Should you doubt this I encourage you to read about the FBI, COINTELPRO and Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. here
For 24 years I have of attempted to bring reform and transparency to the Minnesota Judicial System.
Our Minnesota State Government and Court System consider this an act of Political dissent.
I am the target and victim of an operation to demonize and discredit me because cause of my exercise
of my Constitutionally protected 1st Amendment Right to Petition our Government for Redress of Grievances.
To demonstrate one method our Government has used to demonize and discredit me, I provide to you this transcript of my Motion to Remove Judge Mary Yunker for Bias.
I am one of the Plaintiffs in this matter. I have been denied full, fair, equitable, unbiased and just adjudication of the matter at hand. After almost 2 years of litigation and the expense of more than $16000 dollars, I have been denied all depositions and the ability to amend my complaint to reflect additional claims. Only on the last day of discovery, did I receive the most insignificant answers to some discovery. I fear this litigation will end in another exercise of "Might Make Right" and "How much justice can you afford?"
The long and the short of this is that 2 former employees quit my employment while I was out of the country on vacation. They stole company property with the intent of starting their own repossession company. They embezzled money, destroyed records and made up stoies in an attempt to steal my clients. 3 times after they said they had no company property in their possession, they returned company property, the last time to an attorney.
Upon being caught, the defendants made various wild allegations of a sexual nature against me. I am told that such allegations are pretty common as a means to try to assert a defense and muddy the water.
This litigation should have been a straight forward, done and over matter.
I took and passed a polygraph. I demanded the opportunity to deposition my accusers.
I wanted to amend my complaint to include claims for the false allegations, but was not allowed to.
But the Courts have decided to use this allegation to demonize and discredit me to thwart my efforts at judicial reform and to punish me for daring to believe in the Right Provided to me in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the adjudication of Justice is boring. Points i think demonstrate the Courts Bias and Inconsistency may be too nuanced for you to understand. All I can do is simply demonstrate the Courts inconsistencies and failure to follow its own rules. I can only hope that the reader comes to realize the court has not operated fairly and justly. And then hope that you can deduce from this that I am the victim of our governments deliberate attempts to demonize and discredit me. Perhaps if you consider the following point
1) Why would I be denied the opportunity deposition the Defendants if they would repeat the allegations under oath?
2) Why would I not be allowed to subpoena the identies of persons that posted duragatory information on the internet, if the allegation were true and would serve to corroborate the allegation?
3) Why would 4 different attorneys that I hired refuse to Notice the Defendants for Depositions?
4) Why would the last attorney wait until 10 days after the Discovery period to try to amend the complaint to add the additional causes of action I requested from the beginning;
5) A September 16, 2010 hearing was canceled. I say it was to prevent reconciling discovery issues and amending the complaint. The Judge says my attorney canceled it without my permission. My attorney says the Judge canceled the hearing. If nothing untoward happened why are my former attorney and the Judge passing the buck?
6) Why did Judge Yunker invent the term "Suspensed Motions" which is not a term that i have found any attorney to be familiar with nor does it occur in MN Rules of Civil Procedure nor the MN Rules of General Procedure in an attempt to keep evidence off the Record?
7) Is it fair and equitable that Judge Yunker refused to set any hearing in person or by teleconference to resolve discovery issues and/or amend the Complaint for the last two and a half months of discovery?
I encourage you to read the attached transcript so that you may know all the injustices i have suffered at the hands of the Minnesota Judiciary.
I allege the following:
Because the Minnesota Judiciary controls the discipline and licenses of Minnesota Attorneys, Minnesota Attorneys are more loyal to the Judges they appear before than they are to you their client (Why do you think they call Public Defenders, Public Pretenders?)I have been fighting to understand how the corruption takes place for 24 years. For the last 4 years, I have been fighting to put forth reforms to bring transparency and accountability to the Minnesota Judiciary.
Judges in Minnesota are allowed to take tips which common persons like you and I would call bribes. In many case, the outcome of your case is decided by the Judge, before the first time you are in Court. The Judge "telegraphs" to the attorneys what outcome they want and the attorneys use the equivalent of smoke and mirrors to allow the judge to reach the conclusion the judge wants.
The method of fixing cases is generally achieved by attorneys by either controlling what evidence gets on the record or my making "legal" mistakes which allow the judge to rule against you. Because most of us trust the attorney that we pay lots of money to and because most of us are unaware of the law, we don't even realize our case is being fixed.
In reading the attached transcript, I hope to expose the nature of much of the corruption that exists in the Minnesota Judiciary. At the same time, hope that I enlighten each of you as to the as to the absolute
necessity of Judicial Reform in Minnesota.
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE
The Minnesota Judiciary have chose to use the false accusations of my former employees to destroy me to maintain their own power. At every opportunity I could expose the fraudulent nature of my former employees accusations, I have been thwarted.
.
My business is in ruins. My house is in foreclosure. My health is devastated. After spending $16000 on attorneys I cannot afford to be represented at the trial. A trial at which my maximum award by the jury can be $101.00.
This is representative of the evil nature of Minnesota's Judiciary.
The Powers that be in the Minnesota Judiciary laugh smugly behind closed doors at the destruction that they have brought to my life.
I have no criminal record save a speeding ticket and my life has been laid waste for daring to speak of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. If they can do this to me, they can do this to any of you.
I urge you to contact your elected officials and demand reform of the Minnesota Judiciary before
you or someone you care about finds themselves in front of the evil, corrupt and unaccountable Minnesota Judiciary.
I have educated you as to the nature of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. The price for doing so has been exacted upon me by the powers that be.
I humbly and respectfully ask that you not let all the life dreams that i have sacrificed to bring you this enlightenment, not go for naught.
DEMAND JUDICIAL REFORM IN MINNESOTA.
DO NOT LET THEM TAKE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTED FOR JUDGES IN MEANINGFUL, CONTESTED ELECTIONS AWAY FROM YOU.
I leave you with this quote before you read the transcript and oral argument exhibits....
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.—Dietrich Bonhoeffer "
In Liberty,
Page 1
1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
2 COUNTY OF ISANTI TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
3
4 -----------------------------------------------------------
5 Don Mashak, 1st National ) COURT HEARING
Repossessors, Inc., )
6 Plaintiffs, ) Court File No. 30-CV-09-248
)
7 vs. )
)
8 Dannette L. Meeks-Hull, ) February 4, 2011
Michael Hull, ) 3:00 p.m.
9 )
Defendants. )
10 -----------------------------------------------------------
11
12
13
14 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing
15 before the Honorable Mary A. Yunker, District Court
16 Judge, at the Sherburne County Government Center, City
17 of Elk River, Minnesota.
18
19
20 APPEARANCES:
21 DON MASHAK, the Plaintiff, appeared pro se.
22
23
24 COURT REPORTER: Jennifer S. Sati, RMR, CRR, CBC, CRI
(763) 241-2831
25
Page 2
1 (WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were duly
2 had:)
3
4 THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Mashak. You
5 may certainly step to counsel table.
6 MR. MASHAK: Could I have the bailiff give you
7 this? You had asked for it.
8 THE COURT: Certainly. Please feel free to be
9 seated, Mr. Mashak. Mr. Mashak, are you prepared to
10 proceed?
11 MR. MASHAK: In just one moment, Your Honor.
12 Okay.
13 THE COURT: We will call Don Mashak and First
14 National Repossessors, Incorporated, Plaintiffs, versus
15 Dannette Meeks-Hull and Michael Hull, Defendants. This
16 is a motion hearing brought pursuant to Plaintiff's
17 motion to remove this Court from these proceedings for
18 bias.
19 Present in the courtroom today is Mr. Mashak.
20 The other parties have not appeared and are not required
21 to appear at this hearing but were given notice of
22 today's scheduling.
23 Mr. Mashak, you will note on counsel table to
24 your right a laptop computer. It is realtime reporting,
25 and it is displaying in written fashion in realtime the
Page 3
1 proceedings that are being conducted here today. It is
2 placed on counsel table for your use. And the Court
3 reporter will be happy to instruct you regarding its
4 use.
5 You may review the written transcript during
6 the course of breaks, which the Court intends to take
7 during these proceedings, so that you may be assisted in
8 processing this information as time goes on.
9 What I'm going to do at this point is stop
10 these proceedings so that the court reporter can step
11 down and can instruct you into the use of the laptop so
12 that you can access these written proceedings, if you
13 choose to do so during the course of the proceedings.
14 (Discussion held between Mr. Mashak and the court
15 reporter off the record.)
16 THE COURT: Mr. Mashak, if you need additional
17 assistance with the operation of the laptop, please let
18 us know that and we will accommodate you during the
19 course of the breaks.
20 Mr. Mashak, are you represented by counsel in
21 these proceedings?
22 MR. MASHAK: No, I'm not.
23 THE COURT: Do you intend to proceed
24 representing yourself in these matters?
25 MR. MASHAK: I guess I have no choice.
Page 4
1 THE COURT: Additionally, as I have previously
2 indicated, these proceedings are not to be recorded,
3 either audio or visual, in contravention of the rules of
4 the Court.
5 So I am informing those who are in attendance
6 here, Mr. Mashak -- and there is one person in the
7 audience, who I think has been at previous hearings --
8 that video or audio recordings are expressly prohibited
9 by the rules of Court and there will potentially be
10 sanctions if you violate these rules of Court by
11 recording these proceedings.
12 MR. MASHAK: May I address that point?
13 THE COURT: Yes, sir, you may.
14 MR. MASHAK: I'd like to understand, because
15 it's my understanding that pursuant to Minnesota
16 Statutes, tape recording of conversations is lawful as
17 long as one party to those conversations are present,
18 and I'd like to know how Court rules over --
19 understanding the hierarchy of laws, how court rule can
20 over -- supersede a Minnesota statute?
21 THE COURT: Mr. Mashak, I'm not able to give
22 you a legal opinion that would answer your legal
23 question with regard to the application of other
24 Minnesota statutes, which do talk about tape recording.
25 (Phone ring tones in courtroom.)
Page 5
1 THE COURT: I'm assuming, Mr. Mashak, you just
2 turned your cell phone off?
3 MR. MASHAK: Yes.
4 THE COURT: Appreciate that. Thank you, sir.
5 I am not able to give you legal advice with regard to
6 interpretation of Minnesota statute which does control
7 the tape recording of conversation between two private
8 parties. However, I have informed you in the past and I
9 will re-inform you today that court rules prohibit
10 recording in the court, absent express authority by the
11 court which can be given under limited circumstances,
12 and which has not been given in these proceedings.
13 So I reiterate: Recording is prohibited and
14 there are potential sanctions for those who violate this
15 court order and this court rule. With regard to these
16 proceedings today, the realtime reporting and frequent
17 recesses will be granted in order to accommodate the
18 request under the Americans With Disabilities Act
19 request that you have made, Mr. Mashak.
20 And I note that prior to today's hearing you
21 did give me some additional information. We will
22 discuss that at the conclusion of these hearings in
23 private, if you choose to do that. The Court may have
24 some additional questions on that issue.
25 MR. MASHAK: Okay.
Page 6
1 THE COURT: Now, with regard to the motion
2 which is pending today, Minnesota Rule of General
3 Procedure 106 requires that this Court conduct a hearing
4 on your motion and that is why we are here today. This
5 is like any other civil motion. The Court can and will
6 consider the affidavit that you filed in support of your
7 motion, which was received by the Court January 20,
8 2011, and was submitted to the Court under oath.
9 It is your affidavit which has the information
10 that you wanted the Court to review with regard to this
11 motion. Your opportunity today is to argue your motion
12 or to submit other written information, if you wish to,
13 for the Court to consider this matter.
14 Mr. Mashak, the rules require that it is your
15 responsibility to demonstrate an affirmative showing of
16 prejudice on behalf of this Court in order to receive
17 the relief that you are requesting. And that is defined
18 in the rules as such bias as a juror might have excluded
19 from consideration of the action should the juror have
20 the same opinions. You may proceed, sir.
21 MR. MASHAK: Okay. Well, first, I'm going to
22 say that a lot of this stems from the unconstitutional
23 transference by the Minnesota Legislature to the Supreme
24 Court of oversight of the Minnesota Judiciary. And
25 further, in having the Minnesota Lawyers Board overseen
Page 7
1 by the Supreme Court effectively makes lawyers be more
2 loyal or answerable to judges than they do the clients
3 that pay them.
4 In this case, which should have been a simple
5 case, this was a nothing case that has been turned
6 upside down and my life has been turned upside down
7 because of my exercise of my First Amendment
8 Constitutional right to petition the government for
9 redress of grievances.
10 For the past five years, a group of hundreds
11 of us have been trying to submit evidence and testimony
12 of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary before the
13 House and Senate Judiciary Committees and we've been
14 unconstitutionally and unlawfully denied that right.
15 And I feel that the way that this matter has
16 been handled is a retaliation, an unlawful retaliation,
17 for my exercise of my right to petition the courts and
18 that had the Minnesota House and Minnesota Senate
19 Judiciary Committees heard the testimony and evidence
20 that I wouldn't even be in the position to having to
21 bring this motion.
22 Simply, the Board of Judicial Standards is a
23 farce. It's a black hole. I've received numerous, and
24 other people have shown me, where they can only deal
25 with things like judge or attorney doesn't show up on
Page 8
1 time, doesn't file papers timely, if they steal from an
2 escrow fund or something like that, that's about the
3 closest to criminal they can get. But everything else
4 is subject to appeal. And most citizens of this country
5 simply are not capable of paying all the expenses, nor
6 understanding all the intricacies of filing the appeal.
7 So the courts have used this to punish those that
8 dissent from the majority.
9 In this particular matter, I've had four
10 attorneys. The first attorney, Diana Longrie, failed to
11 show up for court, failed to give me the documents I
12 needed when she didn't show up, refused to submit
13 discovery, refused to notice depositions. And we had
14 agreed on 50 admissions and related interrogatories and
15 document production requests and she never sent them.
16 She received a Rule 11 motion from the defense back a
17 year ago November. Never notified me. Never notified
18 the second attorney that I hired.
19 The second attorney, Joe O'Brien -- and,
20 again, there's no complaint from Longrie that she didn't
21 get paid. The second attorney, Joe O'Brien, worked on
22 my case for a couple months, got paid money, and, in
23 fact, then he stopped returning my calls. I went with
24 another attorney to pin him down, and he admitted that
25 he had just been a little bit lax and he'd get right on
Page 9
1 it. Then we couldn't find him. So for three months I
2 couldn't get him to return my file to me.
3 Two months after I notified the Lawyers
4 Professional Responsibility Board that he hadn't
5 returned my files so I couldn't proceed with my case, he
6 left me a text message that he had left the file on the
7 seat of an open car on my property.
8 I fail to understand how the Supreme Court nor
9 anybody could foresee that they should have some teeth
10 in the law that requires an attorney to return the file
11 upon demand. You guys have this implied consent for us
12 drivers in regards to taking DUI tests, but there's
13 nothing for an attorney that says: Hey, this is the
14 litmus test. Either you produce files within, I don't
15 know, five, ten days, whatever you think is reasonable,
16 or we jerk your license. I don't understand why that
17 doesn't exist.
18 He missed deadlines, made me scramble to do
19 things pro se. And I got it back on 6-15, and I had a
20 hearing on July 9. I showed up on July 9 ready to go
21 with another attorney and the defense didn't even bother
22 to show up. We requested summary judgment; weren't
23 granted it.
24 And then there was supposed to be a new
25 scheduling order entered. And for two months I bugged
Page 10
1 the attorney about when are they going to answer the
2 discovery that I had to serve? Because at the time I
3 didn't have any and the deadline was coming up and I
4 didn't know what was going to happen on July 9. I
5 served admissions and I served requests -- or
6 interrogatories, et cetera, et cetera.
7 And in any case, we never got an answer. All
8 my attorney kept saying to me is the other side said
9 they weren't at the July 9 hearing so they don't have to
10 answer because as far as they're concerned the deadline
11 to respond to your discovery passed after the deadline
12 for discovery to be done.
13 And so I kept telling the attorney, you need
14 to be sending -- having the court get that scheduling
15 order so they can't keep telling you this. This went on
16 for months. I kept saying: Can't they just call the
17 court themselves? Can't you set a hearing? Can't you
18 compel discovery? And he said no.
19 I'd like to enter this e-mail between my
20 attorney and myself on August 17, and I'll give this to
21 you in just a moment. I'll give it to you right now
22 because I have another copy of it.
23 THE COURT: Mr. Mashak, I'm assuming it's not
24 in the form of a sworn affidavit?
25 MR. MASHAK: No.
Page 11
1 THE COURT: Are you willing to swear under
2 oath today that it's a true and accurate copy --
3 MR. MASHAK: Certainly.
4 THE COURT: -- of the document that you're in
5 possession of?
6 MR. MASHAK: Yes, Your Honor.
7 THE COURT: I'm going to ask you to stand,
8 raise your right hand and be sworn.
9 (Mr. Mashak was sworn in by the Clerk of Court.)
10 THE COURT: Be seated again. I'm going to ask
11 the deputy to hand the document back to you, and I'm
12 going to ask you to identify for the record what it is
13 and indicate whether it's a true and accurate copy of
14 the document in your possession.
15 MR. MASHAK: This is an e-mail from -- between
16 myself, Jack Gram, and Mark Olson, dated August 17. And
17 it describes the problem they were having with the
18 court.
19 THE COURT: Authored by whom, sir?
20 MR. MASHAK: It was -- it was sent to me and
21 it was between me and Mark Olson, my attorney at the
22 time.
23 THE COURT: Authored by Mr. Olson?
24 MR. MASHAK: Yes.
25 THE COURT: And you're swearing on the record
Page 12
1 today it's a true and accurate copy of what you have in
2 your document possession?
3 MR. MASHAK: Absolutely.
4 THE COURT: You may hand it to the deputy.
5 I'll receive it as information for this hearing.
6 MR. MASHAK: And here's the essence of this:
7 Here's the problem, Jack, my office has called the Court
8 four times. I've sent two letters. She is chambered in
9 Sherburne County and the case is in Isanti. I asked her
10 if I should copy her with submissions to her chambers
11 and she said no. She explained that without a file it
12 would be in no man's land. I also explained to her that
13 I could e-mail her the documents. She again said no.
14 Just send them forward. I don't want to become a pest.
15 I have a paper trail here. I'm sure that Don is anxious
16 since his prior counsel dropped the ball," et cetera, et
17 cetera.
18 And this went on for weeks where he was -- I
19 was on his case saying this needs to come to an end
20 because at that point in time this had been going on for
21 more than a year. And he was indicating that he was
22 having problems contacting the Court. And that the
23 Court wasn't responding to sending him a scheduling
24 order. And along the line, I finally said I'm going to
25 get a copy of the transcript from July 9 and you can
Page 13
1 send that to them. And then all of the sudden when
2 everybody was aware that I did that, there was a flurry
3 of activity. And my recollection is that the scheduling
4 order was produced by you on or about August 28th but
5 somehow got lost.
6 And in that same time frame, I got served a
7 motion for -- Rule 11 Motion for Summary Judgment that
8 was to be heard on September 30th. In the meantime at
9 the July 9th hearing we had specifically said the
10 original court date was supposed to be September 16th.
11 And we just left it as September 16th because we figured
12 there would be discovery issues that would be dealt with
13 at that point in time.
14 So when we can't compel discovery, we can't
15 get the other side to answer discovery, we're not
16 getting responses from the court, I am reasonably
17 annoyed and irritated that this is not proceeding the
18 way it should proceed. I'm being denied the opportunity
19 to collect evidence. I'm being denied the opportunity
20 to get evidence on the record.
21 And then I started having debates with my
22 attorney about whether we should put evidence on the
23 record. Because he's trying to tell me: Well, they
24 filed it two days late. They didn't allow enough time.
25 I'm, like, if you give me assurance the judge can't rule
Page 14
1 any other way, then I'll go with that. Otherwise, we've
2 got 30 exhibits we need to put on the record because the
3 defense is saying not one scintilla of evidence.
4 I said on the 9-16 hearing we need to be
5 compelling in taking care of all this fact that the
6 other side is saying they don't know that there's not a
7 -- that the discovery didn't end because there's a new
8 scheduling order, et cetera, et cetera. And suddenly
9 I'm told that the Court canceled the hearing on the
10 16th. And I started making inquiries of various people
11 in the court system about how could this date get
12 changed? And I believe you've seen the photo
13 previously, and the computer screen says that my
14 attorney agreed to change the date so that the defendant
15 -- defense's motion for summary judgment would be
16 timely, which would be completely contradictory to my
17 best interest, in light of the fact that we hadn't been
18 able to get discovery.
19 Now, I know you say you didn't do it. But
20 here is an e-mail, which again I'll swear is true and
21 correct, copy of what I received on September 8th. And
22 it's got me saying, "Darnit --
23 THE COURT: Excuse me, who's the author of the
24 e-mail?
25 MR. MASHAK: Mark Olson. I want my discovery,
Page 15
1 I want to get evidence on the record. I want to get the
2 amended complaint in. This is all going to happen on
3 September 16. We're not giving up September 16. You
4 can't give up September 16 without my consent.
5 And this is, in short, his response to me is:
6 You don't get it. The judge had a conflict. Now, I've
7 since made a complaint to the Minnesota Lawyers
8 Professional Responsibility Board asking -- again
9 asserting that the screen says that my counsel agreed to
10 move this date, which was clearly not in my best
11 interest. And in response to that, with the Lawyers
12 Board, he once again wrote back that the judge changed
13 the date.
14 And at the September 30th hearing, you
15 indicated that you had nothing to do with changing the
16 date. So something someplace along the line is wrong.
17 Doesn't matter to me, because to me it's consistent with
18 my entire perspective that the Minnesota Judiciary and
19 the Minnesota legal system is retaliating against me for
20 trying to bring forward and testify about evidence and
21 give evidence of corruption in the Minnesota judicial
22 system.
23 And that, again, that is a violation of the
24 First Amendment right to petition the government for
25 redress of grievances. So in any case, I get in an
Page 16
1 argument with Mr. Olson about: You will put these
2 exhibits on the record; you will file the amended
3 complaint as we agreed.
4 And he's saying: No, no, no, we're not doing
5 any of that.
6 I'm telling him we need to compel discovery.
7 We need to get the amended complaint. And again he's
8 telling me there's nothing to be done. We just got to
9 go to this hearing. I'm, like, you will file, because I
10 understand that if you don't have it in -- evidence or
11 testimony in an official form, it's as though it didn't
12 exist and you make your findings directly from only the
13 evidence in the crucible of justice.
14 No matter how many times I tell my attorney,
15 no matter how many times I tell my friends, no matter
16 how many times I post on the Internet or put it in the
17 paper, if you don't see it officially, it don't count.
18 And that was the basic conflict with Mr. Olson
19 was he was refusing to put the exhibits in and he was
20 refusing to compel discovery. And then he was refusing
21 to set -- or saying the Court wasn't willing to set a
22 hearing in order to get past the scheduling order deal.
23 Now, so then I went out after the September
24 30th hearing in which I said we are going to, you know,
25 continue these motions until I can find an attorney and
Page 17
1 I went out and found an attorney and I told him -- every
2 attorney I went to, because it took me about three weeks
3 to find one. I said: I'm going to tell you this is a
4 horrible case. It's messed up. Not through any fault
5 of my own, but because there's been too many fingers in
6 the pot. And I believe the judicial system is corrupt.
7 And they're retaliating against me because I didn't want
8 somebody telling me, well, you didn't tell me.
9 So it took me, like, three weeks to go through
10 20, 30 attorneys before one said that they would take it
11 and that they understood what the issue was.
12 And, again, this is extremely distressful to
13 me that this defense just made up some story, some
14 scandalous story, of accusations about me. This has
15 went on for two years; it should have been nipped in the
16 bud immediately. Justice delayed is justice denied.
17 In any case, so then I told Mr. Wolfgram --
18 and I believe I don't have to give you this because this
19 is already included in the documents that I've given
20 you -- you see there's a series of e-mails between
21 Mr. Wolfgram and myself where in October 28 I'm telling
22 him: You need to notice depositions. You need to
23 compel discovery. You need to get the amended complaint
24 in.
25 And I'm getting double talk from Mr. Wolfgram
Page 18
1 saying: Don't worry. We'll -- we have plenty of time.
2 I don't have to notice these right away. You've noticed
3 a month before for the depositions, so I don't have to
4 give them the full 30 days.
5 And he assures me, he says on top of this --
6 by this point in time, I, you know, I was suffering from
7 the disability that we've discussed due to all these
8 bizarre occurrences happening with this court case and
9 that I couldn't simply get a quick and speedy trial to
10 get this resolved.
11 And so I remember saying to him: I have to
12 trust you because this is killing me to question every
13 single thing that every single attorney does. And if
14 you look at those e-mails, you can see that I clearly
15 told him you need to have these filed -- do this stuff
16 immediately.
17 The judge isn't going to move the hearing
18 date. She's not going to do anything. And he's
19 assuring me.
20 And I told him: You go down to the court file
21 and you look in the court file because I don't want to
22 hear at some point in time you say I forgot to tell you
23 something. I will pay for that. You go down there
24 because that's the record. I don't want to ever hear
25 that something I forgot -- because I don't know what's
Page 19
1 important. I'm not an attorney. Something I think is
2 unimportant might be important. Didn't occur.
3 And during this whole time, he's telling me
4 the Court is refusing to set a hearing because you
5 demanded that it be in Isanti County. And I said:
6 That's a gross misrepresentation of what was said and
7 specifically I was asked which county do you want to
8 have it in?
9 And do you have copies of the transcript?
10 THE COURT: No, sir.
11 MR. MASHAK: Okay. So do you need me to swear
12 that these are true and correct? Or is it enough
13 that --
14 THE COURT: Any evidence that you want me to
15 consider must come in through affidavit or having you
16 swear to correctness on the record.
17 MR. MASHAK: Okay. So I swear that this is
18 true and accurate copies of page 1, page 5, page 4, and
19 page 31 of the September 30, 2010, hearings in the -- in
20 this matter.
21 And I draw the Court's attention to page 4.
22 And there's a typo here, but, as we had said, Isanti,
23 not Sherburne. But in any case: All future count (sic)
24 hearings will be scheduled in Isanti. I'm just simply
25 telling you it's more difficult, scheduling-wise, but we
Page 20
1 will accommodate it, and all future hearings will be
2 held in Isanti County.
3 And the important word there is accommodate.
4 But on top of that -- and so this is all going on in
5 early November. And as soon as Attorney Wolfgram says
6 to me, Hey, they're saying that you refused to have them
7 heard in Sherburne County. I said, You know, that's not
8 the way it was. I was offered a choice. I made the
9 choice. And of course if we can't have these heard
10 before the December 17, if I insist on having them in
11 Isanti County, by all means let's have them in Sherburne
12 County, but make sure the trial is still held in Isanti
13 County.
14 And for another 30 days I got to hear the
15 Court won't schedule, the Court won't schedule, the
16 Court won't schedule. And he's telling me don't worry
17 about the depositions, don't worry about the
18 depositions, don't worry about the depositions. And
19 this is consistent with --
20 THE COURT: Mr. Mashak, I said at the
21 beginning of this hearing that I would accommodate you
22 with reasonable breaks if you need them. Do you need a
23 break or --
24 MR. MASHAK: Yes. Yes. Yes. That would be
25 very, very helpful.
Page 21
1 THE COURT: 10 minutes enough, sir?
2 MR. MASHAK: I think so.
3 THE COURT: We'll stand in recess for 10
4 minutes. At 20 minutes to 4 on the clock, we'll
5 recommence.
6 MR. MASHAK: Thank you.
7 THE COURT: You're welcome, sir.
8 (A brief recess was taken.)
9 THE COURT: We're back on the record on Mashak
10 and First National Repossessors versus Meeks-Hull and
11 Hull. Mr. Mashak returns, all Court personnel have also
12 returned. Mr. Mashak, you may proceed.
13 MR. MASHAK: Okay. I want to first correct a
14 typo on the motion papers on page 2. It says "for two
15 weeks now." It should actually say "for three weeks."
16 And that's consistent with the Exhibit 39 from that same
17 -- from the affidavit of 12-29. That's an e-mail of
18 December 9, 2010, and it's from me to Attorney Wolfgram.
19 And the relevant portion is -- again, dated
20 December 9 -- for three weeks or more now Judge Yunker
21 has refused to set any hearing date for us before the
22 December 17, 2010, discovery and dispositive motion
23 deadline.
24 THE COURT: I'm sorry, which e-mail are you
25 referring to?
Page 22
1 MR. MASHAK: If you look, there's an affidavit
2 that's the 12-29 affidavit.
3 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
4 MR. MASHAK: Attached as an exhibit. It will
5 say at the bottom "E-39." I believe it's the very last
6 page of that.
7 THE COURT: I have that, sir.
8 MR. MASHAK: You see me writing to Attorney
9 Wolfgram for three weeks now or more.
10 THE COURT: I see it.
11 MR. MASHAK: Okay.
12 THE COURT: Also, sir, I note that document
13 has a lot of X's in it. Was that an alteration of the
14 original document?
15 MR. MASHAK: Yes. I just redacted stuff that
16 was attorney-client privileges. I'm sorry.
17 THE COURT: That's all right. Go ahead, sir.
18 MR. MASHAK: And so I've -- the Court
19 obviously knew that I needed to bring motions, the
20 motion to amend the complaint, the motion to compel
21 discovery, motion for punitive damages, all those
22 continued motions from September 30th, but my attorney
23 kept saying that they wouldn't set one.
24 In the meantime, I'm saying what about the
25 depositions? And he's saying, don't worry, there's
Page 23
1 plenty of time, I'll get them noticed. And I'm becoming
2 extremely frustrated.
3 THE COURT: Mr. Mashak, allow me to ask --
4 MR. MASHAK: Okay.
5 THE COURT: Is there evidence in the record or
6 do you have evidence of communication between
7 Mr. Wolfgram and the Court attempting to set motion
8 hearings during this time period?
9 MR. MASHAK: I'm sorry, Your Honor, I'm
10 thinking somebody I'm paying the big money to is doing
11 the job, and I didn't think that I had to question my
12 attorney about whether he was actually contacting the
13 Court or not. I assume as heated as the arguments got
14 and as much as he believed the defense of "the Court
15 just won't set one" that he's telling me the truth.
16 THE COURT: There's no written document that
17 you have or that you filed with the Court that documents
18 Mr. Wolfgram's request to the Court to set a hearing and
19 request denied?
20 MR. MASHAK: Right. And, in fact, I've asked
21 him for all my court files back and he's playing this
22 game of Simon says: You have to tell me when; and the
23 time I say, it won't work. And just again yesterday I
24 said I want to send somebody down between 8:30 and 10
25 today to pick up my court files. And I sent somebody
Page 24
1 down with a copy of my driver's license and a sheet
2 saying this person is authorized to pick up the records,
3 you say they're available to pick them up, and nobody
4 was in his office.
5 He called to tell me he didn't know when
6 somebody would be available to give me a file. In fact,
7 I don't have any of my court files as of this hearing.
8 But -- and I asked him for documentation
9 regarding contacting the Court and he hasn't given me
10 that, either. So in rapid succession, we get to
11 December 29 because I'm upset that -- and he's telling
12 me, don't worry, because the Court didn't make time
13 before December 17, it's your order, she's got to change
14 the scheduling order. She has to. Don't worry. This
15 is fine. She'll change it. It just would be grossly
16 unfair for you that because she didn't have time you
17 don't get to have your motion to compel, amended
18 complaint, et cetera, et cetera.
19 And, in fact, he said that in trying to set up
20 the deposition of Defendant Meeks-Hull, Dannette Meeks,
21 that she was saying because of the harassment
22 restraining order I couldn't even be in the deposition,
23 needed to talk to you about how that could be worked
24 out. Clearly there are ways to do that, electronically,
25 or behind a window or whatever it was.
Page 25
1 And they asked to have a teleconference with
2 you, and you refused to have a teleconference. And that
3 was the last week before the discovery deadline.
4 I'm sure you're aware then came December 29
5 where you said: Nope, I'm not changing any deadlines,
6 I'm not taking the amended complaint, I'm not
7 entertaining the motions to compel.
8 And then we came up with this -- and this is
9 difficult for me to say, but I've just got to say it,
10 this notion of suspense motions. And I've asked several
11 attorneys if they've ever heard of suspense motions from
12 the 9-30 hearing. I've looked in the Minnesota Rules of
13 General Practice.
14 I might not have it quite right, but I'm sure
15 you know what I'm talking to. I looked in the Minnesota
16 Rules of Civil Procedure and could find no reference to
17 suspense motions.
18 And it was my sense that my own attorney,
19 acting on behalf of the legal fraternity, understood
20 that what you were trying to do was to prevent some of
21 those motions from being heard. And so that is when he
22 took me in the back room and said: No, you shouldn't
23 enter any of this other stuff. You shouldn't enter your
24 motion, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
25 And there was yelling and screaming and he was saying he
Page 26
1 wasn't going to represent me anymore if I insisted on
2 doing this.
3 And here I'm sitting between I know that if
4 it's not on the record, it's as though it didn't happen
5 as far as the judge is concerned. And I have my
6 attorney telling me something completely different that
7 I know to be wrong. And he's threatening to withdraw,
8 and I'm not capable of knowing all the nuances of the
9 law.
10 And because of this idea suspense motions and
11 because of all of this, I had said: Okay; if you're
12 telling me that this is just a bad idea. And his story
13 was something about, well, what you're arguing is that
14 there's no material issues of fact. And if you go in
15 there and say that your side is there's no material
16 issues of fact, you're saying there is material issues
17 of fact.
18 And, of course, that is completely
19 wrong-headed thinking that doesn't even make any sense
20 because we're saying there's no issues of material fact
21 for us, not that there are not any material issues of
22 fact for them.
23 But in any case, you know all the rulings you
24 made there, and it denied me the right to get any --
25 $16,000, almost two years, I get a smattering of
Page 27
1 discovery on the very last day. And it just can't be.
2 Nobody could figure out to serve discovery 10 months
3 earlier, 12 months earlier, 13 months earlier? Nobody
4 could -- and then we have Olson saying for two and a
5 half months, from 7-9 to early September, that the judge
6 won't return my calls, the judge won't set a hearing,
7 which is consistent with what Wolfgram was saying was I
8 can't do anything, the Court won't set a hearing.
9 And clearly the Court knew that if I can't
10 compel discovery, if I can't amend my complaint that it
11 prejudices my case because I can't get evidence on the
12 record and I can't even say in the course of the
13 independent discovery that we did we discovered these
14 other causes of action and that we want to amend our
15 claim for that.
16 And worse, then I have my attorneys
17 blackmailing me, not just that they're going to quit by
18 doing something their certain way, but I have Wolfgram
19 telling me that if I don't sign something that says that
20 I am satisfied with his representation that he's going
21 to quit.
22 Now, I only got so much money and this has
23 damaged my business terribly. I can't -- I'm trapped.
24 I'm being exhorted that -- I've invested all this money
25 into this and every time you change attorneys, you've
Page 28
1 got to pay for them to relearn the case. Now I've got
2 Wolfgram saying: You need to sign a document that says
3 you're satisfied with my representation.
4 By this time I'm so absorbed with the
5 document, the issues in the document that I handed to
6 you just prior to us beginning this hearing, that I
7 don't know anymore. I'm just blown away that I even
8 have to deal with any of this.
9 This is a straightforward case of an employee
10 quit while I was out of the country, stole money,
11 embezzled money, stole company property, and then
12 purposely trashed a vehicle that I cosigned for her and
13 let it get repossessed. And suddenly two years later,
14 I'm the one whose life is destroyed. And I say it's by
15 deliberate machinations of the Court.
16 And, again, after the July -- January 9th
17 hearing, Wolfgram was, again: If you want me to
18 represent you, you need to sign a document that says
19 you're happy with my representation.
20 And all these things primarily instigated by
21 the fact that the Court from 7-9 to early September
22 wouldn't allow me to -- allow my attorneys, and wouldn't
23 respond to their correspondence, wouldn't set hearings,
24 that the December -- or the September 16 hearing, which
25 was reserved at 7-9, was mysteriously canceled. And the
Page 29
1 attorney insists, in multiple places that I have
2 documented and with Lawyers Professional Responsibility
3 Board, that the Court canceled that hearing, not him.
4 And then we have Wolfgram saying for several
5 months -- or for six weeks: She won't set any hearings
6 despite -- and you have the e-mails where right from the
7 beginning I made it clear to him what your instructions
8 were -- you aren't changing nothing, nothing was going
9 to change, that this had to be done, that he needed to
10 notice the depositions, that all these things had to
11 happen.
12 And he said he couldn't make them happen
13 because the Court wouldn't set a hearing. The Court
14 wouldn't entertain the amended complaint. The Court
15 wouldn't entertain the motion to compel discovery. That
16 the Court wouldn't work with them to resolve this issue
17 of Ms. Meeks saying she wouldn't want to be in the same
18 room with me, even by teleconference. This went on over
19 the course of two months.
20 I'm just going to go through and -- if it
21 please the Court, if we could take, like, 10 minutes so
22 I could gather my thoughts to make my final statements,
23 I'd appreciate that.
24 THE COURT: Certainly, Mr. Mashak. Can we
25 agree top of the hour? Is that enough time?
Page 30
1 MR. MASHAK: Yes, thank you.
2 THE COURT: You're welcome, sir. We stand in
3 recess until 4:00.
4 (A brief recess was taken.)
5 MR. MASHAK: Could I have one minute to look
6 at this?
7 THE COURT: Certainly.
8 (Mr. Mashak reviewing realtime.)
9 MR. MASHAK: Okay. Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: We are back on the record on
11 Mashak and First National Repossessors, Incorporated,
12 versus Meeks-Hull and Hull, defendants. Mr. Mashak, you
13 may proceed.
14 MR. MASHAK: Okay. I'm just going to take a
15 few minutes to go through anything I might have missed
16 along here and make some points in closing, and then I
17 should be done.
18 We've discussed the fact that by the Court not
19 setting hearings or allowing teleconferences it
20 prevented me from having motions and communications with
21 the Court to advance my case in terms of getting
22 discovery evidence on the record and amending my
23 complaint, punitive damages, et cetera, et cetera.
24 We talked about the cancelling of the 9-16
25 hearing. We talked about the suspense motions. And
Page 31
1 then I want to comment on the unusual efforts to prevent
2 recordings of proceedings on the December 29 hearing.
3 Law enforcement were used to do unlawful searches and
4 seizures of people at the direction of this Court to
5 prevent any recording, any possible recording. People
6 were required to take any recording devices and their
7 cell phones out to the cars, which is something I've
8 never experienced in my 52 years previously. Not that
9 I've been in Court that much, but that was unusual to me
10 and many people that I spoke to.
11 And then at the 1-9 hearing, apparently there
12 had been discussions between law enforcement and the
13 Court, and instead of having people take their cell
14 phones and their recording devices to their cars, the
15 Court merely asked myself and other people in the
16 gallery if they were recording and unusually asked
17 people in the gallery their names and indicated there
18 would be some kind of consequences for anybody recording
19 these hearings.
20 And, again, I hate challenging the Court on
21 this, but that would seem to indicate the Court had
22 something to hide that they didn't want documented.
23 Again, I refer to the Minnesota statute that I believe
24 supersedes any court rules that say anybody -- at least
25 one person party to a conversation they have the right
Page 32
1 to record it.
2 And then, oh, at the last hearing when you
3 made me only speak through my attorney and my attorney
4 was refusing to say the things that I wanted to say and
5 make the arguments I wanted to make, and I was
6 substantially stifled in getting things on the record
7 for appeal.
8 And then I'm going to touch on that the Court
9 refused to continue the hearing to deal with the
10 accommodations required by the Americans with
11 Disabilities Act. And go back to -- it just is
12 manifestly unjust that the Court would take months and
13 refuse to have hearings and then on December 17 --
14 before December 17 and then on December 29 say, well,
15 too bad, so sad, we set December 17, when the Court
16 effectively acted to prevent me from prosecuting my case
17 and getting discovery by refusing to have hearings
18 because the defense wasn't cooperating in the discovery
19 as the defense should have.
20 And had we had the 9-16 hearing or any hearing
21 between now and 9-17, I would have had -- the Court
22 would have been able to accept my amended complaint, the
23 Court would have been able to compel discovery, I would
24 have been able to work out the issues that the defense
25 brought up regarding the depositions.
Page 33
1 All these things demonstrated bias of the
2 Court. And I'm going to go back and say that while I
3 don't -- I have two different attorneys saying that the
4 Court wasn't returning their communications, wasn't
5 setting hearings, wasn't -- in the first instance, also,
6 you weren't putting out the scheduling order agreed to
7 on July 9.
8 And then the second case we have the attorneys
9 saying she won't set any hearings and just briefly
10 allegedly because I refused to have them heard in
11 Sherburne County when -- and even when that possible
12 communication happened, in short order, I said of course
13 if we can't have the hearing before December 17 unless
14 we have them in Sherburne, I'm not stupid, then we'll
15 have to have it in Sherburne, just make sure the trial
16 ends up being in Isanti.
17 And the other thing is, judges are aware that
18 all of this extra communication that I have with my
19 attorneys and changing attorneys costs money and most
20 people don't have unlimited resources. So by the very
21 act of making this litigation stall out farther and
22 farther, the Court knew that eventually I would run out
23 of money. And the Court knew that the allegations of
24 the defense were having an adverse impact on my income.
25 And, you know, this failing to set hearings so
Page 34
1 that the thing could quickly move to resolution, the
2 defense knows that they're lying. And once they're
3 forced to put things in writing and once they're forced
4 to depositions, I believe settlement happens quickly.
5 But when the Court's acting in this manner, it gives
6 them the belief that the Court's on their side. And I'm
7 sure that's what their attorney is telling them. You
8 don't have to settle nothing because basically what I'm
9 seeing, the Court's made up their mind how they want
10 this to come out.
11 You know, and along those lines, I'm just
12 going to say it's just not satisfactory that there's not
13 some policing of the court. The board of judicial
14 standards and the lawyers professional responsibility
15 boards are just jokes. They're black holes. Nobody
16 ever gets to know what goes on with those. Unless they
17 have a finding that somebody actually did something,
18 people don't know if there was ever any investigation at
19 all done.
20 And then all that information should have been
21 public record. The founding fathers said that all men
22 are fallen, and the only way to keep men from
23 temptation -- the best way to keep people from
24 temptation is transparency and accountability. And the
25 courts, by making the Board of Judicial Standards and
Page 35
1 making the Lawyers Board black holes, they've ended the
2 transparency, which gets us to the situation where you
3 have citizens being denied their right to petition the
4 government for redress of grievances to make it clear
5 that there is corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.
6 In this particular instance, again, I believe
7 that the Minnesota legal system and the Minnesota courts
8 are retaliating against me for my lawful and
9 constitutionally specified right to petition the
10 government with grievances.
11 The courts in this case -- this woman just had
12 to make an allegation, in my opinion, and the Court said
13 we can use this, we're going to use this to demonize and
14 discredit this guy who's been making efforts to reform
15 and make accountable and transparent the Minnesota
16 Judiciary.
17 I want to go back to on either December 29 --
18 or January 9, you should have said, you know what, it's
19 not your fault we couldn't get you heard before the
20 deadline. Even though I set the hard deadline, it's
21 just not right, fair, just, equitable, unbiased for me
22 to say you don't get discovery, you don't get to amend
23 your Complaint, you don't get to amend for punitive
24 damages, you don't get to have depositions because the
25 Court knew that that biased my ability to collect
Page 36
1 evidence and to put evidence on the record.
2 And I'm going to close by saying that judges
3 and lawyers have full control over people's lives. The
4 rules are too complex for the average citizen to
5 understand. And the lawyers -- and us citizens come
6 forward and we trust lawyers that we pay big money to to
7 represent us. Unfortunately, in my opinion, what's
8 happened is some of them know how to -- know what the
9 court wants as a result.
10 And because most people -- most people
11 wouldn't even have -- average citizens wouldn't have the
12 ability to come before this Court like I have and say
13 this, this, this, this. To them, it's just a big black
14 box and they just know they got screwed.
15 And when people just know they got screwed,
16 then you have stuff like happened in Egypt where the
17 people just say: We know we're getting screwed. We
18 don't know exactly how we're getting screwed, but we
19 know we're getting screwed.
20 So these attorneys, they either willingly
21 betray their clients because that's the easy way, not to
22 make judges upset and be part of the judicial
23 fraternity, or they are just afraid to cross judges that
24 they appear in front of because the judges can destroy
25 their law practices.
Page 37
1 They've invested thousands of dollars in
2 getting an undergraduate degree, getting a law degree
3 and establishing a practice and the judicial fraternity
4 has the ability to destroy a person's law practice if a
5 lawyer crosses a judge.
6 But just in summary, all the things that I've
7 said here I believe constitute the bias -- demonstrate
8 the bias of the Court that the evidence that I've been
9 denied and the discovery that I've been denied
10 absolutely influenced the outcome of this case. And,
11 therefore, I believe that I have established that bias
12 has occurred and I believe that the Court should remove
13 itself from this matter.
14 And unless you have any questions, that's all
15 I have.
16 THE COURT: I have no questions, Mr. Mashak.
17 Thank you. We will recess this hearing at this time. I
18 will issue a written order on your motion. If you wish
19 to address the ADA concerns, I will go into a private
20 session so that we can privately communicate about that,
21 if you wish to do that, Mr. Mashak.
22 MR. MASHAK: I would wish to do that.
23 THE COURT: All right. That means we're going
24 to close the courtroom, ma'am, if you wouldn't mind
25 stepping out.
Page 38
1
2
3 (A confidential hearing was held and is contained
4 in a separate transcript.)
5
6
7 * * * *
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 46
1 STATE OF MINNESOTA
2 COUNTY OF SHERBURNE
3
4 I, Jennifer S. Sati, RMR, CRR, CBC, CRI,
5 District Court Reporter, hereby certify that the
6 foregoing pages are a true and correct transcript of my
7 stenographic notes taken relative to the afore-mentioned
8 matter on the 2nd day of February, 2011, in the City of
9 Elk River, County of Sherburne, and State of Minnesota,
10 before the Honorable Mary A. Yunker, Judge of District
11 Court.
12
13
14
15 SIGNED THIS 22nd day OF February, 2011.
16
17
18
19
20
___________________________________
21 Jennifer S. Sati Registered Merit Reporter
22 Certified Realtime Reporter Certified Broadcast Captioner
23 Certified Realtime Instructor Notary Public Comm. Expires 1-31-15
24
25
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1
!
Exhibit 2 - You don't get it, the judge had a conflict
Exhibit 3 -
!
-----Original Message-----
From: CynicalPatriot
To: wolfgramclerk@gmail.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 9, 2010 7:32 am
Subject: recap of where we are at.
Hello
Just to document the recent events:
For 3 weeks or more now Judge Yunker has refused to set any hearing date for us before the December 17, 2010
Discovery and dispositive motion deadline?
Opposing Counsel has not returned your calls for discovery and depositions.
Because of how late this is all happening it will be more expensive for me, expedited transcripts.
And it is likely Yunker will rule against us based on her being corrupt.
And we can appeal but that will be expensive.
And the otherside will not settle because Judge Yunker has telegraphed to them that the fix is in.
Now, As I understand it this is one way that fixes are done.
I will not be allowed to do discovery so I cannot introduce evidence.
This is evidenced by Yunker cancelling the 9/15/2010 hearing and promoting a summary judgment hearing
by the Defense.
You understand that I want a Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment heard. I have already done one
that has already been submitted but I would expect it to be updated with new evidence....
Just to document the recent events:
For 3 weeks or more now Judge Yunker has refused to set any hearing date for us before the December 17, 2010
Discovery and dispositive motion deadline?
Opposing Counsel has not returned your calls for discovery and depositions.
Because of how late this is all happening it will be more expensive for me, expedited transcripts.
And it is likely Yunker will rule against us based on her being corrupt.
And we can appeal but that will be expensive.
And the otherside will not settle because Judge Yunker has telegraphed to them that the fix is in.
Now, As I understand it this is one way that fixes are done.
I will not be allowed to do discovery so I cannot introduce evidence.
This is evidenced by Yunker cancelling the 9/15/2010 hearing and promoting a summary judgment hearing
by the Defense.
You understand that I want a Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment heard. I have already done one
that has already been submitted but I would expect it to be updated with new evidence....
Don Mashak
Exhibit 4
! WE Will Accomodate in Isanti County
!
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting. Your comment should display after it is moderated for decorum, relevance and spam.