ALL SERVED BY HAND DELIVERY

October 9, 2015
Daniel Fluegel, Esq.
Ben Colburn, Esq.
Hastings City Attorney
999 Westview Drive #100
Hastings, MN 55033

Lori Swanson, Esq.

Attorney General
1400 Bremer Tower
445 Minnesota Street
St. Paul MN 55101

James C. Backstrom, Esq.

Dakota County Attorney
Dakota County Judicial Center
1560 Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033

Dakota County Attorney

Judicial Center
1560 Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033

Tim Leslie, Sheriff

Dakota County Administration
Dakota County Sheriffs Office Administration Center
1580 Highway 55
1590 Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033
Hastings, MN 55033

Don Mashak
Rt 1 Box 231
Albertville MN 55301
Tel/Fax: 612-326-6070 (Skype only)
DonMashak@yahoo.com
Re:

DONALD THEODORE MASHAKS NOTICE OF CLAIMS

Hello:

Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. 466.05 Subd. 1 and the Minnesota Rules of

Civil Procedure, Donald Theodore Mashak, (hereinafter, Claimant)
hereby submits this Notice he was damaged by the actions of the State
of Minnesota, Dakota County, City of Hastings, Daniel Fluegel, Hastings
City Attorneys Office and multiple law enforcement officers/sheriffs
employed by Dakota County (hereinafter, collectively, the
Respondents). Damages incurred by Claimants were the direct result of
actions that were intentional, malicious, unconstitutional, unlawful,
grossly negligent and reckless and were undertaken in official capacities
as agents of the State and/or county to which they represent. Claimants
seek compensatory damages pursuant to violation of his State and
Federal rights.
NATURE OF THE CLAIM

On March 12, 2014, Claimant attended a hearing in the matter of

Sperling vs. Sperling in the Dakota County Courthouse in Hastings
Minnesota as a Member of the Press. After Dakota County Sheriff
Deputies arrested, handcuffed, and harassed Claimant, Disorderly
Conduct charges as asserted by Hastings City Attorney Dan Fluegel was
dismissed on April 13, 2015 for lack of probable cause. (Dakota County

Case Number 19-HA-CR-14-1019)This dismissal gave grounds for

Claimants instant allegations of false arrest, false imprisonment,
negligent detention, excessive detention, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery,
menacing, Terroristic threats, harassment, negligent
hiring/training/retention, negligence, gross negligence, reckless
disregard, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, municipal liability,
violations of the First Amendments Free Press Guarantees, First
Amendment Right to Petition Government for Redress of Grievances
without fear of punishment or reprisal Guarantees, violation of rights
protected under the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and
constitutional violations under 42 USC 1983. Claimant asserts the
motives for these actions were 1 or both of the following; 1) In retaliation
for, and in furtherance of, a conspiracy to Obstruct Justice to prevent the
exposure of the complicity of Local Law Enforcement in the local drug
trade, and/or 2) at the direction of one or more of the Minnesota
Supreme Court Justices and/or one of said Justices Plausible Deniability
Proxies as further punishment and retaliation against Claimant for being
seen as a leader of a group of hundreds of Minnesotans (Judicial TAR)
who have been attempting every year since at least 2005 to exercise
their Natural Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances
as reduced to writing in the First Amendment. Daniel Fluegel, Esq. and
Benjamin Colburn, Esq. also did not take or have the required oath, nor
did the city administrator as required by State and Local Law.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1) MARCH 12, 2015, SPERLING VS. SPERLING HEARING
Claimant is a member of the Press. Claimants various writings, primarily exposes of
Government Corruption, Waste, Malfeasance, UnConstitutional Acts, Abuse of Power and
violations of Natural Law, can be found on the internet dating back to at least 2009. In this
particular instance, Claimant had been made aware of Ms. Sperlings allegations that her
husband was receiving preferential treatment from Dakota County Law Enforcement and
Dakota County Courts. The allegation was that Dakota County Law Enforcement were
complicit in the local illegal drug trade and that Mr. Sperling was the primary supplier of the
illegal drugs. As Claimant gets numerous tips and requests due to his reputation as a
Government Corruption Muckraker, Claimant has found the need to vet stories before
committing to investigating and writing about allegations. Claimants attendance at this
hearing was his first attempt to establish whether Ms. Sperlings allegation(s) had merit.
Claimant intended to do so by listening to the live testimony of various witnesses that Ms.
Sperling was going to produce. Claimant anticipated that the hearing would last, at most,
half of a day.
Before we go further, it should be noted here that Claimant has been the subject of unlawful
and unconstitutional retaliation for attempting to exercise his Natural Right to Petition the

Government for Redress of Grievances as reduced to writing in the First Amendment, every
year since 2005. The businesses, careers and lives of persons involved in the Judicial TAR
(Transparency, Accountability and Reform) Movement have been unlawfully destroyed in
retaliation for their involvement in our attempts, through a diverse loose coalition of
organizations and individuals, to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances with
regard to the Minnesota Judiciary. Some people have left the State and at least one has left
the country to escape this unlawful and unjust retaliation. Every year since 2005, we have
requested a hearing dedicated to receiving evidence and testimony of systemic corruption in
the Minnesota Judiciary. Every year we have been denied. As a result, WE THE PEOPLE
have exhausted our peaceful remedies for redress and our Minnesota Government and
Judiciary are now Out of Trust. This merits WE THE PEOPLE consider withdrawing our
Consent to be Governed.
Continuing now with March 12, 2014, Claimant attended the morning session of the
hearing. At the beginning of this hearing, Claimant heard and saw the presiding Judge
Abrams give both litigants, Ms. Sperling and Mr. Sperling, copies of the relevant State
Code which highlighted the relevant points of law to be addressed. During the morning,
while others in the Court gallery conversed quietly and quite freely, Claimant remained
almost entirely quiet, except for 1 instance. It became clear that the Judge was becoming
irritated that Ms. Sterling, representing herself Pro Se, was introducing and/or attempting to
introduce evidence beyond the scope of points of law contained in the copies of the subject
statute. Claimant fashioned an impromptu sign with large letters that said Ask for a
Break. Claimant intended to hold up the sign if and when Ms. Sperling might turn around
and look at the gallery. It was Claimants intent to use such a break to point out the points of
law in the document the Judge had handed out. Instead, Ayrlahn Johnson, who was sitting
next to Claimant asked claimant if Claimant would like him to see if he could pass the note
to Ms. Sperling. Claimant did not object to a respectful, non disruptive attempt to do so. Mr.
Johnson spoke to the Gallery Bailiff and came back to his seat. Mr. Johnson handed
Claimant the note back and said the Bailiff would not allow him to give Ms. Sperling the
document, nor would the Bailiff past the note to Ms. Sperling. Claimant had no direct
interaction with any bailiff in the morning. This will become a very important point.
Late in the morning, the presiding Judge indicated he had another matter he had to address.
My recollection is that the Judge indicated we should just break for lunch and return for the
afternoon session. Claimant became separated from most of the other parties in the gallery
when Court broke for lunch. Claimant and others had agreed to meet at the local Subway
Sandwich shop. Unfortunately, Claimant did not know there are two Subways in Hastings.
Claimant went to the Subway in Walmart. Most of the rest of the gallery went to the free
standing Subway across the street, but obscured from Claimants view by buildings.
When Claimant returned at the time designated by the Judge, he peered into the Courtroom
and saw other parties at the litigant tables. Claimant spent some time looking for other
gallery members from the morning in the hallway and could find none. Claimant again
looked into the Courtroom and saw no familiar faces.
At this point, Claimant remembered Mr. Johnson had asked him to look into another
Courtroom hearing occurring in a different Courtroom regarding a relative of his. Though
Claimant is only familiar with Mr. Johnson from his occasional meetings at Judicial TAR

and political events, Claimant felt it would be a show of good will to drop into the other
hearing per Mr. Johnsons request.
Claimant went to the Courtroom on the second floor and sat in the gallery for said hearing.
The hearing was about some incident involving a car and the police. Claimant intended to
return to the Sperling Matter Courtroom (1D) at some time before 2pm. At about 1:50pm,
the State began laying out the incident reconstruction in graphic form. Claimant was
interested in learning about this for future reference in his future press writings. Claimant
set in his mind a deadline of going to the Sperling Courtroom at 2pm. At or about 2pm, the
State was really getting into the details of the graphical incident reconstruction.
Claimant finally tore himself away from this testimony and left the Second floor Courtroom
at 2:10pm. Claimant made his way to the first floor of the Courthouse and ran into someone
who said Ms. Sperlings daughter was physically ill and might not testify until the next day.
Claimant went to the Sperling Courtroom hearing and sat next to Dale Nathan. Claimant
whispered to Dale Nathan, attempting to ask him Is the daughter going to testify the next
day?. The premise of the question being if the hearing was going to be continued to the
next day, Claimant was going to leave and come back the next day. The whisper was so low
that Dale Nathan could not hear the question. At this point, a Bailiff Michael Vai glared at
Claimant and put his finger to his mouth. (After the fact, Claimant noticed the afternoon
Bailiff was different from the morning Bailiff.) Based on the level of gallery chatter by
others in the morning, Claimant deduced that he must have unintentionally whispered too
loud. Claimant lowered his voice even more and repeated the question to Dale Nathan. At
this point, Bailiff Vai motioned Claimant out of the room. Claimant complied. By about
2:25pm Claimant was in handcuffs.
Bailiff Vai ordered Claimant to leave the building. At some point, Claimant asked Bailiff Vai
for his business card. Bailiff Vai said he did not have one. Claimant asked for an
explanation. Bailiff Vai gave a nonresponsive response. At this point, Claimant asked Bailiff
Vai for his name and badge number. Bailiff Vai refused to identify himself. At some point
during this hallway interaction, Claimant identified himself as a member of the Press.
Claimant had a pen in one hand and a pad of paper in the other. Claimant used a voice
modulation technique he has used many times, to elicit Bailiff Vai to provide his name and
badge number. Bailiff Vai still refused to give his name and badge number. The next thing
Claimant knew, he was being handcuffed. Bailiff Vai violently knocked Claimants pen and
pad of paper to the ground while Claimant was handcuffed. On the way up the stairs, Bailiff
Vai unexpectedly blurted out his name. However, Claimant was in a state of shock as to
what was happening and did not catch the name. And, Claimant no longer had a pen and
paper and the ability to write down the information.
At this point, other officers became involved in the intake process. Two of these additional
officers were Officer Tim Gonder #144? and Officer Joshua J. Fahey #187? From the very
beginning Claimant protested that his arrest was illegal and indicated variously that I wanted
to make a citizens arrest of Bailiff Michael Vai #196?, immediately appear before a judge,
and talk to the County attorney. I was denied the opportunity to make a phone call. My
shoes, tie, pen, billfold and suspenders etc were taken from me, requiring Claimant to
always use one hand to hold his pants up, lest they fall down around his ankles. (It should be

noted that the proper procedure for a misdemeanor would have been to issue a ticket, rather
than lock Claimant up in solitary confinement for hours and hand him a ticket upon release.)
Claimant was incarcerated in solitary confinement. During this time, Claimant was unaware
that Miranda Rights requirements had been struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2010.
Officer Tim Gonder committed the following acts.
1) Threatened to put Claimant in the cell with the many folks in Orange Jump
Suits(hardened criminals) if Claimant did not answer Gonders questions;
2) Performed an illegal search stemming from an illegal arrest by rifling through
Claimants clothes and billfold, and performing other invasive intake procedures on
Claimant;
3) Tried to entrap Claimant into making a break for it by saying he had lost the keys to
the solitary confinement cell door and could not lock it, so dont try to leave;
4) Made a terroristic threat toward Claimant with words to the effect, I can blow
someones face off and the union will have me back on the job the next day!
Defenseless, and with nowhere to run, no way to retreat and in a small solitary
confinement cell with a man with a gun, Claimant assures the reader that he was
terrorized, being unable able to exercise the natural flight or fight responses. Can you
think of any circumstance where it would be appropriate for an officer to make such a
statement to any person in solitary confinement?
What kind of people allow a person like this to remain employed as a Law Enforcement
Officer?
Claimant was intentionally incarcerated in solitary confinement until after the Courts were
closed. Claimant was released outside the building and all the doors were locked so
Claimant could not immediately take up this matter with the County Attorney. Claimant
went to the County Sheriffs office just around the corner and used the phone to explain
what had transpired and to file a police report. The person who answered the phone
indicated that no one was available that could help me. Claimant left the premises and went
home.
2) MARCH 13, 2014
Claimant did not return the next day out of fear of further reprisal. Claimant never got to
hear the relevant testimony and, therefore, was never able to appraise the credibility of the
allegations of Dakota County Law Enforcement complicity in the local drug trade nor write
any potential article on the subject.
Claimant Contacted the Sheriffs Department, got information on filing a citizens
complaint, but got no satisfaction. Claimant asked that all video of what transpired in the
hallway outside of Courtroom 1D and the arrest and Claimants imprisonment in solitary
confinement be retained as exculpatory evidence. All persons Claimant made the
request/demand that the aforementioned exculpatory video be retained as evidence,
indicated they would comply.
3) MARCH 14, 2014

On or about March 14, 2014 Claimant filed a Citizens Complaint form. (See your own
records) Within this Complaint form, among other things Claimant addresses Claimants
demand that exculpatory video be retained and makes reference to Officer Gonders
terroristic threat.
On or about March 14, 2014, Dakota Countys Joseph Leko confirmed in writing by
email(see Court File) the retention of exculpatory video thus far requested stating:
Mr. Mashak, detention services division noted that they have video and secured it with the
case file.
4) MARCH 17, 2014
On or about March 17, 2014, Claimant sent a letter Sheriff Bellow (See Court File)
regarding, amongst other things, retention of exculpatory video evidence. This letter
included the sentence:
As my memory is not perfect, I repeat I want all video of myself within anywhere in the
building that day.
Clearly now, at this point Claimant has established in multiple communications to various
Dakota County officials that he wants all the video of him anyplace within the Dakota
County Courthouse on March 12, 2014 retained as potential exculpatory evidence.
5) MAY 8, 2015 LETTER FROM LESLIE DISMISSING CITIZENS COMPLAINT
Within this letter, Leslie Says:
As part of the investigation we reviewed all the reports, interviewed witnesses, and viewed
video evidence from the date in question.
6) MAY 30, 2014
On May, 30, 2014, Claimant mailed and emailed a Freedom of Information Act Request
(FOIA) to Dakota Country Records Specialist Sally Anderson. (Claimant did so believing
City Attorney Fluegel would destroy the exculpatory video if the request was first made
through him.) [See your own FOIA Records of Sally Anderson]
7) JUNE 10, 2014 I RESUBMITTED THE FOIA REQUEST

On or about June 10, 2014, Claimant resubmitted the FOIA request to correct
various errors and typos. (See your own FOIA Records)
On June 10, 2014, Claimant sent an email to City Attorney Fluegel. A portion
of that email is appears here:
There is a pattern developing here.
From the original ticket not being legible, to not being to get a copy of said ticket.

Now withholding evidence.

If you are interested in justice and not malicious persecution, the data requested in the May 30, 2014 letter, and the
6/10/2014 with some minor errors corrected, are absolutely exculpatory.
I asked you to view these videos yourself to save us the wasted time this case represents.
At least the video of an officer saying approximately, "I can blow someone's head off and the union will have me back on
the job the next day" should peak your interest if you are interested in the public safety.
My expectation is you show up at the hearing with all the data I requested and i will pay you the $15 dollars.
How ridiculous is it that I cant have video because other people are in the video?
Some of said people you alleged collaborate your officers conspiracy to obstruct justice.

In a letter dated June 10, 2014, Assistant Dakota County Attorney Helen
Brosnahan addresses some of Claimants FOIA Requests. A portion of that
letter states:
The Video recordings you have requested contain data on other individuals
which cant be separated out, and therefore cant be released without a
court order permitting Dakota County to release the information to you. See
Minn. State 13.82
So we know that on this day, the exculpatory video Claimant requested
exists but requires a Court Order to obtain because other people are in it.

8) JUNE 11, 2014 DAKOTA COUNTY COURT HOUSE, HEARING BEFORE JUDGE
ASPHAUG

Before the hearing, Claimant tried to get Subpoenas for various evidence, including the
exculpatory video. Dakota County Court Administration Personnel told Claimant he
needed a Court Order to get the Subpoenas and then refused to answer any more
questions.

Before the hearing, Hastings City Attorney Fluegel meets with Claimant before the Case
called and agrees to certain requests and points. Mr. Fluegel then instructs Claimant, that
there is no need for Claimant to say for actual hearing, he will just tell judge what we
talked about.(Transcript of hearing can be found in Court File);
Claimant declined the suggestion and stayed for the Case to be called.
Dakota County Judge Asphaug tells Hastings City Attorney, Fluegel to produce
exculpatory video Claimant requested.
Dakota County Judge Asphaug rules from the bench that this matter should be heard by a
Judge from another county in the interest of impartiality.

Claimant asked Judge Asphaug about an order to get the Subpoenas as Claimant was
directed by Dakota County Court Administration personnel. Judge Asphaug stated she
was unaware of any such requirement, and also inquired of City Attorney Fluegel the
same. City Attorney Fluegel also indicated he was unaware of any such requirement. But
Claimant believed the point was now moot, as the Court required City Attorney Fluegel
produce the various evidence and indicated that the Dakota County FOIA officer had
also produced some of the requested evidence. Further, Claimant believes this constitutes
a Court Order to fulfill Helen Brosnahans requirement for a Court Order for Claimant to
obtain the exculpatory video.
Judge Asphaug would never reduce to writing in an order her ruling from the bench that
this matter be heard by a Judge from another County.

Claimant received an email from Assistant Dakota County Attorney Helen

Brosnahan (See your own records) In this email, Brosnahan states:

Regarding your most data request dated June 10, 2014, please refer to my June 10,
2014 letter to regarding the records which Dakota County is in possession of, and which
of those records we can release to you, and those which require a court order
authorizing Dakota County to release the records to you. Dakota County has and will
continue to retain copies of all the data which you request which the County retained at
the time of your original data request of May 30, 2014.
9) JULY 17, 2015
Letter from City Attorney Fluegel dated July 17, 2014 indicates that all of the video
evidence from March 12, 2014 was destroyed and/or automatically overwritten because
Claimant did not ask for the exculpatory video in a timely manner.
Over the next few weeks, Claimant repeatedly tells City Attorney Fluegel to check with the
Sheriffs department regarding the allegedly destroyed exculpatory video.
10) JULY 23, 2014, DAKOTA COUNTY COURTHOUSE HEARING BEFORE DAKOTA
COUNTY JUDGE KING

As the next court date 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 Asphaug 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 there 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 Asphaug 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 or about July 23, 2014, In an email sent to me by Dakota County Records Specialist,
Sally Anderson, she says:
Misdemeanors fall under Adult Criminal Offenses, and so the retention would be 10 years
after case closing. Internal investigations, involving Sheriffs Office personnel or other county
employees, are kept 6 years after the subjects separation from employment.
Please note the conflicting diametrically opposed positions relevant to this issue made by Tim
Leslie on May 8, 2015 and August 4, 2014 . Please note this covers both the Morning and
Afternoon Courtroom sessions, as well as my arrest in the hallway and my detention in solitary
confinement.
Dakota County Personnel seem to have a very loose association with the Truth.

11) JULY 25, 2014

On or about July 25, 2014, Appellant faxed a letter requesting Judge Asphaug asking her to
reduce the order to writing and place it in the Court File. (See Court File)
12) AUGUST 4, 2014
On or about August 4, 2014 Appellant filed Appeal (App File Number A14-1425) to force
the enforcement of Judge Asphaugs ruling from the bench that this matter be heard before a
Judge from another County.
On or about, August 4, 2014, Claimant has an email exchange with Officer Tim Leslie.
Officer Leslie responds that:
As part of its investigation into complaint, the Dakota County Sheriffs office did
not request nor did it review a video from inside the courtroom or a video from the
public hallway/lobby area outside the courtroom where the general public enters the
court room
Note the discrepancy with Leslies May 8, 2014 letter.
How is it possible Complainant makes a specific request regarding these videos in his
official Citizen Complaint but the Sheriffs Department, which officer Leslie pledged would
do a thorough investigation, chooses not to review the video Complainant cites in his
original official Citizens Complaint? A video not reviewed even after Leko has said that the
video of my confinement and of outside Courtroom 1D have been secured in the CASE
FILE?
13) AUGUST 5, 2014
On or about August 5, 2014, Appellant Contacted Judge Asphaugs 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 Asphaugs order from the bench, Definitive
communication in writing directly addressing this matter would have been sent directly to
Claimant.
14) SEPTEMBER 23, 2014
In a letter dated September 23, 2014, City Attorney Fluegel repeats to Claimants Attorney
Rogosheske that the exculpatory video has been destroyed because Claimant did not request
it in a timely manner.
The Hastings City Attorneys office will maintain this position until a few days before the
February 26, 2015 evidentiary hearing. In the mean time, the City Attorneys office says it
has 5 people that will testify to Claimants disorderly conduct during both the morning and
afternoon Court sessions. Claimant, believing that he again is going to be a victim of
Obstruction of Justice suffers severe stress and anxiety and this reignites his PTSD
Legal Abuse Syndrome Disorder symptoms[https://youtu.be/XeGdK2cvNY8,
http://t.co/eoe1vLBjXr].
15) FEBRUARY 26, 2015, DAKOTA COUNTY COURTHOUSE HEARING BEFORE
SCOTT COUNTY JUDGE WILTON
A few days before this hearing, the Hastings City Attorneys Office admitted to and
produced the existence of the Afternoon hearing Video in the Courtroom and the events and
arrest of Claimant outside Courtroom 1D. The morning video was never produced and the
Hastings City Attorney maintains it was destroyed. Claimant asserts the morning video was
destroyed because many Dakota County personnel and Law Enforcement Officers made
false Statements and filed false police reports having been told and believing that no video
of the morning Court sessions existed. (See your own files and the Sheriffs file for the
various false statements of Dakota County Personnel and Law Enforcement Officers.)
On information and belief, as a result of the discovery of the exculpatory video and that
some of it had to be produced or have the case dismissed because exculpatory video was

destroyed, the Hastings City Attorney only called 1 Officer and 1 Dakota County Employee;
Arresting Officer Vai and Mitchell Sellnor, Dakota County Security Manager, as witnesses.
(Either the remaining officers did not want to subject themselves to charges of perjury or the
Hastings City Attorney made the call themselves to protect these lying Dakota County
employees from charges of perjury and losing their jobs. [The Transcript of this hearing can
be found in the Court file] Also, the Hastings City Attorney changed representation from Mr.
Fluegel to Mr. Colburn, for the stated purpose of mitigating any claims relating to the
alleged destroyed, now found exculpatory video evidence. On information and belief,
Claimant asserts that the real purpose of switching representation was to prevent any
awkward or convicting questions of Mr. Fluegel regarding the loss and finding of the
exculpatory video, to be asked.
During the hearing, Officer Vai testi-lied [https://youtu.be/O7dTJHkq3Bw]XX to a wild
story of the morning Bailiff Forrey indicating Claimant had been very disruptive in the
morning and pointed Claimant out to Officer Vai on a video monitor at the Bailiffs Station.
And that, as a result, Officer Vai was on a heightened awareness of Claimant. Officer Vai
testi-lied that Claimant disrupted the Court room in the afternoon. Officer Vai testi-lied that
Claimant spoke so loudly that it disrupted the Court. Officer Vai Testi-lied that he gave
Claimant his name and badge number before he arrested Claimant.
Of Course, the reader must be suspect of everything Officer Vai Testi-lyed to. First, much of
what Officer Vai Testi-lyed to was hear-say. To begin with, if the Officer Vais and the
Prosecutions allegation were true, the morning video of inside the Court room would have
been the prosecutions best evidence of Claimants alleged disruption of the Courtroom by
Claimant in the morning. Clearly, Officer Vai Testi-lying cannot be true as Mr. Ayrlahn
Johnson testified it was he and not Claimant that tried to pass a note and interacted with the
Morning Bailiff. Had Officer Vai and Deputy Forrey actually viewed the video they would
see Mr. Johnson and not claimant interacting with the Morning Bailiff. Mr. Johnson has a
full head of jet white hair and a very different body build than claimant who is bald with
darker hair. It should be obvious to the reader that Officer Vais testi-lying departs so far
from reality that there can be no doubt that the perjury was intentional and not merely a
matter of mistake, interpretation or simple error, but rather deliberate, calculated,
conspiratorial, malicious and deliberate. Which is why the Prosecution destroyed the
exculpatory morning video and refused to produce it. Clearly, sans the morning video,
Officer Forrey should and would have been called to testify as an eye-witness to the
morning events. But only if the prosecutions and Officer Vais representations of the
morning incidents were true.
Mr. Fluegel and Mr. Colburn are both seasoned prosecutors.
Mr. Fluegel and Mr.Colburn knew that one of the points of law that they had to prove for
Disorderly conduct was that Claimant knew or reasonably should have known his actions
would cause alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace in others:
609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1.Crime.
Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a
school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will
tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the
peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:

(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or

(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in
offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger,
or resentment in others

Mr. Fluegel and/or Mr. Colburn had initially indicated the Morning Bailiff would be on their
witness list for the evidentiary hearing.
On information and belief, Mr. Fluegel and Mr. Colburn did not call the morning Bailiff to
Testify to make the point with direct testimony because his integrity would be impugned on
cross-examination. Having viewed the Video tape, Respondents knew and/or reasonably
should have known the Bailiff would have to perjure himself, and therefore did not call him.
(Or, perhaps the morning Bailiff simply refused to perjure himself)
To repeat, Officer Vai testi-lyed that he and the morning Bailiff reviewed the Morning Video
and the Morning Bailiff identified Claimant. Yet, if they actually reviewed the Video they
both Bailiffs would have clearly seen that it was Mr. Ayrlahn Johnson and not Defendant
who interacted with the Morning Bailiff. In fact, they would have seen Claimant had no
interaction with any Bailiff in the morning, and that Claimant remained seated and silent
while court was in session during almost all of the morning Court session. Mr. Fluegel and
Mr. Colburn never produced morning Court exculpatory video because it would show facts
contrary to the prosecutions position and testimony. Because, as Judge Wilton admonished,
since the alleged acts of Claimant in the morning were not the acts for which Claimant was
charged, not producing them was not did not require the defacto dismissal of the case.
Simply, it appears the Hasting City Attorneys office didnt want any Dakota County
personnel losing jobs for perjury which the Hasting City Attorneys office had suborned.
16) APRIL 13, 2015 CASE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE
On April 13, 2015, Judge Wilton dismissed the matter for lack of probable cause. The
exculpatory video of the arrest and afternoon Court session that the Prosecution did
eventually did produced weighed heavily in his decision. Judge Wilton pointed out
instances where the video directly contradicted Officer Vais Testi-lies on issues of material
fact in the case.
Claimant lived 13 months in fear of being convicted of a crime (greater than any traffic
offense, no DUIs) for the first time in his life. He lived in dread of being incarcerated by
persons who lied about what had transpired, the terroristic of Officer Gonder being carried
out while incarcerated, and about being put in with hardened criminals as punishment. To
this day, Claimant no longer goes into courthouses alone because of the apparent ease with
which government officials and Law Enforcement Officers can just make up lies about an
individual that could send them to jail, and get away with it.
Claimant believes that without his forcing the issue of immediate dismissal for destruction
of exculpatory evidence which forced the production of some of the exculpatory video, the
exculpatory video which was produced, would not have been produced. Further, Claimant

believes that the Prosecution had suborned the perjury of at least 5 persons who would have
testi-lyed, except for the production of some of the exculpatory video.
Judge Wiltons Findings of Fact and Decision can be found in the Court File.
Claimants letter to Judge Wilton objecting to some of the Findings of Fact in the matter can
be found in the Court file. Anyone reading the transcript and the pleadings can see for
themselves that the Findings of Fact that Claimant objects to are not supported by the
evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing and in the related pleadings.
The fact remains that the matter was dismissed for LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
On information and belief, Mr. Fluegel and Mr. Colburne wasted valuable taxpayer money
and resources on this matter which could have been quickly dismissed if Mr. Fluegel and
Mr. Colburn had not colluded to say the exculpatory video had been destroyed and not
attempted and/or suborned the perjury of various Dakota County personnel.
In so doing, Mr. Fluegel and Mr. Colburn, in addition to violating and conspiring to violate
Claimants Natural and Constitutional Rights and attempting to Obstruct Legal Process,
engaged in Abuse of Power and Malicious Prosecution.
609.50 OBSTRUCTING LEGAL PROCESS, et al
Subdivision 1.Crime.
Whoever intentionally does any of the following may be sentenced as provided in subdivision
2:
(1) obstructs, hinders, or prevents the lawful execution of any legal process, civil or
criminal, or apprehension of another on a charge or conviction of a criminal offense;
Legal elements of malicious prosecution
Malicious prosecution is legally defined in Minnesota as follows:
(1) an action is brought without probable cause or reasonable belief that the plaintiff will
ultimately prevail on the merits,
(2) the action is instituted and prosecuted with malicious intent, and
(3) the action is terminated in the defendant's favor
See Stead-Bowers v. Langley, 636 N.W.2d 334, 338 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied
(Minn.Feb. 19, 2002).
Legal elements of abuse of process
Abuse of process is using the legal process to try to obtain a result that's beyond the scope of
the process:

"The essential elements for a cause of action for abuse of process are the
existence of an ulterior purpose and the act of using the process to
accomplish a result not within the scope of the proceedings in which it was
issued, whether such a result might otherwise be lawfully obtained or not."
It occurs to Claimant that most of the testimony at the Evidentiary Hearing was
choreographed in an attempt to minimize liability to the various Dakota County Government
Agencies and Mr. Fluegel and the Hastings City Attorneys office.

Claimant wrote about his experience here Dakota County Minnesota Government Brazenly
Suppresses Freedom of the Press (http://t.co/p9q9uXE5da) This article was ironically
unpublished by Examiner.com. Further, two other blogs Claimant alternatively published it
on were deleted or deactivated. It strikes Claimant that Dakota County officials alone would
not have the power to cause this censorship. And this probabiliy, is amongst the facts
constituting Claimants information and belief that persons at higher levels of government,
such as one or more Minnesota Supreme Court Judges may have had a hand in improper,
illegal and unconstitutional handling of this matter, and the subsequent attempted
censorship. (The link provided for this current posting of the article was just posted
10/7/2015, lets see how long it remains posted.) [Links to many of the actual pleadings and
transcripts can also be found in that article]
The reader and any Finder of Fact cannot escape concluding that Claimant was not
afforded his Natural and Constitutional Right to Due Process pursuant to the Rule of Law,
but rather was the victim of a Conspiracy to Obstruct Legal Process/Justice.
CLAIMANTS CONCERNS REGARDING THE RULE OF MAN,
AND PROGRESSIVE CONDITIONING
In 1913, Progressive President Woodrow Wilson unconstitutionally changed this country from
Constitution-based Law(Rule of Law) to Case Law (Rule of Man); Under the previous Rule of
Law, the correctness of any Judges ruling was determined by comparing it to the tenants and
principles of the Constitution.
Under the Rule of Man (Case Law), the correctness of any Judges Ruling is based on the another
persons Ruling in Case Law. (hence the term Rule of Man) Case Law, among other things,
allows the Judiciary to modify the Constitution incrementally without have to conform to the much
tougher protocols of Amendment required within the Constitution itself.
Further, a foundational element of Progressivism is that most of the problems and concerns of the
masses today are caused by, what the deem, evil human traits such as individualism, creativity,
competition and, additionally, free markets. ( You can learn more about the Progressive Movement
here http://shar.es/zh9ig) A further evil human trait identified by Progressives as problems with the
masses, is the failure of individuals to accept the decisions of the Progressive Educated Elites Carte
Blanche. (In other words, holding Government Transparent and Accountable is an evil trait
according to Progressives)
Progressives wrongfully assert these evil characteristics did not exist in the pre-government tribal
State and are a development of modern society. Progressive believe these evil characteristics can
be ground out of individuals comprising the masses through Progressive Conditioning
[http://bit.ly/1L2GZW7]. (see also COINTELPRO http://t.co/v80G30jLxV)
Progressive Conditioning is politically correct for punishment and rewards. Claimant asserts that
this litigation has been used to punish Claimant under the unconstitutional philosophy of
Progressive Conditioning. Claimant asserts that this Progressive Conditioning punishment in the
present instance may be for researching Dakota County Law Enforcement in the local drug trade
and/or for daring to exercise his Natural Right to Petition the Government for Redress of
Grievances without fear of punishment or reprisal, as reduced to writing in the First Amendment.

Claimant Mashak has been a member of the Judicial TAR (Transparency, Accountability and
Reform) Movement since at least 2005(though his concerns and efforts date back to the early
1990s). Every year since 2005, the Judicial TAR Movement has requested/demanded a hearing
before the Minnesota House and Senate Judicial TAR committees to give evidence and testimony of
systemic corruption in the Minnesota Courts; Further, Claimant Mashak has been pursuing Fiscal
TAR since 2008. Yet here we are in 2015, and Wright County MN has still not provided Claimant
Mashak the Financial Records he has been asking for since 2008. These records are supposed to be
a matter of Public Record.
Claimant alleges the unconstitutional, illegal and improper handling of this entire Dakota County
matter are a direct result of Dakota County Personnel following the Progressive Conditioning
protocol. Again the reason being either/or Punishment for researching possible local Law
Enforcement complicity in the local drug trade and/or Claimants exercise of his Natural Right to
Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances without fear of punishment or reprisal as
reduced to writing in the First Amendment.
Claimant Mashak has no criminal record besides traffic tickets (no DWI). Claimant has NEVER
EVEN CHARGED WITH any crime but Disorderly Conduct, except for said traffic tickets. The
lengths that our Progressive Government went through to try to obtain even this misdemeanor
conviction demonstrate just how far our Progressive Government will go punish the voices of
political dissent.
SUMMARY OF LEGAL CLAIMS
Claimant Mashak asserts and restates all the facts, claims and legal basis put forth elsewhere in this
document. The following outline of claims represents a summary of issues further identified and
explained herein, but shall not constitute a limit on the claims asserted by Claimant.

1) Respondents illegal and unconstitutional actions had an unconstitutional and

suppressive effect on freedom of the Press.
The First Amendment Right of Freedom of the Press is a cherished and unalienable Natural Right.
There can be no doubt that Respondents treatment of Claimant had a chilling effect on Freedom of
the Press. A robust Press is necessary to keep government transparent and accountable.

2) Terroristic Threats by Tim Gonder

There can be no doubt that Jailer Gonders statements approximate effect, I can blow some ones
face off and the union will have me back on the job the next day struck terror in the Claimant. [See
Claimants Citizens Complaint in your files]This terror was exacerbated by Jailer Gonders full
care, custody and control of Claimant in solitary confinement. Here was seemingly omnipotent
jailer Gonder wearing a gun making this terroristic threats and Claimant had no ability to exercise
the fundamental response of fight or flight. Claimant had already been falsely arrested and falsely
imprisoned. Claimant was denied his demands to be immediately seen by a Judge and the County
Attorney. Claimant was denied any phone call. Claimant was not read his Miranda Rights. And,
Jailer Gonder threatened to put Claimant in a cell with the inmates in orange (hardened criminals) if
Claimant did not answer Jailer Gonders questions. And, remember Jailer Gonder tried to entrap

Claimant into making a break for it by saying he had lost the keys to the cell door, rendering him
unable to lock it.

3) Respondents violated Claimants Natural and Constitutional Right per the 4th
Amendment not to be subject to criminal prosecution on the basis of evidence illegally
obtained and/or fabricated, and without a basis in law.
There is a constitutional right to be free from criminal prosecution based upon evidence that was
illegally obtained or fabricated by government. (See Deveraux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Circuit
2001, en banc). When an agent of the government knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless
disregard for the Truth illegally obtains evidence or pursues evidence without a basis in law, a
claim arise under 42 USC &1983 {see e.g. Lacy v. County of Maricopa, 631 F. Supp. 2d 1997,
1206-1207 (D. AZ 2008) applying Franks v. Deleaware, 438 US 165, 155-56 (1978)} Officer Vai
knew that he had failed to provide Claimant with his name and badge number. Officer Vai he had no
basis to removal Claimant from the Courtroom, nor was there any legal basis for Officers Vai
ejection of Claimant from the premises. Officer Vai knew Claimant was a member of the Press. It
was Officers Vais failure to provide his identification, and false arrest and false imprisonment of
Claimant that precipitated and made Claimants subsequent suffering of Terroristic threats by Jailer
Gonder possible. Still further, Officer Vais false arrest and false imprisonment were prerequisite to
Claimant being exposed to acts of Government and Judicial Officials outside the scope and
intentions of the Rule of Law. Jailer Gonders attempts to coerce evidence out of Claimant by
threatening to put Claimant in with the folks in orange jump suits provides yet another example of
an agent of the State knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the Truth
illegally obtains evidence or pursues evidence without a basis in law.

4) Respondents illegal and unconstitutional, extreme and

outrageous conduct resulted in Claimant experiencing extreme
Emotional Distress.
The behavior of Dakota County personnel and Law Enforcement officials and the City Hastings
Attorney to pursue criminal charges against with Claimant, alleging that exculpatory evidence had
been destroyed for more than six months is extreme and outrageous. Claimant repeatedly told
Prosecutor Fluegel he had requested the exculpatory video be preserved in a timely manner.
Claimant repeatedly told Prosecutor Fluegel recheck on the preservation of the video. Claimant
repeatedly asked Prosecutor Fluegel to review the video(s) confident that said viewing would
indeed be exculpatory and move Prosecutor Fluegel to drop the matter in the interests of justice.
On information and belief, Claimant alleges Prosecutor Fluegel failed to drop the matter as a matter
of Practicing Progressive Conditioning punishment upon Claimant. Said behavior motivated to
punish Claimant for investigating allegations of local Law Enforcement complicity in the local drug
trade and/or due to outside influences pressuring Prosecutor Fluegel to pursue the matter as
unlawful and unconstitutional punishment for Claimants earlier explained attempts to exercise his
Natural Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances without fear of punishment and
retaliation, as reduced to writing in the First Amendment. Prosecutor Colburn picked up the ball
and ran with it when Prosecutor Fluegel was forced to acknowledge that some of the allegedly
destroyed exculpatory video did indeed still exist. Repondents actions demonastrated a reckless
disregard for the near certainty that this law-abiding citizen was wrongfully imprisoned in solitary
confinement, submitted to Terroristic Threats, subjected to cruel and humiliating behavior, and then
charged with a crime after having done nothing wrong, causing claimant to experience extreme

emotional distress. The direct and foreseeable result of Respondents conduct, is further described
in the damages section below. The circumstances presented demonstrate that Respondents, acting
in their official capacity, intentionally inflicted sever emotional distress upon Claimant.

5) The State of Minnesota negligently trained and supervised Respondents.

Upon information and belief, Respondents, at a minimum, lacked the training and experience to
arrest and, thereafter, charge Claimant for Disorderly Conduct. Specifically, Officer Gonder had no
idea of the required elements of Disorderly Conduct, nor was he aware of his duty to provide a
citizen with his name and badge number, upon request.(sans some life threatening or some other
legitimate consideration. None of the Deputies that assisted Officer Vai in incarcerating Claimant
had training or experience on how to handle a person suspected of a misdemeanor. Claimant has
been advised by other persons that misdemeanors are most typically resolved with a ticket, not
incarceration. (sans life threatening considerations or other exasperating conditions.)
Prosecutors Fluegel and Colburn had no training or experience in checking for the existence of
exculpatory video and reviewing said video for existence of exculpatory evidence. Prosecutors
Fluegel and Colburn had no training in analyzing data sources to determine the elements required
for a misdemeanor charge of Disorderly Conduct, and comparing the required elements to the facts
inevidence. Respondents, further were/are unfamiliar with constitional protections afforded to those
accused of misdemeanors, and wther such protections would preclude criminal charges.
Neither Prosecutor Fluegel/Colburn nor the Deputies involved had proper knowledge of proper
police policies and procedures, particularly where it concerns allowing phone calls and not making
Terroristic Threats to presumed innocent citizens in solitary confinement. The State also failed to
ensure that Prosectors Fluegel/Colburn, a private attoerny who financially benefits from each
criminal complaint he lodges for the City of Hastings, was capable of pursuing this charge against
Claimant, and had sufficient skills and abilities to honestly determine whether the necessary
elements of Disorderly Conduct were to be found among the facts in evidence.

6) Hastings City Attorney Dan Fluegels/Colburns Office maliciously prosecuted

Claimant, and one or more of Respondents Abused Process and Obstructed Legal
Process;
At all times, someone amongst the Respondents knew of Claimants timely request to retain the
exculpatory video. We definitely know Joe Leko acknowledged such on March 14, 2014.
Tim Leslie acknowledged existence of such exculpatory video on May 8, 2014. On information and
belief, Tim Leslie changed his story on August 4, 2014, on the instruction of Prosecutor Fluegel.
The change was necessary, because of Sally Andersons explanation to Claimant that any evidence
reviewed regarding the allegation of misconduct, etc. of an officer had to be retained for six years
from the officers date of termination. To keep the video destroyed on the pretext that Claimant did
not ask for it in a timely manner, Prosecutor Fluegel had to have Tim Leslie say the video was not
reviewed, or produce it or have the matter dismissed for the destruction of exculpatory evidence. On
information and belief, Leslie did view the video, found it unfavorable to his coworkers and instead
decided to rely upon the false statements of his coworkers. In any case, if the video had supported
the false statements of the various Deputies who had provided false statements, Leslie himself
would have retained the video and had it labeled Prosecution Exhibit 1. We know that Sheriff
Bellows, or his designated alternate, received a letter from Claimant dated March 17, 2014,
requested all video of Claimant anyplace within the Courthouse on March 12, 2014.

The moment Prosecutor Fluegel and Colborn reviewed the exculpatory video that was produced,
they should have dropped the charges. The exculpatory video of the afternoon Courtroom and
Claimants arrest in the hall clearly contradict Officer Vais Testi-lyed facts. Prosecutor Fluegel
knew or reasonably should have known of the exculpatory video by merely asking the Dakota
County Sherriffs Department. Whats more, as Leko stated that at least some of the exculpatory
was put in the Case File, how could Prosecutor Fluegel have not received it upon receiving the
Case file. Some one, or more, from amongst the Respondents Obstructed Legal Process by not
producing the exculpatory evidence in a timely manner. Whats more, some one or more,
Obstructed Legal Process in deciding to forever maintain that the Morning Courtroom video was
destroyed and NEVER producing it.
One or more of the Respondents further Abused Process if the intent was to prevent Claimant from
investigating the allegations of local Law Enforcement complicity in the local drug trade, and/or as
Progressive Conditioning Punishment for so doing, and/or if any part of this was unconstitutional
and illegal retaliation and punishment for Claimants attempted exercise of his Natural Right to
Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances without fear of punishment or retaliation, as
reduced to writing in the First Amendment; with regards to Judicial TAR and Fiscal TAR.
When Judge Wilton heard the facts in the evidentiary hearing, he dismissed the matter for Lack of
Probable Cause.

7) Notice of Constitutional Question 1

Are the Minnesota Courts using Litagation as a basis to punish and reward citizens for exercising
and/or attempting to exercise their Natural Right to Petition the Government for Redress of
Grievances without fear of reprisal or punishment, as reduced to writing in the First Amendment?
Claimant is aware of a number of folks who were/are involved in the Judicial TAR Movement who
report Governments attitude toward them has toxic. Some have asserted that the Minnesota
Judiciary has adopted the Rule of Man and began engaging in Progressive Conditioning, by
rewarding litigants who dont criticize government with positive outcomes and punishing those who
do criticize government with negative outcomes. Claimant asserts that this litigation is an example
of such Progressive Conditioning Punishment

8) Notice of Constitutional Question 2

Did Respondents violate the First Amendment Right to Freedom of the Press in fabricating charges
against Claimant? Clearly, the false and malicious arrest and detention of journalist would have a
chilling effect on Free Speech and the Free Press. Government Officials cannot be allowed to quash
transparency in government by bring false and malicious charges against journalists to prevent
coverage of issues Government does not want disclosed to the Public. In this case, the false and
malicious charges, to date, have had the desired effect of Claimant not pursuing investigations of
allegations of Dakota County Law Enforcement complicity in the local drug trade.
DAMAGES
The charges prevented Claimant from investigating and reporting upon the allegations of Dakota
County Law Enforcement being complicit in the local drug trade.
FINANCIAL STRESS

Until Alexander Rogosheske became his attorney, Claimant had to endure the expense of printing,
copying and research. Further, there were the long trips for hearings from Monticello MN to
Hastings MN.
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES/ HEALTH ISSUES
Claimant struggled with weight gain, out of control Diabetes, anxiety, depression and insomnia as a
direct result of the stress related to his arrest, incarceration, Terroristic Threats, and baseless
Disorderly Conduct charge. These issues came intermittently, yet often over-whelmingly, from
Claimants arrest to present. To date, Claimants Diabetes continues as almost uncontrolled.
The improper machinations of Respondents, combined with the Terroristic threats of Gonder
caused the symptoms of Claimants previously diagnosed PTSD Legal Abuse Syndrome to
resurface. The PTSD issue became so severe that Claimant later sought professional help.
To this day, Claimant resists any reason to go into Courthouses. Since this litigation, Claimant has
only went into any Minnesota Court house for compelling reasons and only in the presence of
friends and family who could act as witnesses. It is devastating to Claimant to realize the ease with
which a group of Law Enforcement officers can fabricate false allegations against an individual,
conspire to coordinate their testimony and through a completely innocent person into jail. And then,
subject that innocent person to threats and terroristic threats.
Some members of the public presume Claimant some how beat the charge, when in fact, no
charge should have existed. Only through Respondents intentional, malicious, reckless and grossly
negligent conduct, did said charges manifest themselves and proceed.
SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMANT MASHAK CLAIMS
In an ideal world, Claimant would ask for his time, health and Right to be Secure in his Person to
be restored. However, we live in reality and time machines do not exist.
SPECIFIC SUMS TO SETTLE CLAIMANT MASHAK CLAIMS
To settle general claims against Respondents, Claimant asks for $1.22 Million Dollars.
To settle claims against Respondents related to Suppressing the First Amendment Right to Free
Press and to provide punitive incentive to all Government Agencies to not engage in transparency
suppressive Activities, Claimant asks for $5 Million Dollars.
To settle Claims against Respondents related to a wider conspiracy to engage in Progressive
Conditioning Punishment in unlawful and unconstitutional retaliation for Claimants previous
activities to exercise his Natural Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances
without fear of punishment or reprisal, as reduced to writing in the First Amendment and provide
punitive incentive to all Government agencies to not engage in such behavior, Claimant asks $5
Million Dollars from Respondents for their role in this ongoing activity.
Claimant will reduce these amounts by half, if Government Respondents terminate their business
relationship with Prosecutors Fluegel and Colborn, and any Law Firm they work for eternity.

If the Government Respondents fail to terminate their business relationships with Prosecutors
Fluegel and Colborn, Claimant will still reduce these amounts by half if the voters of Dakota
County remove (vote out or recall) the entire Dakota County Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff
as they come up for re-election in the future.
Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of
supporting it.
~ Thomas Paine
Summary and Conclusion
Don Mashak submits his Notice of Claim in a good-faith effort to reach a settlement for
damages caused by Respondents. If one of your representatives requires additional
information to evaluate these claims, or if you believe this Notice of Claim is in any way
deficient, the undersigned respectfully requests that you provide a written statement
detailing any alleged deficiency to the following address:
Don Mashak
Rt 1 Box 231
Albertville MN 55301
Dated: ______________________________ _________________________________
Claimant
Don Mashak
Sworn before me this ________, day of October 2015.
___________________________________
Notary Public
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.
In Liberty,
Don Mashak
Claimant
In Propia Persona
See previous version for Affidavit of Service