Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

MN Gov. Dayton - Problem with our Courts is not Judges’ skin color

Minnesota Governor Dayton selected Wilhelmina  Wright to be the next MN Supreme Court Justice
pubilc record

Last week, Governor Mark Dayton selected Wilhelmina Wright to be the next MN Supreme Court Justice. This will make her the first black female Minnesota Supreme Court Justice.

All of the establishment and major media hailed the Governor’s selection of Judge Wilhelmina Wright as the first black woman Minnesota Supreme Court Justice; The Minneapolis Star Tribune indicated her work history included being a Federal prosecutor, a Ramsey County Judge and a Minnesota Appellate Court Judge.

Let this writer be among the first to congratulate Ms. Wilhelmina Wright for her accomplishment.

Unfortunately, this writer takes exception to all the hoopla for this appointment when the Minnesota Judiciary is systemically corrupt. Yes, advancement of minorities is an important goal, but those litigants and defendants who have been victimized by the systemically corrupt Minnesota Judicial System, don’t really care about the skin color or the sex of the judge that ignored the rule of law. (In anticipation of the standard allegations of racism, this refers readers to Item 6 in “For those who have been duped into buying into racism, know that you have been played for chumps by the ruling class elite.”)

Yet, despite the current systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary, no place in the article nor anywhere else, has this writer seen Governor Mark Dayton referring to either honorability or integrity as being primary considerations in making his selection.


Why has no one addressed the systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary?

What’s that you say, Governor Dayton? You want to know, “What systemic Corruption?”

Please excuse my faux paux. This writer forgot that our Minnesota Government subscribes to the “Hear no evil, See No Evil, Speak no evil” philosophy of Government. That is, if our government refuses to hear testimony and see evidence of corruption, then corruption does not exist.


Since 2005, hundreds of Minnesotans have been asking for a hearing before the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees to give testimony and evidence of corruption in the Minnesota State Judiciary. At first the Republicans said they could do nothing because the Democrats were in the majority. Therefore, Democrats got to appoint the Committee Chairs and the Committee Chair’s had absolute control of the committee agenda.

But in 2010, after the GOP was in the majority in the State Legislature, Republicans became Chairs of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. Suddenly these same folks, who had previously said they supported Judicial TAR (Transparency, Accountability and Reform), couldn’t find the time to schedule a public hearing devoted to citizens giving evidence and testimony of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary.

To document some of the evidence and testimony of these hundreds of Minnesotans, then Republican Representative Dan Severson hosted an “Ad Hoc” hearing on Corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. Mind you, this hearing was Ad Hoc, meaning it had not official standing with the Legislature.

When the government refuses to allow you to exercise your “First Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances without fear of punishment and reprisal”, you improvise. People die, move or get worn out from the deliberate stonewalling and duplicity of both Republicans and Democrats. The Judicial TAR folks wanted to document testimony before any of these things happened to potential witnesses that had already identified. You can see those unofficial hearings from 2009 here and here .

What’s that you say Governor Dayton? That’s still not enough proof of Systemic Corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary?


This writer can think of no greater proof of the systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary than this: In the clandestine, unpublished ruling in Fabian, May and Anderson v Volkommer MN A10-1205 the Minnesota Courts ruled Minnesota Lawyer’s do not have to treat their clients ethically.

Even though the Minnesota Judiciary considers WE THE PEOPLE uneducated rubes, this writer is confident that rank and file Minnesotans understand the weight of this evidence. (This is an intended zinger intended for former US Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, and The Blog of Legal Times) Some more specific language from that ruling are words to the effect that:

“The Minnesota Lawyer’s Code of Professional Conduct is not an implied covenant of a legal services contract between a Minnesota Lawyer and their client(s)”

This was a ruling upheld by the Minnesota State District, Appellate and Supreme Court.

For this writer’s fellow citizens, that means that Minnesota Lawyer’s don’t have to treat you ethically. You pay them thousands of dollars and they can purposely give you bad advice, throw your case, and ignore your best interests. Sound fair or honorable to you?

Any other private business that advertised a “Professional Code of Conduct” and then did not adhere to it would be charged with false advertising. But not the State of Minnesota or the Minnesota Judiciary or the Minnesota BAR. My fellow Minnesotans, essentially your Governor, your legislators and your Supreme Court think that all Minnesotans should be played for fools for believing in the false advertising that is the “Minnesota Lawyer’s Code of Professional Conduct”.

Woe be to the Minnesota citizen charged with a crime and forced to rely upon a Public Defender. A Public Defender who would really rather have the money, work load and prestige of a lawyer working for the County Prosecutor. Relieved of any legal requirement to act in the best interest of their client, with a “wink, wink, a nudge, nudge and a knowing glance from the County Prosecutor, the public pretender withholds key evidence, fails to object to various evidence, tells their client Defendant to take a plea deal that is really not in the Defendant’s best interests, or engages in other Simulated litigation*.

The Defendant gets screwed, the public pretender tells their client they got screwed, and the public pretender has advanced his career by giving the prosecution the case outcome the prosecution desired (Every Minnesota criminal defendant that used their own paid lawyer or a public pretender should appeal their case on this point alone.)

Governor Dayton, “Can you think of any legitimate reason why the Minnesota Courts would not want Minnesota Lawyers to be required to treat their clients ethically?”

This writer can’t. The only reason that this writer can deduce is that Minnesota Courts want the ability to fix cases. Because the legal code and court rules are deliberately written to be difficult to understand, the rules are essentially are “smoke and mirrors” to defendant and civil litigant non-lawyers. Litigants and defendants are forced to rely upon the advice of their lawyers because; essentially to them the law is a mysterious “black box”. As a result, defendants and litigants have no choice but to trust the advice of their attorney. (And with the false advertising of the Minnesota Lawyers’ Professional Code of Conduct, non-lawyers have no reason not to instinctively trust their lawyers and the judicial system)

Except for litigants like this writer, most defendants and litigants have no way of telling if the advice their lawyer provides is or is not in their best interests, let alone whether basis for that advice really is in the “black box” or not. (Especially when faced with the pressure of making decisions in real time with real time pressures)

It is unconscionable that the Minnesota Courts removed the constraint of the requirement to treat Minnesota litigants and defendants ethically and in accordance with the Minnesota Lawyer’s Code of professional Conduct given that the vast majority of non-lawyers are unable to determine for themselves if the advice their lawyer provides them is accurate, legitimate and in their best interests or not.

This writer notes that No great hue and cry went up from the rank and file judges and lawyers of Minnesota. That indicates to this writer that they all are on board with Minnesota lawyers not having to treat their clients ethically. This writer comes to the conclusion that it is essentially a waste of money for anyone to retain and/or pay a Minnesota Lawyer. (Any person that pays any Minnesota Lawyer any money without requiring that they include language in their contract to the effect that the lawyer must treat them ethically and in accordance with the Minnesota Lawyer’s Code of Profession Conduct is a fool – But then your contract will be heard in a court of law that will essentially shred it, so there appears to be no work around)

With this ruling the Minnesota Judiciary has divorced itself completely from the Natural Law Right of Due Process and the Rule of Law.



The Minnesota Constitution provides for election of all judges by the Citizens.

Despite this, more than 93% of all present Minnesota State Judges are appointed and 6 of the 7 present Supreme Court judges were appointed.

This writer and most Minnesotans think this is a problem. It seems the Democrat half of the 1 and only 1 Ruling Class Elite pretending to be 2 separate political parties and the Republican half of the 1 and only 1 Ruling Class elite pretending to be 2 separate political parties have colluded to take the right to vote for their state judges away from WE THE PEOPLE, the citizens of the State of Minnesota.

There is a law that was passed that says that if a judge retires or is replaced within a few months of an election, the Governor can appoint their successor and the new judge does not have to stand for election at the next election. And so now, the majority of judges time their resignation from their bench so the open seat qualifies for governor appointment rather than citizens voting for their successors in truly contested elections. (Judicial Code Red **)

This Minnesota Supreme Court is composed of six appointed judges and one elected judge.

This Minnesota Supreme Court with six of seven present judges being governor appointed ruled that Minnesota lawyers do not have to treat their clients ethically.

Clearly appointment of judges by governors is not in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Ever wonder why only rarely do incumbent judges get challenged?

The explanation is the unwritten “Judicial Code Red**” prevents lawyers from running against these appointed judges when they come up for reelection. and (Though the legal profession denies it, it is considered career limiting and the basis for blacklisting for a lawyer to run against an incumbent judge)

The Minnesota Legislature has unconstitutionally transferred its constitutional duty to oversee and discipline judges and lawyers to the Minnesota Judiciary. So if a lawyer runs against a judge, suddenly that lawyer become the object of greater scrutiny and more severe discipline by the Judicial Cabal)

Proof that Lawyers will run for Judge was demonstrated in the 2010 election. A single open Judge seat in the MN 10th Judicial district saw 20+ candidates actively compete for it. Clearly some other force acts to keep lawyers from running against incumbent judges. This writer asserts that force is Judicial Code Red.

But now the Minnesota Judiciary is not content to merely skirt the constitution on Judicial Elections as previously described. The Minnesota Judiciary wants to take away your constitutionally guaranteed right to vote for our state judges.

And get this logic – Because the Minnesota Legislature refused to hear evidence and testimony of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary Committees, the Minnesota Legislature and Judiciary are now going to try to say there is little or no corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. And based on that machinated and false assertion, our state legislators and judges are going to say they want to take away our right to vote for judges to prevent money and politics from corrupting our allegedly pristine judiciary. If it were not so maddening and saddening, the position of the Minnesota Judiciary would be laughable.


We have already visited how the State of Minnesota has violated several hundred Minnesotan’s First Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances without fear of punishment or reprisal.

  • The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.

The Minnesota Courts have further violated this writer’s 1st Amendment Rights to Free Speech, Free Press and have acted to unlawfully and unconstitutionally punish him for exercising this First Amendment Right to Petition the government for Redress of Grievances.

These Minnesota Courts used Simulated Litigation and blacklisting to unlawfully and unconstitutionally punish this writer. This reprisal and punishment based on their perception of this writer as one of the leaders of the group of Minnesotan’s trying to exercise their First Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances without fear of Reprisal.

If you care to know more please see:

Congressional Testimony of Don Mashak

Don Mashak’s FRAP 35/40 Motion

(Careful, these prior to pieces of evidence and proofs of judicial corruption have been censored by and the The Blog Legal Times – Big Brother may be watching)]

The Minnesota Legislature and Judiciary are so systemically corrupt, it was not sufficient just to perpetually deny the public hearing. The Minnesota Judiciary and Legislature actually attempted to identify the leaders, persecuted them, and or otherwise punished them.

How your Government destroys the true champions of WE THE PEOPLE: Demonize and Discredit

Demonizing Dissent

Is that not the very definition of Systemic Corruption?

This writer has paid the illegal price of admission exacted by the Tyrants of Minnesota; this writer now demands to see the show.


Let us go back to the Minnesota State District, Appellate and Supreme Court ruling that Minnesota Lawyers do not have to treat their clients ethically.

With 93% or more of all Minnesota Judges and 6 our of 7 Supreme Court Judges being appointed, does that not in fact speak to the fact that appointed judges are so corrupt that they would rule that Lawyers don’t have to treat their clients ethically?

Is it not obvious to the Governor that making judicial appointments to settle political debts has had a disastrous detrimental effect on the Rule of Law and Justice in Minnesota?

Further evidence as to the depth of the systemic corruption in the Minnesota Government can be found examining the legislatures response to this writer informing numerous members of the Minnesota Legislature of the “Minnesota Lawyers don’t have to treat their clients ethically” ruling.

After more than 2 years, not one single legislator has offered to author a bill overturning this travesty of justice. That’s Right Judges, Lawyers and elected legislators don’t think Minnesota lawyers should have to treat their clients ethically. (And since judges are lawyers, doesn’t that mean Judges also don’t have to act ethically?)

Governor Mark Dayton and Judge Wilhelmina Wright: “Do you think Minnesota lawyers should be required to treat their Minnesota clients ethically?”

Governor Mark Dayton; this writer calls upon you to perform your constitutional duty of acting as a check and balance on the power of the Minnesota Legislature and Judiciary. As it has been clearly and convincingly demonstrated the Minnesota Legislature and Judiciary have not been able to conduct themselves honorably and nor act in accordance with the constitution and their oaths of office. It therefore falls to you, as Governor and ranking officer of the Executive Branch, to implement and effect corrective action.

You say Governor Dayton, that you are still not moved to execute your duty to act as a check and balance on the Minnesota Legislature and Judiciary?

This writer will then take a run at you from the perspective of political reality.

The Democrat half of the 1 and only 1 Ruling Class Elite Pretending to be 2 parties, says it is the champion of the little guy and oppressed minorities. Query me this: “Do you think that the disproportionate number of minority males incarcerated is in any way exacerbated by public defenders not being required to treat their clients ethically? “

This conservative writer asks all Minnesota minorities to pay close attention to your Democrat Governor’s response to the question; for in his answer you will find out whether this conservative writer is more interested in your welfare than the leader of State Democrat Party that portends to be your champion.

Governor Dayton, this writer respectfully requests that your alleged party quit falsely advertising themselves as the champions of the little guy and oppressed minorities if you are not going to make the effort to require Minnesota lawyers to treat their clients ethically. Countless numbers of innocent defendants, minority and common folks alike, are wrongfully in jail because public pretenders were not required to represent their clients ethically.

While the State of Minnesota spends money on research trying to pinpoint why a disproportionate number of minorities are in jail, this writer asserts to you he has exposed one exacerbating causal factor and demands you correct it post haste.

Judge Wilhelmina Wright, this writer is certain that all Minnesotans, particularly minority Minnesotans, would also want to know what you are going to do about this infrastructure of injustice that perpetuates the infliction of injustice upon those who most rely upon the system to act honorably according to the Rule of Law and are least able to defend themselves.

Further Judge Wilhelmina Wright, this writer calls upon you to watch the Congressional Testimony of Marlena Fearing [ Fearing Congressional Testimony ] [Marlena’s Journal ] Marlena is a real estate developer that encountered entrenched and recalcitrant racism in Minnesota City and County government that worked to prevent building of low income and minority housing ] Judge Wright, What you do with these issues will demonstrate your true colors for all to see, but in particular disenfranchised Minnesota minorities.

Both Judge Wilhelmina Wright and Governor Dayton might also further educate themselves by reading Dale Nathan’s “Minnesota Injustice” and viewing this video

Once again Governor Dayton, this writer calls upon you to perform your constitutional duty of acting as a check and balance on the power of the Minnesota Legislature and Judiciary…

Or be it known to all minority and rank and file Minnesota citizens that this conservative writer is more concerned about their welfare and the proper adjudication of justice than the entire State of Minnesota Democratic Party.

Having established the systemic corruption in the Minnesota Legislature and Judiciary with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence exceeding the standard of clear and convincing, this writer asks you Governor Dayton to explain to WE THE PEOPLE how the appointment of the first black woman judge addresses the issue of Systemic Corruption, Lawyers not required to treat their clients ethically, the effective loss of the citizens’ right to vote for judges or the refusal of the Minnesota House and Senate judiciary to allow WE THE PEOPLE to exercise our Right to Petition for Grievances without fear of reprisal?

Governor Dayton, will you perform your constitutional duty of acting as a check and balance on the power of the Minnesota Legislature and Judiciary?

Governor Dayton, clearly WE THE PEOPLE would be better served if 93% of Minnesota Judges were elected and not appointed. What will you do to make sure that the vast majority of Minnesota Judges from this point forward are elected rather than appointed?

Governor Dayton, can you tell WE THE PEOPLE what you are doing to address this corruption, lawyers not being required to treat their clients ethically and the rest of the problems that evidence systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary?

Supreme Court Justice Nominee Wilhelmina Wright, this writer also challenges you to also answer all of these questions.

You can read some of this conservative writer’s suggested Judicial TAR reforms here:

Proposed Election 2012 Caucus Resolutions for Judicial Reform Part 1/2

Proposed Election 2012 Caucus Resolutions for Judicial Reform Part 2/2

In fact, this writer asks both Governor Dayton and Justice Wilhelmina Wright to hold multiple hearings to allow Minnesota Citizens to give the testimony and evidence of corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. An opportunity which Minnesota citizens have been denied since at least 2005.

Will both of you agree to hold such hearings, for as long as is necessary to hear all that would wish to give evidence and testimony and/or for as long as it take for the volume of evidence and testimony to effect real Legislative and Judicial TAR (Transparency, Accountability and Reform) ?

This writer looks forward to and will publish both of your responses on the internet and in any media source that will agree to run it.

At the same time, this writer also carries the euphemistic “big stick” Using this well-known judicial premise, if you fail to respond to these questions, all of this writer’s readers may reasonably infer that your truthful answers would have been detrimental to your legal position, your personal position and/or your personal best interests.

This writer would respectfully ask that we together address the concern in the Minnesota Judiciary that Thomas Jefferson expressed about the Federal Judiciary so long ago.

BUT THE OPINION which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.

Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Mrs. John Adams, Nov. 1804

Please join this writer in restoring Natural Law Due Process and the Rule of Law properly applied to the freely admitted, unmachinated, relevant facts in evidence for all Minnesotans regardless of Race, Color or Creed.

Those were my thoughts.

* & ** See very end of article

In Closing:

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.

Please join with me in mutually pledging to each other and our fellow citizens our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to our mutual endeavors of restoring liberty and economic opportunity to WE THE PEOPLE as our Founding Fathers envisioned and intended. [Last Paragraph, Declaration of Independence ]

This article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense”


Keep Fighting the Good Fight!

In Liberty,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
Google Plus


End the Fed(eral Reserve Bank System) #ETF
National Minneapolis

Lawless America #LawlessAmerica

Justice in Minnesota #JIM

Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP

Get out of our House #GOOOH

Critical Thinking Notice - This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking ( in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author... unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective.


  • Simulated Litigation means the Court reaching a decision with the appearance that it was done pursuant to the Rule of Law properly applied to the freely admitted relevant facts in evidence and in accordance with the “proper administration of justice”, but it was not. Most often this happens with the Court or the “powers that be” “telegraph” to the attorneys of the litigants the outcome they desire. The Court and the attorneys of the litigants engage in some behavior, activities or agreement that allows the Court to make the desired decision based facts in evidence. However, the lawyers of the litigants control the Facts in Evidence on the official Court record by engaging in “fact shaping”.
  • Fact Shaping means when the Court and the lawyers of the Court control what evidence get on the official record in a manner that will allow the Court to make the courts “telegraphed” desired decision, rather than the Court reaching its decision in accordance with the proper administration of justice defined as the Rule of Law properly applied to the free admitted relevant facts in evidence.
  • Telegraph or Telegraphing means certain gestures and/or phrases used between the Court and the Lawyers of Litigants to suggest a direction or course of action, often in violation of the principles of the “proper administration of justice” and the Rule of Law. Most often they are so subtle and rely upon experience as a lawyer, that the actual “civilian” litigant does not even perceive them.


Judicial Code Red – Unwritten and denied rules of the Judiciary. Among these rules are the rules that all Minnesota Judges retired in the time framer required to allow the Governor to appoint their successor. Another Code Red is the Rule that says Minnesota lawyers don’t run against incumbent Minnesota Judges. Failure of a lawyer or judge to follow the Judicial Code Red rules is career limiting and may include other punishments. Judicial Code Red and the Judicial Code Red Punishments are almost always done in such a way as to be plausibly deniable as they are contrary to the Rule of Law and the public policy of the Constitutionally Limited, Representative Republic in which we live.


Report this ad