Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

STATE OF MINNESOTA

C OUNTY OF DAKOTA

DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE : CONTRACT
Misdemeanor Ticket No. 190000002606 - Case No. 19HA-CR-14-1019

STATE OF MINNESOTA
Plaintiff,
V.

ERRORS IN JUDGE WILSON'S FINDINGS OF FACT


DESPITE GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE, ET. AL.

Don T Mashak,
Defendant
To: Public Defender Alexander Rogosheske via fax 651-451-9956, CC: State of Minnesota via Hastings City Attorney at fax
651-438-9775 and the Dakota County Court via fax 651-438-8265
Hello:
This is my necessarily self-censored, decorum-observing version of my thoughts.
Somehow today, I received both your copy and the Courts copy of the Judges decisions to dismiss this matter for lack of
Probable Cause. Thank you.
To continue, because of my past experience in receiving correspondence from the Courts etc, I presume there is some deadline
the Powers that be want me to miss. So this is an off the cuff response from memory alone, within hours of receiving these
documents, to avoid missing any deadlines I may not be aware of. I may want to supplement them when I have time to review
the transcript, my notes and records of the proceeding and/or the notes and records of the proceedings of others. I note that I
previously informed you there were inaccuracies in the transcript shortly after receiving a copy of it.
There are at least 3 points in error in the Findings of Fact that spring to my attention:
1) Item 3
2) Item 11
3) Item 26
With regard to Finding of Fact Item 3, alleging I was warned in any, way shape or form to keep my voice down in the morning:
1) No direct evidence was presented on this point. Officer Vai only provided hearsay evidence of what someone else told
him. I alleged they did not call the morning bailiff because they did not want to have him perjure himself when it
became obvious that the morning video had been requested in a timely manner and when Ayrlahn Johnson Affidavit
came to light. (Shouldn't a judge know this basic Rule of Law legal concept)
2) The State destroyed the video evidence of the morning's proceedings, therefore testimony of my own and of my
witnesses, trump any direct and/or hear say testimony of witness for the State.
3) Ayrlahn Johnson's direct, non hearsay testimony, indicated it was he and not I that had an interaction with the morning
bailiff. As my and Mr. Johnson's testimony are the only direct testimony of the morning events, and the State destroyed
the morning video, there is no evidence on the record for the Court to make a finding of fact that I was warned to keep
my voice down in the morning.
4) THERE IS NO FACTUAL BASIS ON THE RECORD OR IN REALITY, PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF
EVIDENCE AND THE RULE OF LAW, THAT ALLOWS THIS FINDING OF FACT
With regard to Item 11, I request Deputy Vai's name and badge number multiple times and it was not provided.
With regard to Item 26, from memory and my notes and other records, Officer Vai said I did not swear at him, as opposed to that
he did not recall whether I did or not. I never swore at officer Vai.
And 6 points which should have been made part of the Findings of Fact:

1) That I was attending as a Member of the Press;


2) The State said for more than 6 months that video that I had properly requested had been destroyed.
3) The State only produced certain video upon overwhelmingly incontrovertible evidence I had asked for it in a timely
manner;
4) The State never produced the Video from the Court room from the Morning;
5) Testimony of Myself and Ayrlahn Johnson was diametrically opposed to the hear say testimony of the morning events
that Officer Vai offered (as he was not the Bailiff in the morning) and which is why the State destroyed the exculpatory
morning video;
6) So outrageous an attempt to suppress Freedom of the Press was this that I instructed Law Enforcement I wanted to
execute a Citizen's arrest and was ignored.
All of these foregoing Facts are relevant and on the official record, yet not in the Courts Findings of Fact.
Here is my opinion, as I have made clear to you all along:
The State of Minnesota is engaged in an illegal and unconstitutional COINTELPRO http://exm.nr/1CPkznO operation against
me. The State See me as a leader of Political Dissent against Government and Judicial Corruption (JudicialTAR Transparency,
Accountability and Reform). The State and the Judiciary see me as a leader of a group of hundreds of Minnesotans who every
year since 2005 have been denied their Natural and Constitutional Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances
without fear of punishment or retaliation, as reduced to writing in the First Amendment. These hundreds of Minnesotans has
asked for a hearing before the Minnesota State and House Judiciary Committees, dedicated to receiving evidence and testimony
of systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. It was necessary to ask for a hearing dedicated to this issue because of various
effective State of Minnesota methods and strategies prevent our testimony and evidence from getting on the OFFICIAL
LEGISLATIVE RECORD. Amongst these techniques and strategies were not informing us of hearings, last minute cancellation
of hearings, providing us wrong dates, times and locations of hearings, last minute changing of the dates, times and locations of
hearings, and my personal favorite, letting meetings run long and allowing only 5-10minutes for testimony from 10, 20 and more
persons wishing to give evidence and testimony. Knowing the propensity of our systemically corrupt State of Minnesota
Government to espouse and follow a philosophy to disregard anything not on the OFFICIAL LEGISLATIVE RECORD, this is
not what the Founders intended, it violates Natural Law, is unconstitutional. I have also petitioned the government for redress of
grievances on other issues, including but not limited to FiscalTAR.
I allege that as part of the State of Minnesota's alleged COINTELPROL operations against me. The County of Dakota engaged
in Simulated Litigation and Judicial Code Red. The County of Dakota, acting as agents of the State of Minnesota, destroyed
and/or failed to produce exculpatory evidence in this present case. I allege the County of Dakota, acting as agents of the State of
Minnesota, intended to further demonize, discredit, marginalize, punish and retaliate against me for Petitioning and or attempting
to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances and/or being a perceived leader of political dissent. The County of Dakota
intended to do this by having various Government Employees perjure themselves to obtain a conviction of me. And of course,
they intended to make an example of me to others. This all as part of the Progressive Philosophy of Conditioning (Punish and
Reward) to compel Citizens to not question and confront the decisions of our Government's Progressive Educated Elites. (See
Progressive Professor Jonathan Gruber caught on tape admitting our Progressive Government's assertion that they have the right
to lie to the masses because we allegedly are too stupid and irrational to know what's good for us http://t.co/gy7qp08EOo )
Despite all of this, at this point in time, can we can allow the judge to correct these issues as a matter of simple error. How do we
correct this? And if the Judge refuses, then I need to know how we will proceed.
Those were my thoughts.
In Liberty,
4/23/2015
Don Mashak
Defendant
Rt 1 Box 231
Albertville MN 55301