Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
8thCircuitAppellateRule35&or40RuleMotion12-1935_07202012notes

8thCircuitAppellateRule35&or40RuleMotion12-1935_07202012notes

Ratings: (0)|Views: 199 |Likes:
Published by Don Mashak
This is a legal brief that I, an ordinary citizen filed with the 8th Appellate Circuit Court. This legal brief has to do w/ Minnesota Courts unlawfully and unconstitutionally punishing Don Mashak for exercising his 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. The lower courts and Don Mashak's owned paid attorneys did conspire to fix a civil matter against him in punishment and reprisal for lawfully and properly criticizing and/or attempting to criticize the corruption in the Minnesota Courts and the lack of fiscal transparency in Minnesota Municipalities. Don Mashak's entire account and this legal brief were erased from JDSupra.com in an attempt by the Government to cover up this gross injustice and allow the further punishment and reprisal against Mashak to continue.
This is a legal brief that I, an ordinary citizen filed with the 8th Appellate Circuit Court. This legal brief has to do w/ Minnesota Courts unlawfully and unconstitutionally punishing Don Mashak for exercising his 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. The lower courts and Don Mashak's owned paid attorneys did conspire to fix a civil matter against him in punishment and reprisal for lawfully and properly criticizing and/or attempting to criticize the corruption in the Minnesota Courts and the lack of fiscal transparency in Minnesota Municipalities. Don Mashak's entire account and this legal brief were erased from JDSupra.com in an attempt by the Government to cover up this gross injustice and allow the further punishment and reprisal against Mashak to continue.

More info:

Published by: Don Mashak on Jul 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Case File No. 12-1935Don Mashak and 1at National Repossessors, Inc.
Plaintiff - Appellant - Respondent
V.State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Lee Wolfgram, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s),
Defendants - Appellees - Respondents
US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSMMinnesota Supreme Court (refused to hear) Minnesota Appellate Court A11-638 Minnesota DistrictCourt 30-CV-09- 429
NOTICE OF PETITION FOR FRAP 35 EN BANC AND/ORFRAP 40 PANEL HEARINGPLEASE TAKE NOTICE
that the Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner Mashak’s
FRAP 35 AND FRAP40 Motion
will be heard on a date and at a location that will be set upon the motion beingfully briefed (responsive briefs to FRAP 35 motions are not permitted under the rules unlessthe court so orders) and filed.Dated: July 18, 2012Don Mashak 612-326-6070Pro Se and In Propia PersonaPOB 231Albertville, MN 55301
1
 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Case File No. 12-1935Don Mashak and 1at National Repossessors, Inc.
Plaintiff - Appellant - Respondent
V.State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Lee Wolfgram, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s),
Defendants - Appellees - Respondents
US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSMMinnesota Supreme Court (refused to hear) Minnesota Appellate Court A11-638 Minnesota DistrictCourt 30-CV-09- 429
PETITION FOR FRAP 35 EN BANC AND/OR FRAP 40 PANEL HEARINGTABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE OF HEARING1 TABLE OF CONTENTS2-4CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST5 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES6-7STATEMENT OF PETITIONER UNDER FRAP 35(b)8-12POINTS OF LAW OR FACT OVERLOOKED BY THE LOWER COURT12-13DEFINITIONS13INTRODUCTION13-16ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF REHEARING UNDER FRAP 35 AND FRAP 4017-21
I)
It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota17Courts to unlawfully and unconstitutionally engage in Reprisal againstPetitioner Mashak for exercising his 1
st
Amendment right to Petition theGovernment for Redress of Grievances.II)It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the MinnesotaCourts to unlawfully & unconstitutionally engage in Reprisal against PetitionerMashak for exercising his 1
st
Amendment right to Freedom of the Press.http://examiner.com,http://WETHEPEOPLETAR.blogspot.com  http://twitter.com/DMashaketc172III)It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota
 
Courts to unlawfully and unconstitutionally engage in Reprisal against PetitionerMashak for exercising his 1
st
Amendment right to Free Speech. 17IV)It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the MinnesotaCourts to unlawfully and unconstitutionally engage in Reprisal against PetitionerMashak for exercising his 1
st
Amendment right to Freedom of Assembly. 17
V)
It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Courts toachieve their reprisal against Appellant by denying Appellant Mashak his NaturalLaw Right to Due Process and adjudicating his lawsuits in otherwise unrelatedmatters in a manner not in accordance with the proper administration of just.17-18
VI)
It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Courts toachieve their reprisal against Appellant by denying Appellant Mashak his Right tohave his otherwise unrelated litigation determined in a manner inconsistent withthe principle of the properly applied Rule of Law to the unmachinated, freelyadmitted relevant facts in evidence.18VII)It is a manifest injustice to allow the State of Minnesota and the MinnesotaCourtsto use simulated litigation, fact shaping and abuse of Power to enable theirreprisal against Appellant in such in a manner not in accordance with the properadministration of justice, nor the proper application of the Rule of Law to theunmachinated, freely admitted relevant facts in evidence nor AppellantsNatural Law Right to Due Process.18
VIII)
It is a manifest injustice and not in accordance with the proper administration of  justice to force Petitioner to appear before a Minnesota State Court that hasclandestinely ruled in an unpublished opinion Minnesota Lawyers do not have totreat their clients ethically(Fabian,May&Anderson v Volkommer MN A10-1205); 18-19IX)The Legal Community in Minnesota has arrived at a policy that Lawyer’s can’tcommit crimes; That any complaint a client has against a Minnesota Lawyer,including theft by swindle, is a civil matter;19X)The Rules, policies, constraints and personalities involved with the MinnesotaLawyer’s Professional Responsibility Board (MNLPRB) and the Board of JudicialStandards (BJS), render them ineffective in protecting the public.19XI)Law Enforcement Agencies, including the FBI, either deny receiving faxes andmailor refer persons complaining about judges and lawyers to either MNLPRB or BJS. 19XII)Minnesota Citizens are denied direct access to Grand Juries and an elaborateConvoluted series of road blocksto any Grand Jury are in place.19XIII)The convoluted rules in the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct address the issueof “gifts” (otherwise known to the public as bribes aka a Rose by any other namewould still smell as sweet) in three disjointed parts which in essence allow Minnesota Judges to take an unlimited number of bribes per day as long as they are from different3

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
SLAVEFATHER liked this
Sharon Anderson liked this
Sharon Anderson liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->