FORM 133.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CASE TITLE:
Don Mashak
Appellant,

STATEMENT OF THE CASE OF APPELLANT

TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER: 19HA-CR-14-1019

vs.
APPELLATE COURT CASE NUMBER: A14-1425
State of Minnesota
Respondent.
1. Dakota County Courts and Judge King and Judge Ausphaug.
2. Jurisdictional statement
(A) Appeal from district court.
Statute, rule or other authority authorizing appeal:
Appellate Rule 26.02 Sub 3 Discretionary Review,

MN RCP 31.02 Plain Error,

1120 Extraordinary Writ
MN RCP 59/60 (Mistake/Error/Fraud)
Date of entry of judgment or date of service of notice of filing of order from which appeal is taken:
Appellant has received no official notice. Dakota County Courts refuse to put anything regarding this
in writing.

On June 11, 2014, during a hearing, Defendant expressed concern to Judge Ausphaug that video
evidence was being destroyed. Defendant also expressed concern that the Court Window would
not give him a Subpoena without a Judges permission. Judge Ausphaug said she was aware of no
such rule and asked Prosecutor Fluegel who also agreed their was no such rule. Judge Asphaug
appeared to warn Prosecutor Fluegel to immediately produce the evidence Defendant feared
destroyed. Prosecutor Fluegel agreed but said he could not do it yet that day. During this same
hearing, Judge Asphaug ruled that this matter should be heard before a Judge from another
County. This because all Dakota County Judges had a familiar relationship with the Dakota
County Bailiffs in question. JUDGE AUSPHAUG SAID SHE WOULD NOT RULE ON ANY
OF THE PENDING MOTIONS TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE HEARD BY AN IMPARTIAL
JUDGE FROM ANOTHER COUNTY.
At the July 23, 2014 hearing, Judge King immediately granted a continuance upon finding
Defendant qualified for a Public Defender. While the notice was being drafted, Defendant asked

Judge King which County she was from. Judge King replied, You are in Dakota County
Defendant directed Judge King to the fact that Judge Ausphaug ordered this matter was to be
heard by a Judge from another County. (Ergo, Appellant found out the about the error by accident
and not by pro-active notice from the court) Judge King said their was no such order in the file.
Judge King cut Defendant off when Defendant turned to Prosecutor Fluegel and asked him to
confirm that Judge Ausphaug ordered the matter to be heard by a Judge from a different County.
Judge King said we are off the record and refused further conversation. Defendant left without
pressing the issue for fear he would be arrested again on some other trumped up charges if he
tried to press the matter further. (It occurred to Appellant at the time that if there were not a
criminal conspiracy afoot, Judge King would have immediately reconciled this matter by
immediately getting Prosecutor Fluegels input)
On July 25, 2014, Appellant faxed a letter requesting Judge Ausphaug reduce the order to writing in Place
it in the Court File. (Exhibit 1)
On August 4, 2014 Appellant filed this appeal.
On or about August 5, 2014, Appellant Contacted Judge Ausphaugs Law Clerk, Megan L.
Megan L. said there had been a clerical error. Megan L indicated that an email from someone with from
the Courts had been received shortly after the hearing. Megan L informed Appellant that the error would
be corrected administratively, not by Court Order. Appellant informed Megan L, that in light of all the
activities which tended to demonstrate that a criminal conspiracy to Obstruct Justice was occurring,
Appellant could not just take her verbal word that the error was being corrected.
Despite this the matter continues to be set to be heard in Dakota County. Further, it would be a simple
matter of the Court, the Public Defender and/or Prosecutor Fluegel to send written confirmation that this
matter was going to be heard by a Judge from another County.
Combine this with the destruction of video evidence that Appellant requested be saved for Court and
verbal and written assurance from county officials that it would, as well as the fabrication of evidence and
this Appellant has reached the conclusion that there is a criminal conspiracy to Obstruct Justice and Fix
the outcome of this case. And making sure the matter is heard by a Dakota County Judge is an element of
the criminal conspiracy. If there were no criminal conspiracy to ignore or void Judge Ausphaugs order
from the bench, Definitive communication in writing directly addressing this matter would have been sent
directly to Appellant. The question relevant to when any time limit began to toll hinges on what is a
reasonable period of time for the Appellant to wait to get said written communication.
It is clear that Appellant wasnt even aware there was a concern until July 23, 2014. And this Appeal was
initiated 8/4/2014.
Authority fixing time limit for filing notice of appeal (specify applicable rule or statute):
104.01 Sub 2 E and F
MN RCP 59 and 60 provide for statutes of limitations of a year or more.
Date of filing any motion that tolls appeal time:

As previously stated, Appellant was not even aware there was an issue until July 23, 2014. Appellant sent
a letter to Judge Ausphaug asking her to correct the deficiency on July 25, 2014 (Exhibit 1)
Date of filing of order deciding tolling motion and date of service of notice of filing:
Appellants best guess are the actions of Judge King on July 23, 2014.
(B) Certiorari appeal.
Statute, rule or other authority authorizing certiorari appeal:
Authority fixing time limit for obtaining certiorari review (cite statutory section and date of event
triggering appeal time, e.g., mailing of decision, receipt of decision, or receipt of other notice):
(C) Other appellate proceedings.
Statute, rule or other authority authorizing appellate proceeding:

Appellate Rule 26.02 Sub 3 Discretionary Review,

MN RCrimP 31.02 Plain Error,
1120 Extraordinary Writ
MN RCivP 59/60 (Mistake/Error/Fraud)
Authority fixing time limit for appellate review (cite statutory section and date of event triggering
appeal time, e.g., mailing of decision, receipt of decision, or receipt of other notice):
104.01 Sub 2 E and F
MN RCP 59 and 60 provide for statutes of limitations of a year or more
(D) Finality of order or judgment.
Does the judgment or order to be reviewed dispose of all claims by and against all parties, including
attorney fees? Yes ( ) No (x)
If no:
Did the district court order entry of a final partial judgment for immediate appeal pursuant to
MINN. R. CIV. APP. P. 104.01? Yes ( ) No (X) or
If yes, provide date of order:
If no, is the order or judgment appealed from reviewable under any exception to the finality rule?
Yes (X) No ( )
If yes, cite rule, statute, or other authority authorizing appeal:

Appellate Rule 26.02 Sub 3 Discretionary Review,

MN RCrimP 31.02 Plain Error,
1120 Extraordinary Writ
MN RCivP 59/60 (Mistake/Error/Fraud)
(E) Criminal only:
Has a sentence been imposed or imposition of sentence stayed? Yes ( ) No (X)
If no, cite statute or rule authorizing interlocutory appeal:

Appellate Rule 26.02 Sub 3 Discretionary Review,

MN RCrimP 31.02 Plain Error,
1120 Extraordinary Writ
MN RCivP 59/60 (Mistake/Error/Fraud)
3. State type of litigation and designate any statutes at issue.
Misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct Malicous Prosectuion, Abuse of Process, Conspiracy to Obstruct
Justice, Infringement of First Amendment Free Speech, Free Press and Right to Petition the Government
for Redress of Grievances without fear of punishment or reprisal.
4. Brief description of claims, defenses, issues litigated and result below. For criminal cases, specify
whether conviction was for a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or felony offense.
There are no recognizable issues in the courts jurisdiction. Before Appellant even contemplates pleading
not guilty, The Court and Prosecutor need to establish that there even are recognizable issues that come
under this Courts jurisdiction. And before even that, we need a hearing on a motion for change of venue
as there appears to be a conspiracy to obstruct justice that originates with the Dakota County Judiciary. A
conspiracy to Obstruct Justice that includes fabricating evidence and destroying video evidence Appellant
long ago asked for and was verbally and in writing assured had been secured.
Judge Ausphaug ordered from the bench that this matter be heard by a Judge from another County for
purposes of the appearance of impartiality. And now there appears to be a full out criminal conspiracy to
ignore and/or void that ruling.
This is a retaliatory misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Appellant attended the matter of Sperling v Sperling
to hear testimony alleging Mr. Sperling was getting preferential treat because of his relationship with
Local Law Enforcement. Specifically Mrs. Sperling alleged that the Local Law Enforcement were
complicit in the local drug trade and that Mr. Sperling was the major drug supplier.
Everything that has occurred stinks of Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice. The
authorities have fabricated false evidence and destroyed all the video tapes Appellant repeatedly
demanded be preserved. At the Arraignment, Prosecutor Fluegel suggested Appellant could just leave and
he would tell the Court what transpired. Appellant stayed. In the Course of Appellants interaction with
Judge Ausphaug, Judge Ausphaug of her own volition recognized that the matter should be heard by a
judge outside of Dakota County for the sake of the appearance of impartiality. At a second hearing, Judge
King said there was no Court Order to that effect in the file. Judge King cut Appellant off when Appellant
asked Prosecutor Fluegel to confirm that was Judge Ausphaugs order from the bench. Fearing more

bogus charges, Appellant did not feel it would be prudent to press the issue then and there. Appellant sent
a letter to Judge Ausphaug and got no written reply. Shortly after Appellant filed this Appeal, Appellant
called Judge Ausphaugs legal clerk. The assistant tried to explain that it was a clerical error being
handled administratively. Appellant specifically said to Judge Ausphaugs clerk that the fabrication of
evidence and destruction of the video made a written order necessary. Appellant never received a written
notice to that effect. Defendant began making arrangements with Judge Ausphaugs Court Reporter to get
the transcript. Since then, Appellant has been granted a Public Defender that said he knows nothing about
appeals. Hence, Appellant had to prepare these documents himself. Though the notice of Deficiency
from the Appellate Court was dated August 20, 2014, Appellant did not receive it until August 25, 2014.
The original Appeal by this Appellant was mailed on or about 8/4/2014. Appellant is concerned that this
delay was deliberate attempt to cause him to miss some deadline unknown to him.
5. List specific issues proposed to be raised on appeal.
That Judge Ausphaugs Order from the bench that a Judge from another county here this matter be
recognized and this matter be heard in the County of Ramsey or Hennepin County as a Midpoint for travel
of both parties and any other actions the Court finds just, fair and equitable.
6. Related appeals.
NONE KNOWN
List all prior or pending appeals arising from the same action as this appeal. If none, so state.
7. Contents of record.
Is a transcript necessary to review the issues on appeal? Yes ( X) No ( )
If yes, full ( X) or partial ( ) transcript?
Has the transcript already been delivered to the parties and filed with the trial court administrator?
Yes ( ) No (X)
If not, has it been ordered from the court reporter? Yes (X ) No ( ) Again, there Appellant has been
given the run around on IFP status and was not told until August 30, 2014 that having a Public Offender
meant the transcript would be paid for under IFP status as well as the filing fees. Appellant is attaching a
copy of the letter of assignment of Public Defender.
If a transcript is unavailable, is a statement of the proceedings under Rule 110.03 necessary? Yes ( )
No( )
In lieu of the record as defined in Rule 110.01, have the parties agreed to prepare a statement of the
record pursuant to Rule 110.04? Yes ( ) No ( )
8. Is oral argument requested? Yes (X) No ( )
If so, is argument requested at a location other than that provided in Rule 134.09, subd. 2? Yes ( ) No (
)
If yes, state where argument is requested:

9. Identify the type of brief to be filed.

Informal brief under Rule 128.01, subd. 1 (must be accompanied by motion to accept unless submitted
by claimant for reemployment benefits). (X)
Trial memoranda, supplemented by a short letter argument, under Rule 128.01, subd. 2. ( )
10. Names, addresses, zip codes and telephone numbers of attorney for appellant and respondent.
Prosecutor Dan Fluegel
999 Westview Dr St 1
Hastings, MN 55303-2432
Telephone No:651-438-9777
At the time this Appeal was filed, Appellant had not yet received notice of a Public Defender being
appointed to represent him. Further Public Defender Alexander Rogosheske says he has no knowledge of
the Appellate process and has not assisted iin this appeal.
________________________________________________
SIGNATURE
OR, IF NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL:
Don Mashak
Rt 1 Box 231
Albertville MN 55301
NO PHONE DonMashak@/Yahoo.com
________________________________________________
SIGNATURE (OF APPELLANT) (OF RESPONDENT)
Dated:9/2/2014
(The Statement of Case is not a jurisdictional document, but it is important to the proper and efficient
processing of the appeal by the appellate courts. The "jurisdictional statement" section is intended to
provide sufficient information for the appellate court to easily determine whether the order or judgment is
appealable and if the appeal is timely. The nature of the proceedings below and the notice of appeal
determine the jurisdiction of the appellate court. The sections requesting information about the issues
litigated in the lower court or tribunal, and the issues proposed to be raised on appeal are for the court's
information, and do not expand or limit the issues that might be addressed on appeal. Likewise, the
section asking counsel to identify and prior or pending appeals from the same case, and any separate
appeals that raise similar issues is intended to provide more information about the procedural history of
the case and to ensure that the court has early notice of other pending related matters in case consolidation
is appropriate.)

9/2/2014
VIA US MAIL
Clerk of Appellate Courts
25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.#305
St. Paul, MN 55155
Don Mashak
Rt 1 Box 231
Albertville MN 55301
RE: Court File No. 19H-CR-14-1019 Cover letter to documents meant to correct deficiencies.
Hello:
Please take notice that though your notice of deficiency is postmarked August 20, 2014, I did not received it until
8/27/2014. This left not much time to meet the 10 day deadline, and thus it is not as well researched as I would like.
Let me next say by way of introduction, on the day I received this Misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct Ticket, I was
attending a hearing where there were supposed to be allegation of the Dakota County Law Enforcement being
complicit in the local drug trade. As a result of this citation, I never got to hear this testimony. I believe this
trumped up charge is entirely retaliatory and meant to send a signal to other members of the press to say out of
Dakota County MN. At the time I filed this appeal, no Public Defender had been assigned to me so I filed it myself
to avoid deadlines expiring.
I allege Dakota County is involved in a criminal conspiracy to Obstruct Justice and fix the outcome of this case.
(See the cover letter from Dakota County returning the original Appeal documents) As a result, everything that is
transpiring is convoluted and evasive, and as the Appellant I have to try to make sense out of this mess for the
Court. Please assign any stigma of looking foolish to the Dakota County Personnel involved.
Next comes the issues of the filing fees and the Transcript Fees. I have been sent on several wild goose chases
ending in denial of my having these fees waived. (For instance, I filed an IFP which was returned because they said
I already had a Public Defender.) Finally, last Friday I was informed merely notifying the Court that I had a Public
Defender would cause these fees to be waived. Please find attached a copy of the Letter of Representation I
received. I have also directed Mr. Rogosheske to provide you the requisite documentation today directly..
I believe the remaining attached documents fulfill all of the deficiencies.
Thank you for your time.
In Liberty,
09/02/2014
_______________________________
Don Mashak
Defendant
Rt 1 Box 231
Albertville MN 55301
DonMashak@yahoo.com
Attachments:letter from Public Defender Rogosheske& Cover Letter of returned appeal papers from Dakota County

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CASE TITLE:
Don Mashak
Appellant,

NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION AND BRIEF FOR

EXPEDITED HEARING
TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER: 19HA-CR-14-1019

vs.
APPELLATE COURT CASE NUMBER: A14-1425
State of Minnesota
Respondent.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Appellant brings on for hearing a motion for expedited hearing of this matter as soon as
it schedule permits.
Appellant brings this appeal to enforce a June 11, 2014 order from the bench by Judge Ausphaug that this matter be
heard by a Judge from another County for the sake of the appearance of impartiality. On July 25, 2014 Judge King
indicated there was no such order in the file and curtly cut off further discussion of the matter when Appellant
turned to Prosecutor Fluegel and asked him to confirm Appellants statements to the Court.
Though the entire original matter has no matter and is a waste of taxpayer money (to further the political purposes
of others) it would be a further travesty to wait until Appellant is possibly convicted, forced to appeal and retry the
whole matter again. Not to mention the time, effort and expense to Appellant. (The Judicial Beat Down).
Appellant includes by reference all prior pleadings and the pleadings that accompany this Motion, as well as the
Transcript of the June 11, 2014 hearing which shall be shortly forthcoming.

Wherefore, Appellant asks the Court to Grant his motion for expedited hearing of this Appellate matter.

Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,
09/02/2014
_______________________________
Don Mashak
Defendant
Rt 1 Box 231
Albertville MN 55301
DonMashak@yahoo.com

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CASE TITLE:
Don Mashak
Appellant,

NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION AND BRIEF TO USE

INFORMAL BRIEF UNDER 128.01
TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER: 19HA-CR-14-1019

vs.
APPELLATE COURT CASE NUMBER: A14-1425
State of Minnesota
Respondent.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE Appellant brings on for hearing a motion to allow Appellant to use an informal Brief
pursuant to 128.01
Appellant brings this appeal to enforce a June 11, 2014 order from the bench by Judge Ausphaug that this matter be
heard by a Judge from another County for the sake of the appearance of impartiality. On July 25, 2014 Judge King
indicated there was no such order in the file and curtly cut off further discussion of the matter when Appellant
turned to Prosecutor Fluegel and asked him to confirm Appellants statements to the Court.
Appellant includes by reference all prior pleadings and the pleadings that accompany this Motion, as well as the
Transcript of the June 11, 2014 hearing which shall be shortly forthcoming.
In the way of a brief, this Appellant merely states that currently he appears Pro Se and therefore it only reasonable
that he be permitted to file an informal brief pursuant to 128.01.

Wherefore, Appellant asks the Court to Grant his motion to use an informal brief pursuant to 128.01

Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,
09/02/2014
_______________________________
Don Mashak
Defendant
Rt 1 Box 231
Albertville MN 55301
DonMashak@yahoo.com

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CASE TITLE:
Don Mashak
Appellant,

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION AND BRIEF FOR
EXPEDITED HEARING
TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER: 19HA-CR-14-1019

vs.
APPELLATE COURT CASE NUMBER: A14-1425
State of Minnesota
Respondent.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF __________________
I, Don Mashak, being first duly sworn, depose and say that on 9/2/2014, I served the attached
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

NOTICE OF APPEAL,
STATEMENT OF CASE
EXHIBIT 1 COMMUNICATION TO JUDGE AUSPHAUG
NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION AND BRIEF FOR EXPEDITED HEARING
NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION AND BREIF TO USE INFORMAL BREIF PER 128.01
COVER LETTER
LETTER FROM COUNTY COURT RETURNING APPEAL
LETTER OF REPRESENTATION FROM PUBLIC DEFENDER ALEXANDER ROGOSHESKE

on the following parties by mailing to each of them a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope, postage pre-paid, and
by depositing the same in the United States Mail, direct to said party as follows:

Clerk of Appellate Courts

305 MN Judicial Center
25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
St. Paul, MN 55155

MN State Attorney General

445 Minnesota Street #1400
St. Paul MN 55101
Telephone No: 800-657-3787

Clerk of District Court

1560 Hwy 55
Hasting MN 55033
Telephone No.: 651-438-8199

Prosecutor Dan Fluegel

999 Westview Dr St 1
Hastings, MN 55303-2432
Telephone No:651-438-9777

______________________________
Signature Don Mashak
Dated:________________________
NOTARY:__________________________________