSINESS DESTROYED, this Pro Se litigant is force to seek the truth and justice on his own with the Courts fighting him every step of the way. $20,000.00 and two years should have easily resolved this matter in Petitioners favor. Only the unlawful and unconstitutional reprisal of the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Courts and their departure from the proper 13 administration of justice, have dragged this matter on with unfavorable results for Petitioner every step of the way. For the past 20+ years, Petitioner has sought judicial reform based on a prior experience as a victim of the Minnesota judicial System. However, until the advent of the internet Petitioner had had little success in garnering support for the issues or finding similarly minded folks. Beginning in/or about 2005 100s of Minnesotans began asking to exercise their 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. These folks wanted to give testimony and evidence of corruption in the Minnesota State Judiciary. To this date, we have not be granted this opportunity. In

2009, out of frustration with 4 years of shenanigans, we accepted MN State Representative Dan Seversons 2009 Adhoc MN Judicial Reform hearing, even though it had no official meaning. You can see video of that hearing hear http://bit.ly/ylWyAM and here http://bit.ly/r1DDao. That the judgment of the lower courts are unjust will be clear from the list of transgressions, abnormalities and departures from the Natural Law Right to Due Process, the proper administration of justice and the properly Applied Rule of Law to the nonmachinated facts in evidence, that this matter was conducted outside the accepted parameters. And it will be plain upon the preponderance of the evidence that this litigation was carried out in this matter as a means of reprisal for Petitioner Mashak s perceived role as a leader in the Minnesota Judicial TAR movement. (TAR = Transparency, Accountability and Reform.) This matter starts as a relatively inconsequential and straight forward matter of a former employee and former subcontracter of Petitioner Mashak quitting their positions while Petitioner Mashak was our of the country on vacation. Defendants Meeks-Hull and Hull embezzled money and stole company real and proprietary property with the intent of starting their own similar business. Half a year later, they permitted a vehicle that Petitioner Mashak had consigned for them to be repossessed. And purposely damaged the vehicle before returning. Due to the short 15 pages Petitioner is allowed, he will us the rest of this Introduction to list the deviations from the proper administration of law that he has suffered. Evidence of this overwhelming lists of irregularities, examples of simulated litigation, fact shaping, obstruction of justice and evidence is easily found in the record. In reverse chronological order, here is a list (not exhaustive) of events which occurred which demonstrate irregularities in the Process of this case in Minnesota State Court: 1) Allegedly lost documents, Found in the Judges chambers only after Plaintiff Mashak when to police department to file a police report. 2) Almost the same Key documents removed from the Court File and lost for weeks; 3) Key documents removed from clients case file by Lawyer Wolfgram before he surrenders them; 4) Plaintiffs Lawyer Defendant Wolfgram admits after hearing in which Plaintiff loses that he and the court have worked to destroy Plaintiffs credibility and utters words to the effect that Plaintiff Mashak has been reduce to looking like a bumbling eccentric; 5) During one of the last two hearings, Judge Yunker, Respondents Meeks-Hull and Hulls attorney and Respondents then attorney Wolfgram have a conversation on the record. Respondents attorney tells the Court words to the effect, wink, wink, I have discussed all the implications of this case with Wolfgram, wink wink) 6) Judge Yunker refuses allow any physical or telephonic hearings from September 29, 2011 until on or about December 29, 2011, despite giving a 12/17/2011 deadline for Discovery and Summary Judgment Motions; 7) At both the hearings on or about 12/29/2010 and on or about 1/9/2011, the court took extreme measures to make sure no recording devices were present. 8) Defendant Wolfgram says he cant file tions to Compel Discovery, Force Depositions or amend complaint until Judge sets a hearing date; 9) Attorney Wolfgram says he has case under control but Judge wont set hearings; 10)Plaintiffs Attorney Defendant Wolfgram says Defense Attorney says never got Deposition Notice, Defendants Meeks-Hull & Hulls attorney states same on the Court Record; 11)Attorney Wolfgram waits until about 10 days before Discovery Deadline to Notice Depositions; 12)Plaintiff Mashak learns the Appellate Court has reversed and remanded the Harassment Restraining Order; 13)Attorney Wolfgram says Defendant wont produce Discovery, must compel; 14)In October, Plaintiff Mashak retains Lawyer Defendant Wolfgram; 15)On or about September 29th, 2011 Plaintiff Mashak shows up Sans an attorney and Court extends Discovery and 14 Summary Judgment Motion Deadlines to December 17, 2011;

16)Plaintiff Mashak fires Attorney Mark Olson for refusing to file Motions for Discovery, Amended Complaint, etc. 17)A September 16th hearing is canceled by the Court (as verified by email from Lawyer Olson to Plaintiff Mashak), but Attorney Mark Olson takes the fall saying he forgot to call his client, Plaintiff Mashak and tell him it was cancelled; 18)Plaintiff Mashak is furious Why did Attorney Olson allow the 9/16/2012 hearing date to be cancelled? It is in Plaintiffs best interest to compel discovery before the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is heard. 19)A few days before on or about September 16th, Plaintiff Mashak is told verbally and via email, by attorney Olson that the date of the hearing was canceled by the Court; 13 20)Plaintiff Mashak gets copy of 6/9/10 transcript made so Defense can no longer say wont give discovery because dont know that Discovery has been extended. 21)In early September, in a 3 way phone call Olson tells Plaintiff and others that he is getting it from the front and the back meaning from me and from the Court; 22)On or about September 2, 2011, Defendants Meeks Hull and Hull file a motion for summary Judgment; 23)Only upon hearing that I was having a transcript made of the hearing to provide to Defendants did Judge Yunker suddenly allege the amended scheduling order must have got lost and produced another one. 24)Defendants Meeks-Hull and Hull refused to answer any discovery without the amended scheduling order and Judge Yunker refused to return Attorney Olsons phone calls. 25)The Court failed to send out a copy of the Amended Scheduling order. 26)Because Counsel nor Defendants attended the June 9, 2011 hearing, they said they were not aware that discovery had been extended; 27)TRO matter reversed by Minnesota Appellate Court; 28)Defendants Meeks-Hull and Hull then retained Counsel; 29)On or about June 9, 2011, Plaintiff Mashak and Attorney Olson Show up for pre-trial hearing; Defendants Meeks and Hull do not show up. Court refuses motion for summary judgment. Court sets next date as 9/29/2011 30)In late May, 2011 Plaintiffs retain attorney Olson; 31)Plaintiff Mashak Files Appellate Brief in TRO matter himself; 32)Learn that Attorney OBrien missed deadline for filing appellate Brief; 33)Finally get Court file back from Attorney OBrien, left in an open vehicle on my property; 34)For 2 months or more, Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board says they cant force OBrien to give Plaintiff Mashak back the Client File; 35)Meet the Police at office of Attorney OBrien but they say they wont make contact because this is a civil Matter; 36)Attorney Obrien Disappears; 37)December 2010, retain Attorney OBrien; 38)Attorney Longrie wont surrender files. 39)Attorney Longrie Not returning calls, not doing depositions; 40)Attorney Longrie pursues Amended Finding of Facts in re harassment restraining order; 41)Attorney Longrie files for appeal of small claims court decision; 42)The day before the original small claim matter is to be held, Attorney Longrie says she cant be there and Plaintiffs cannot ask for a continuance. Deliberately omits documents that she knows to be necessary to prevail on repossession deficiency; 43)Spring 2010 Plaintiffs retain Defendant Diana Longrie. 44)Defendants file harassment restraining order against Plaintiffs making wild and colorful accusations about Plaintiff Mashak as a strategy to fight law suit; 45)Anoka county Court calls Defendants and tell them Plaintiffs know address and are about to serve process on them; 46)Fall 2009, Finally find correct address for Defendants Meeks Hull 47)For about a year, Defendants Meeks and hull avoid small claims service of process; 48)Defendants Meeks and Hull refused certified letter service of process; (the Anoka failed to tell me that the refused envelope was considered sufficient service of process) 14

49)In or about December 2007, file in small claims court because Defendants would not be able to pay a large judgment even if said judgment was granted. Therefore most cost effective way is small claims court without including all claims. 50)Between Spring of 2006 and Fall of 2007, Plaintiffs hear rumors and feed back that Defendants are spreading 15 rumors, have started their own repo business in violation of their employment agreement, etc. 51)In Summer of 2006, Defendants try to sell Ford Expedition in which Plaintiffs have a second lien in violation of MN Stat 609.62. In the end, Defendants force credit union to repossess the vehicle instead of return it to Plaintiff. 52)In January of 2006, while Plaintiff Mashak is out of the Country on vacation, Defendants embezzle money, steal company real and intellectual property and start their own repo business. SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT DEPARTURES FROM NORMAL DUE PROCESS So we have in this pattern in litigation irregularities 1) Wolfgram Admission to throwing the case, 2) Respondents Wolfgram, Yunker and Respondent Meeks-Hull and Hulls on the record wink wink nudge nudge conversation confirming between them in code that the fix is in; 3) Nearly identical documents missing from both the client and court file (prima facie evidence of conspiracy of Court with Plaintiffs own attorney Wolfgram), so briefs cant be filed before deadlines; 4) Judge Yunker saying motions untimely when judge Yunker refused to set hearings for more than 3 months; 5) Judge Yunker refusing to set hearings for more than 3 months 9/29/2010-12/29/2010 and then finding the motions untimely because of the courts delay; 6) Judge taking extreme measures at the 12/29/2010 and 1/9/2011 hearings to make sure no extraneous recording devices were in the Court room; 7) Wolfgram fails to promptly file Notice of Deposition upon being retained; 8) Judge Yunker cancels 9/16/2010 Discovery hearing with Summary Judgment impending on 9/29/2010; 9) Judge Yunkers refusal to respond to calls by Lawyer Olson to replace allegedly missing scheduling order for more than 2 months; 10)Attorney Olsons Complaint that he is getting it from the front and the back 11)Attorney Olsons failure to amend complaint shortly after 6/9/10 hearing as court agreed; 12)The Courts failure to force Attorney OBrien to return the client file for more than 2 months; 13)Longrie deliberately tells Mashak certain document that was required to prove repossession deficiency was not required; 14)Longrie bails on representation the day before the most important hearing saying she has a conflict and court case cannot be rescheduled. Perhaps any one of these could be given a pass as happenstance, but this Federal Court can not ignore the overwhelming weight of all of these irregularities. Irregularities which always negatively impact Plaintiff and not the Defendant. The pattern to deprive Plaintiff of Due Process is clear, convincing and overwhelming. After all of those irregularities and non-compliance of the Rules by Defendants, Does this Court really intend to hand Plaintiffs this bad ruling on a single wrongfully alleged failure of Plaintiffs to comply with the rules? Does not a Pro Se litigant who has spent $20,000.00 on layers because he was falsely induced to do so by material misrepresentation of the Minnesota Courts, Minnesota BAR and said attorneys, not get some consideration as the victim of an incredibly complex conspiracy to obstruct justice? The reason this litigation even evolves to this point is the result of Petitioner Mashaks exercise of his 1st Amendment Rights, the Willingness of the Government to engage in punishment and reprisal for

Petitioner Petitioning the Government for Redress of grievances and the Minnesota State District, Appellate and Supreme Courts clandestine, unpublished ruling in Fabian, May and Anderson v Volkommer A10-1205. This is the ruling which establishes Minnesota lawyers do not have to treat their clients ethically nor abide by the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct. The Minnesota Courts effected punishment and reprisal against Petitioner Mashak in this different litigation matter. Petitioner Mashak was unaware of the clandestine, unpublished A10-1205 ruling until after the damage had been done. Magistrate Judges Recommendation March 19, 2012 Denies all of Plaintiffs Motions and Grants all Defendants Motions March 21, 2012 Denying Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider et. al. June 14, filed Order denying Appeal to 8th Circuit 16 This pro se plaintiff-appellant realizes that an Initial Hearing En Banc is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless requirements of Rule 35 are met. The circumstances involved in this appellant matter meet all the requirements for Initial En Banc Hearing under Rule 35 nor a panel hearing under FRAP 40. Function of en banc hearings is not to review alleged errors for benefit of losing litigants. U. S. v. Rosciano, C.A.7 (Ill.) 1974, 499 F.2d 173. Federal Courts 521 This is not a disgruntled litigant grousing about an adverse decision. This is not a disgruntled litigant grousing about an adverse decision made according to the proper administration of just and made pursuant to the Rule of Law applied to the unbiased, freely admitted relevant facts in evidence This is the just and reasoned assertion by the victim of an adverse decision NOT made according to his Natural Law Right to Due Process, Not in accordance with the proper administration of justice and NOT made according to the Rule of Law applied to the unbiased, freely admitted, unmachinated relevant facts in evidence. Hearing en banc, although rarely granted, may be appropriate where (1) court must answer question of exceptional importance and (2) answer will create precedent. George E. Warren Corp. v. U.S., C.A.Fed.2003, 341 F.3d 1348, rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 31, 543 U.S. 808, 160 L.Ed.2d 10. Courts 90(2) En banc review should be limited generally to only those cases that raise issues of important systemic consequences for the development of the law and the administration of justice. Watson v. Geren, C.A.2 2009, 587 F.3d 156. Federal Courts 744 This rule does not establish a blanket policy barring en banc review, but, rather, en banc consideration may be appropriate in an extremely unusual case in order to cure a gross injustice. U. S. v. Lynch, C.A.D.C.1982, 690 F.2d 213, 223 U.S.App.D.C. 100. Courts 90(2) An intracircuit conflict can only be resolved by the Court of Appeals en banc. Greenhow v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1988, 863 F.2d 633. Courts 90(2) The purpose of a petition for rehearing is to direct the court's attention to some material matter of law or fact which it has overlooked in deciding a case, and which, had it been given consideration, would probably have brought about a different result. National Labor Relations Board v. Brown & Root, Inc., C.A.8 1953, 206 F.2d 73. Federal Courts 744 First, the phrase of 35(a)(1) maintain the uniformity of courts decisions takes on an extraordinary and important meaning in this appeal; Are all litigants, civil and criminal, entitled to loyal, ethical, honest and vigorous representation by their lawyer or not. And Further, do all the Rules of Law and the Court Apply even when one of the litigants is representing themselves Pro Se.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF REHEARING UNDER FRAP 35 AND FRAP 40

I)It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Courts to unlawfully and unconstitutionally engage in Reprisal against Petitioner Mashak for exercising his 1st Amendment right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. II)It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Courts to unlawfully & unconstitutionally engage in Reprisal against Petitioner Mashak for exercising his 1st Amendment right to Freedom of the Press. http://examiner.com, http://WETHEPEOPLETAR.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/DMashak etc III)It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Courts to unlawfully and unconstitutionally engage in Reprisal against Petitioner Mashak for exercising his 1st Amendment right to Free Speech. IV)It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Courts to unlawfully and unconstitutionally engage in Reprisal against Petitioner Mashak for exercising his 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Assembly. V)It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Courts to achieve their reprisal against Appellant by denying Appellant Mashak his Natural Law Right to Due Process and adjudicating his lawsuits in otherwise unrelated matters in a manner not in accordance with the proper administration of just. 17 For Items 1-5, it is well demonstrated, fundamental law that Citizens cannot be punished by the Government for exercising their 1st Amendment Rights. The Record is clear that Petitioner was actively exercising those first amendment rights from 2005 to the present. http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-minneapolis/don-mashak The Court deviated from the proper administration of justice to punish Petitioner Mashak for Petitioning the Government for Redress of Grievances about Corruption in the State of Minnesota Judiciary and for its failure to force Municipal Governments to produce financial records that are supposed to be public record. VI)It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Courts to achieve their reprisal against Appellant by denying Appellant Mashak his Right to have his otherwise unrelated litigation determined in a manner inconsistent with the principle of the properly applied Rule of Law to the unmachinated, freely admitted relevant facts in evidence. VII)It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Courts to use simulated litigation, fact shaping and abuse of Power to enable their reprisal against Appellant in such in a manner not in accordance with the proper administration of justice, nor the proper application of the Rule of Law to the unmachinated, freely admitted relevant facts in evidence nor Appellants Natural Law Right to Due Process. Not conforming to the proper administration of justice on its face is unlawful. The fact that it was done to retaliate against Petitioner makes it even more aggregious. VIII)It is a manifest injustice and not in accordance with the proper administration of justice to force Petitioner to appear before a Minnesota State Court that has clandestinely ruled in an unpublished opinion that Minnesota Lawyers do not have to treat their clients ethically; MN A10-1205 MANIFEST INJUSTICE TO FORCE PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF MASHAK TO LITIGATE IN STATE WHERE LAWYERS DONT HAVE TO BE ETHICAL. Fabian, Anderson and May v Volkommer A10-1205 Based upon this ruling by the Minnesota State District, Appellate and Supreme Courts, Minnesota Lawyers are not required to treat their clients ethically and are specifically released from the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct with the verbiage the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct are not an implied covenant of a legal services contract between a Minnesota Lawyer and their client(s) It is a manifest injustice to force Petitioner Mashak to litigate in a Minnesota State Court System where lawyers are not required to treat their clients ethically. The entire reason we are here is because in another matter, Appellant was induced to pay and trust the his attorneys $20,000.00 based on the material misrepresentation by the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota State Courts, the

Minnesota BAR and these attorneys that they would and were required to abide by the Minnesota Lawyers code of Professional Conduct. In the absence of any Rule, Law or Code requiring them to treat Appellant Mashak ethically, Petitioner has been unable to find any Minnesota Lawyer willing to add language to their contract requiring them to treat Petitioner Mashak ethically and honestly and in accordance with the MN LCPC. Appellant ask this Court to rule to allow this matter to removed to Federal Court so Petitioner can try to escape the Minnesota Courts who dont require Minnesota Lawyers to treat their clients ethically, equally reflective on the nature, character and integrity of the Minnesota State Courts. The Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct amounts to nothing more than false advertising if Minnesota Lawyers do not have to abide by it. Further, if Minnesota Citizens are not guaranteed access to Lawyers required by law to treat them ethically and in accordance with the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct, expect many more to choose to represent themselves. And if this condition of manifest justice is not repealed, these Courts must order the Minnesota Legislature to simply and consolidate the law and case law into 4 publications (Civil, Criminal, Family and Administrative) so that citizens can consult to represent themselves much more easily. All conflicting case law opinions must be resolved by the Legislature and the prevailing opinion made the sole citation for that position. This way, instead of citizens forced to represent themselves Pro Se because Minnesota Lawyers are not by law or by the Courts to treat them ethically, Pro Se litigants will be less overwhelmed by the prospect of going to libraries to research case law. To not force Minnesota Lawyers to treat their clients ethically and not extremely simplify the voluminous and confusing case law maze the Courts have created, is unjust and inequitable and will result in manifest injustice to all Minnesota Citizens. Petitioner Mashak was fraudulently induced by material misrepresentation into retaining Minnesota Attorneys. The State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Courts, the Minnesota BAR and the Attorneys themselves led Petitioner Mashak to believe they were required to treat him ethically and in accordance with MN LCPC. Petitioner paid these attorneys more than $20,000.00 reasonably relied upon these attorneys for legal advice. And finally the last lawyer, Respondent Wolfgram, admitted the case had been fix against Petitioner for political purposes. The Court and the lawyers and Respondent Meeks-Hull and Hulls lawyers engaged in simulated litigation in not letting Petitioner put information on the record and advising him not to put information on the record. And then the appellate Court Rules that Petitioner had opportunity to put evidence on the record but did not. 1st, I was told not by lawyers who Petitioner did not know had no obligation to treat him ethically. 2nd Petitioner. At the Sept 29, 2010 hearing, The Court said the Discovery and Dispositive Motion deadline was on or about 12/19/2010. It is the privilege of Petitioner to enter record on the evidence when he so chooses. More than one of those instances to put evidence on the record, occurred when Petitioner was representing himself Pro Se. There was no reason for Petitioner to not believe he had time to retain another attorney and enter that evidence on the record before the 12/19/2012 deadline. Judge Mary Yunker refusing to set any hearings from 9/29/2010 to 12/29/2010 was not a reasonably foreseeable occurrence. And the Court had an obligation to extend the deadlines, since it was the courts fault no hearings could be held before the Discovery and Dispositive Motion Deadline. IX)The Legal Community in Minnesota has arrived at a policy that Lawyers cant commit crimes; That any complaint a client has against a Minnesota Lawyer, including theft by swindle, is a civil matter; Lawyers can be guilty of crimes just like ordinary citizens. Respondent Lee Wolfgram committed theft by swindle. Hennepin county Attorney Freeman says he needs a police report, and the Minneapolis
18

Police Department and Hennepin County Sheriffs Department wont file a police report because as they say, anything that goes on between a client and their attorney is civil. X)The Rules, policies, constraints and personalities involved with the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board (MNLPRB) and the Board of Judicial Standards (BJS), render them ineffective in protecting the public. The Minnesota Legislature unconstitutionally delegated its authority to oversee and discipline the Minnesota Courts back to the Minnesota Courts. And the roles have become reversed. Instead of someone with power, resources and knowledge holding the Minnesota Courts Accountable, now every Pro Se Citizen has to recognize the wrongdoing of the Court, act like an attorney to press that claim, and meet a Burden of Proof of Clear and Convincing. If that is not the policy of a Government bent on tyranny, what is? XI)Law Enforcement Agencies, including the FBI, either deny receiving faxes and mail or refer persons complaining about judges and lawyers to either MNLPRB or BJS. THE Minnesota FBI and State Attorney General deny receiving phone calls, mail and/or faxes reporting these crimes. And when Petitioner catches them having to admit they got it, they all refer all Citizens to the MN BJS and/or the MN LBPR. XII)Minnesota Citizens are denied direct access to Grand Juries and an elaborate convoluted series of road blocks to any Grand Jury are in place. Petitioner feels like he has been transported to some 3rd world country where all justice is for sale. Grand Juries also being a means for WE THE PEOPLE to Petition the Government, this also is a violation of the 1st Amendment. XIII)The convoluted rules in the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct address the issue of gifts (otherwise known to the 19 public as bribes aka a Rose by any other name would still smell as sweet) in three disjointed parts which in essence allow Minnesota Judges to take an unlimited number of bribes per day as long as they are from different people in amounts less than $150.00. This gives the appearance of impropriety. Judges should not be able to accept bribes regardless of what they are called. This was one of the issues Petitioner was pressing to give evidence and testimony of to the Minnesota house and Senate Judiciary Committees since 2005. XIV)Any party to any litigation, except in the case of a court order in that specific case to the contrary, should be able to discreetly voice record the proceedings and/or the Courts should have the ability to record all visual and audio activity in the Court room and implement a record keepings system to make finding and accessing those records easy and free to parties to the litigation. To many allegations of Court Transcripts being altered exist to not take the steps to make sure that transcript altering cannot occur. The magically altered transcript. The problem is self explanatory. This was one of the issues Petitioner was pressing to give evidence and testimony of to the Minnesota house and Senate Judiciary Committees since 2005. XV)The lower Court refuses to allow Petitioner a IFP transcript, forcing Petitioner to rely up his memory. XVI)It is a manifest injustice to quash the claims of First National Repossessors, Inc. solely because, after spending $20,000.00 on attorneys, Petitioner is unable to afford to pay an attorney and/or Petitioner has become aware that no Minnesota Lawyer has to treat clients ethically (MN A10-1205) If the Courts, Petitioners own attorney and the Respondent Meeks-Hull and Hull not engaged in simulated litigation, fact shaping and obstruction of justice, Petitioner would not have run our of money and had his source of income destroyed. Do you Judges really think this is a fair arrangement?

XVII)The Minnesota Courts are systemically corrupt and Petitioner Mashak should not be forced to be subject to their unlawful and unconstitutional reprisal for attempting to exercise his 1st Amendment Rights, Among the Right to Free Speech, the Right to Assembly, Freedom of the Press and THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL. This reprisal having to do with hundreds of Minnesota Citizens asking for the opportunity to give evidence and testimony in the Minnesota State Courts to the Minnesota State House and Senate Judiciary Committees and being denied that opportunity for now coming on eight years. XVIII)Decision based on fraud and material misrepresentations; Upon becoming aware that the Courts would accept anything they said as the truth, Respondents Meeks-Hull and Hull submitted obviously false information and evidence to the Court. The allegations of fatal attraction romance, the valuation of the repossessed vehicle, how the repossessed vehicle got damaged, etc. XVIII)Petitioners former Attorney, Respondent Lee Wolfgram Order Dismissed with Prejudice despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary; In what world of justice can Respondent Lee Wolfgram admit to Petitioner admit to fixing the case against his client Petitioner with all the irrefutable evidence and facts indicating that to be the truth, and the lower court dismisses all of Petitioners claims against Respondent Wolfgram by Petitioner with Prejudice. If you folks dont see this as just plain wrong, I will openly begin calling all judges crooks and worse. The acts of the lower Court are nothing but a coverup for rampant corruption. XX)This Court must act boldly. A Cornerstone of our Republic is that its citizens must be able to freely express their concerns about the government. The Reprisal that this Litigant has suffered will chilling suppress other persons from criticizing their Government, as guaranteed by the first Amendment. What has occurred here is something WE THE PEOPLE would expect to see in 3rd world or communist nations, not our Representative, Constitutionally limited, Republic. This is not what is taught in High School Civics classes; If this is the reality, then start teaching reality to young folks that they can have the fore-knowledge that reprisal is likely and make an informed decision about criticizing the government and being savaged with reprisal, or Patriotically accepting the consequences. By their acts, the Respondents have deprived Petitioner Mashak of his unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. From the record it is clear that the lower court abused its discretion or made a plain or clearly erroneous error The lower court did not provide for accommodation for Petitioner as required under the American with Disabilities Act Taitz v. Astrue, No. 11-402, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119453 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2011) (Lamberth, J.). "party must show that 'there has been an intervening change of controlling law, that new evidence is available, or that granting the motion is necessary to correct error or to prevent manifest injustice.'" Families for Freedom v. CBP, No. 10 Civ. 2785, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113143 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (Scheindlin, J.). Despite plaintiffs' objections, the court finds that CBP's motion for reconsideration is proper in this instance, because "while defendants have had ample time to present the arguments they now make, it is less clear that they have had the opportunity to do so." Therefore, "in the interests of both correcting material error and preventing clear injustice, [the court finds] it is appropriate to consider defendants' arguments, even if they were never fully presented prior to the motion for reconsideration."
20

CONCLUSION
At the very least, Petitioner claims against Respondent Wolfgram should only be dismissed, not dismissed with prejudice. In a better scenario, all of the lower courts decisions should be reversed and this matter should be remanded to a different court.

The current rulings and proposed course of action will result in further unfairness, inequitability and manifest injustice. Petitioner has already suffered enough from these manifest injustices. Disposing of cases on the merits, however, is favored in this Court.); Azikiwe v. Nig. Airways Ltd., No. CV-03-6387, 2006 WL 2224450, at * (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2006) If this court cannot figure out away to make Petitioner whole, the Petitioner wants an explanation from this court how it is legal and complies to the rules 1) for Judge Yunker not to allow a hearing to be set for 3 months and then call motions raised then untimely, 2) how it not be a conspiracy to obstruct justice when almost identical sets of documents are missing from the client file and the court file until after a filing deadline and then only when Petitioner when to police department to file a police department; 3) How is it possible to spend $20,000.00 on attorneys over 2 years and not get 1 deposition, or the correct evidence on the record unless their was conspiracy with that intent; 4) How corrupt must the Courts be that Respondent Wolfgram can be so confident his client cant do anything about it that he admits he and the Court fixed the case to make Respondent look like a bumbling incompetent? For merely attempting to petition the government for redress of grievances regarding corrupt Courts, I have had my business, health and finances destroyed and my house is in foreclosure. What course of action do you think Petitioner should take if his Government lets this travesty of justice go uncorrected? If this Court cannot find a way to make this Petitioner whole, the United States is little better that the Former Soviet Union or Communist Russia. While they overtly use coercion, re-education gulags, psych wards and men with guns to repress their subjects, WE THE PEOPLE will know our government merely uses adverse Court rulings to covertly suppress political dissent, with the men with guns called in when some alleged citizens will not accept the garbage that the Courts would pass as justice.

Dated: July 18, 2012 Don Mashak 612-326-6070 Pro Se and In Propia Persona POB 231 Albertville, MN 55301 (According to my calculation there are 15 counted pages of this brief 6-21)

21 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT


Case File No. 12-1935 Don Mashak and 1at National Repossessors, Inc. V. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Lee Wolfgram, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s),

Plaintiff - Appellant - Respondent

Defendants - Appellees - Respondents

US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM Minnesota Supreme Court (refused to hear) Minnesota Appellate Court A11-638 Minnesota District Court 30-CV-09- 429

AFFIDAVIT OF DON MASHAK IN SUPPORT OF FRAP 35 & 40 MOTION TO: The Court, other Petitioners and Respondents I, Don Mashak, do hereby swear and affirm by my signature below, the following:
1) That I am a Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner in this matter;

2) That the facts alleged in the associated memorandum of law are true, to the best of my knowledge, as I prepared them; 3) That any Exhibits included are true and correct copies. The above I do affirm and swear to under penalty of perjury: __________________________ Don Mashak 612-326-6070 Pro Se and In Propia Persona POB 231 Albertville MN 55301 ___________________________ Signed and Sworn before me this day ________________, 2012

Notary Public Dated: July 18, 2012 Don Mashak 612-326-6070 Pro Se and In Propia Persona POB 231 Albertville, MN 55301 If this affidavit has not been executed, an executed copy will follow shortly

22 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT


Case File No. 12-1935 Don Mashak and 1at National Repossessors, Inc. V. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Lee Wolfgram, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s),

Plaintiff - Appellant - Respondent

Defendants - Appellees - Respondents

US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM

Minnesota Supreme Court (refused to hear) Minnesota Appellate Court A11-638 Minnesota District Court 30-CV-09- 429

ORDER The above-entitled matter came before the Court on the BY Respondents against the above named Defendants. Based upon the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1) The lowers courts orders of 3/19/2012, 3/21/2012, and 6/14/2012 are reversed and

rescinded; 2) The magistrate judges recommendation is rejected; 3) Both are remanded back to the lower court with these stipulations; 4) The lower Court will allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to reflect all of First National Repossessors claims, rights and assets have been assigned to Don Mashak personally; 5) The lower Court will allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to reflect properly identifying whether the Judges involved are being sued in their official or personal capacities; 6) Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment against Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull and Dianna Longrie are granted; 7) The lower Court decision to dismiss claims against Defendant Wolfgram is reversed and the lower Court is directed to not dismiss claims against Defendant Lawyer Wolfgram on technicalities, only proven merit or the finding of a jury; 8) A new lower Court judge will be appointed for this matter; 9) An elected or appointed judge and not a magistrate shall be assigned to this matter; 10)The Court shall appoint an attorney to represent Plaintiffs/Plaintiffs; 11) Said attorney to be paid up to $20,000.00 by the Minnesota Courts, the Minnesota Bar, the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards, the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, the Minnesota Attorney Generals office or the FBI, as the lower court sees fit. 12)The Court will impose on said attorney an oath to act with integrity and to the best of their ability to represent Plaintiffs and to adhere to the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct; 13)The lower Court shall grant Plaintiffs and there knew lawyer 45 days from the date of this order to submit a response to the Magistrates Report and Recommendation; 14) The Lower Court Shall make accommodations for Plaintiff Mashaks disabilities; 15)The lower Court shall provide Plaintiffs/Plaintiffs Mashak with free access to electronic legal resources pursuant to an IFP. 23 16) THE FBI and the DOJ are directed to investigate and prosecute these matters to the fullest extent of the law. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Plaintiffs paid $20,000.00 in attorneys fees and were not represented properly; 2) $20,000.00 should have been more than adequate to litigate this case if it were handled properly;

3) The failure of any of Plaintiffs attorneys to secure even 1 deposition after 2 plus years

and $20,000.00 plus in legal services is the result of deliberate unethical acts, not happenstance; 4) Other courts handling these matters have not acted in accordance with the rules nor in compliance with the standard of the rule of law. 5) Minnesota courts are unfit as a result of a series of rules and case law the Minnesota courts have implemented to permit it to fix the outcome of cases; 6) That Plaintiffs former attorney Defendant Wolfgram did not act ethically nor to the best of his ability in representing Plaintiffs with the obvious intent to cause Plaintiffs to lose their case; 7) Whether Plaintiffs other attorneys did not act ethically, nor to the best of their ability requires further discovery and litigation of this matter. 8) Plaintiffs to date have not received Due Process in Accordance with the Rule of Law. 9) The Minnesota District, Appellate and Supreme Court Ruling in Fabian v Volkommer MN A10-1205, renders the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct, false advertizing and a fraudulent inducement. 10) That Minnesota District, Appellate and Supreme Courts Ruling in Fabian v Volkommer MN A10-1205 stands diametrically opposed to the standards and intent of the Rule of Law and Due Process; 11)Defendant Wolfgram did not represent Plaintiff Mashak to the best of his ability nor with integrity and honesty; 12)Defendant Wolfgram deliberately handled Plaintiffs litigation in such a manner as to allow the Court to rule against Plaintiff Mashak; 13)Defendant Lee Wolgram committed theft by Swindle when he fraudulently induced Plaintiff Mashak to pay him money by saying he would represent Plaintiff Mashak to the best of his ability and with integrity and honesty; 14)What has happened to Plaintiff Mashak is and example of what US citizens mean when say the Government can destroy anyone it want to. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated:____________, 2012 __________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT


Case File No. 12-1935 Don Mashak and 1at National Repossessors, Inc.

24

Plaintiff - Appellant - Respondent


V. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Lee Wolfgram, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s),

Defendants - Appellees - Respondents


US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM Minnesota Supreme Court (refused to hear) Minnesota Appellate Court A11-638 Minnesota District Court 30-CV-09- 429

I, Don Mashak, hereby certify that on 7/20/2012, I caused the following true and correct documents: 1) NOTICE OF HEARING 2) FRAP 35 & 40 MOTION 3) Petitioners Petition 4) Affidavit of Don Mashak in Support of said Motion 5) Proposed Order 6) Certificate of service 7) Exhibit 1 7/3/2012 order in case 12-2221 to be served on the following parties in the following manner: By ECF, fax or 1st Class US Mail, as indicated by mark: The State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Mary Yunker, Timothy Bloomquist represented by John Garry by emailing to John Garry at john.garry@state.mn.us and/or fax 651-282-5832 To Defendant Wolfgram at email wolfgramclerk@gmail.com and/or fax 612-332-1165 To Defendant Longrie at email longrie@hotmail.com and/or fax 651-793-6864 And the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals fax 314-244-2780 and Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, Missouri 63102 I certify that I placed an envelope containing true and correct copies of said document(s) with the correct address and proper postage in a mail Receptacle on June 18, 2012 to Defendant Dannette Meeks-Hull and Michael Hull at 27015 BAYSHORE DRIVE, Isanti MN 55040 Dated: July 18, 2012 Don Mashak 612-326-6070 Rt 1 Box 231 Albertville, MN 55301 John and Jane Doe(s) 25

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FRAP 35 & 40 MOTION

You might also like