UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL 8TH CIRCUIT

Don Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc., Appellants, V. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Lee Wolfgram, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s), Appellees.

Appellate Case File No. 12-1935 US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM

INFORMAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF PRO SE APPELLENT TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF CASE. 2 - 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS.. 4 - 8 STANDARD OF REVIEW. 8 - 10 ARGUMENT. 10 - 19 AFFIDAVIT OF DON MASHAK 20 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 21 -22 PROPOSED ORDER. 23 - 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. 25
March 19, 2012 Denies all of Appellants Motions and Grants all Appellees Motions March 21, 2012 Denying Appellants Motion to Reconsider et. al. Appendix 1 Appendix 2

STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal:

March 19, 2012 Denies all of Appellants Motions and Grants all Appellees Motions March 21, 2012 Denying Appellants Motion to Reconsider et. al. And any other orders within the past 30 days.

This matter started off as a simple employee theft and deficiency on a repossession. Even thought the Appellees Mike Hull and Dannette Meeks Hull had absolutely no credibility after stealing and embezzling Money from Appellants Company First National Repossessors, Inc while Appellant Mashak was out of the country on vacation, the Courts of Minnesota decided to use this case for unconstitutional reprisal against Appellant Mashak. Appellant Mashak was one of the perceived leaders of a group of Minnesota Citizens seeking to exercise their first amendment rights to petition the government without fear of reprisal. For coming on 8 years now, hundreds of Minnesotans wanted to give testimony and evidence of corruption in the Minnesota judiciary to the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees. We have been refused. [You can see video of an Adhoc Minnesota Judicial Reform meeting from 2009 affirming this assertion here http://bit.ly/ylWyAM and here http://bit.ly/r1DDao ] Further, Appellant Mashak has been a driving force in the call for fiscal TAR (Transparency, Accountability and Reform) http://shar.es/pnJ5D Appellant Mashaks involvement in these two issues is the motivation for the criminal acts of reprisal against him. Using Simulated litigation and fact shaping, the Court, Appellants own attorneys, and the defense conspired to not allow Appellant to amend his complaint, Deposition the Appellees nor otherwise Appellants to enter evidence on the official record which would prevent the Court from ruling against Appellant, as the Court desired and directed. Appellant Attorney Appellee Wolfgram admitted to Appellant Mashak the conspiracy and uttered words to the effect We have reduced you to the appearance of a bumbling eccentric. County Sheriffs, County Attorneys, the Minnesota State Attorney General and the FBI either refuse to prosecute or play other delaying games like saying they never received materials Appellant Mashak sent or cant find the file. THIS SHOULD BE A CRIMINAL MATTER WITH THE FULL EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATORS AND LAWYERS PROSECUTING THE MATTER. Instead it appears that my tax money goes to protect and cover up government corruption. Instead, after spending $20,000.00, Appellant Mashak has not even a deposition to show for his effort. Appellant Mashaks business, finances and health are destroyed. His house is in foreclosure.
2

Appellant Mashak asserts that is was not intention of the Founding Fathers, nor is it consistent with the Rule of Law and/or the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to allow a criminal conspiracy to exact unconstitutional reprisal upon Appellant Mashak for exercising his 1st Amendment Rights, and then for the Higher Courts to allow the Criminal Conspiracy to succeed because the Lower Courts and Appellants own attorney have exhausted Appellants finances rendering him unable to retain a lawyer. If the Minnesota and Federal Judiciary have written the rules to permit this criminal activity to go unpunished, my fellow citizens have the right to know. If the Minnesota and Federal Judiciary have written the rules to permit this criminal activity to destroy the life of a citizen for exercising a fundamental Natural Law Right which was part of this countrys basis for declaring independence from England, my fellow citizens have the right to know.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. US Declaration of the Independence

For my fellow citizens who are reading this, in case this Appellate Court denies my appeal, I remind you of this quote: Just remember, everything Hitler did in German was legal Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The justice system is subject to the same failings as computers, Garbage in yields Garbage out. Further, I remind my fellow citizens of this thought from the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. US Declaration of the Independence

For Appellant Mashak, he wonder how much has happened to him is standard operating procedure of the courts towards average citizens and Pro Se Litigants. Appellant Mashak posits that because most citizens blindly trust their lawyers and have little knowledge of the rules, they do not even know when they have been deprived of due process. And even if on some level they believe they have not been dealt with fairly, how many would know how to proceed, for example, by writing a brief like this.
3

Footnote: With the exception of the Standard of review, Appellant Mashak will attempt to write this document in plain, simple English. In the past, when Appellant Mashak has posted legal briefs on the internet for his 20,000+ followers/friends on Twitter, facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, FourSquare, ScribD, blogger etc, too many folks have said, the legal Jargon to hard to understand, please rewrite it in simple English. And so, when I post this document for my 20,000+ friends & followers, they will understand exactly what injustice has transpired and know exactly the true nature of their State and Federal Court System. It appears that our Government believes it continues operate in the comfort of darkness and obscurity. What has transpired and is transpiring will be aired in the light of day.

STATEMENT OF FACTS Purely and simply, the Courts have been unlawfully and unconstitutionally used for reprisal in violation of Appellant Mashaks 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances w/o fear of Reprisal. Purely and simply, Appellants has received adverse judgments and rulings as a victim of the criminals acts of one or more of his own attorney and the Courts. The evidence of the criminal acts of obstruction of justice & evidence tampering are overwhelming, & in some instances, prima facie. Yet local sheriffs and County Attorneys play games to avoid accepting the matter. The Minnesota State Attorney General and the FBI say they never got my complaint via fax though no one else say they did not receive it. The case of Hennepin County Sheriff Stanek and Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman are particularly interesting and telling. Mr. Freeman would not speak to me, period. Mr. Freemans office would not speak with me unless their was a police Report. When Theft by Swindle by Appellee Wolfgram was put on the table by Appellant Mashak, the Minneapolis police said that it was a civil matter and would not take a report. When the Sheriffs department was contacted with much additional evidence and criminal acts, they said anything between a lawyer and their clients is a civil matter. Purely and Simply, Appellants own attorney Appellee Lee Wolfgram admitted to a conspiracy with the court to damage Appellant Mashaks by reducing him to the appearance of a bumbling eccentric. Appellee Lee Wolfgram engaged in simulated litigation and fact shaping to allow Appellee Judge Mary Yunker to make the ruling she wanted, contrary to the rules of Due Process. Appellants fraudulently induce to pay and reasonably relied upon the advice of Appellee Attorneys Wolfgram and LongrIe, pursuant to their own representations and the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct. Appellants were unaware of the Minnesota State District, Appellate Supreme Courts ruling that Minnesota Lawyers do not have to treat their clients ethically.

Volkommer V Fabian, May and Anderson MN A10-1205. [Unpublished] Among other things, the Minnesota Courts ruled that the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct was not an implied covenant of a legal services contract between a Minnesota Lawyer and their clients. Just to give this court a taste of the injustice these Appellants have been subjected to, please note the following: After spending more than $20,000.00 over the course of 2+ years, Appellants never got to depose any of the Appellees. Anyone in the legal profession understands just how outrageous it is for a client in what started as a very simply case, to spend $20,000.00 over two years and get NO DEPOSITIONS. To make sure the overwhelming lists of irregularities, examples of simulated litigation, fact shaping, obstruction of justice and evidence is easily found by the public and seared into the minds of the reviewing judges, I list them here. In reverse chronological order, here is a list (not exhaustive) of events which occurred which demonstrate irregularities in the Process of this case in Minnesota State Court: 1) Allegedly lost documents, Found in the Judges chambers only after Appellant Mashak when to police department to file a police report. 2) Almost the same Key document removed from the Court File and lost for weeks; 3) Key documents removed from clients case file by Lawyer Wolfgram before he surrenders them; 4) Appellants Lawyer Appellee Wolfgram admits after hearing in which Appellant loses that he and the court have worked to destroy Appellants credibility and utters words to the effect that Appellant Mashak has been reduce to looking like a bumbling eccentric; 5) Judge Yunker refuses allow any physical or telephonic hearings from September 29, 2011 until on or about December 29, 2011, despite giving a 12/17/2011 deadline for Discovery and Summary Judgment Motions; 6) At both the hearings on or about 12/29/2010 and on or about 1/9/2011, the court took extreme measures to make sure no recording devices were present. 7) Appellee Wolfgram says he cant file Motions to Compel Discovery, Force Depositions or amend complaint until Judge sets a hearing date; 8) Attorney Wolfgram says he has case under control but Judge wont set hearings; 9) Appellants Attorney Appellee Wolfgram says Defense Attorney says never got Deposition Notice, Appellees Meeks-Hull & Hulls attorney states same on the Court Record; 10) Attorney Wolfgram waits until about 10 days before Discovery Deadline to Notice Depositions; 11) Appellant Mashak learns the Appellate Court has reversed and remanded the Harassment Restraining Order; 12) Attorney Wolfgram says Appellee wont produce Discovery, must compel; 13) In October, Appellant Mashak retains Lawyer Defendant Wolfgram; 14) On or about September 29th, 2011 Appellant Mashak shows up Sans an attorney and Court extends Discovery and Summary Judgment Motion Deadlines Deadlines to December 17, 2011; 15) Appellant Mashak fires Attorney Mark Olson for refusing to file Motions for Discovery, Amended Complaint, etc.
5

16) A September 16th hearing is canceled by the Court (as verified by email from Lawyer Olson to Appellant Mashak), but Attorney Mark Olson takes the fall saying he forgot to call his client, Appellant Mashak and tell him it was cancelled; 17) Appellant Mashak is furious Why did Attorney Olson allow the 9/16/2012 hearing date to be cancelled? It is in Appellants best interest to compel discovery before the Appellees Motion for Summary Judgment is heard. 18) A few days before on or about September 16th, Appellant Mashak is told verbally and via email, by attorney Olson that the date of the hearing was canceled by the Court; 19) Appellant Mashak gets copy of 6/9/10 transcript made so Defense can no longer say wont give discovery because dont know that Discovery has been extended. 20) In early September, in a 3 way phone call Olson tells Appellant and others that he is getting it from the front and the back meaning from me and from the Court; 21) On or about September 2, 2011, Appellees Meeks Hull and Hull file a motion for summary Judgment; 22) Only upon hearing that I was having a transcript made of the hearing to provide to Appellees did Judge Yunker suddenly allege the amended scheduling order must have got lost and produced another one. 23) Appellees Meeks-Hull and Hull refused to answer any discovery without the amended scheduling order and Judge Yunker refused to return Attorney Olsons phone calls. 24) The Court failed to send out a copy of the Amended Scheduling order. 25) Because Counsel nor Appellees attended the June 9, 2011 hearing, they said they were not aware that discovery had been extended; 26) TRO matter reversed by Minnesota Appellate Court; 27) Appellees Meeks-Hull and Hull then retained Counsel; 28) On or about June 9, 2011, Appellant Mashak and Attorney Olson Show up for pre-trial hearing; Appellees Meeks and Hull do not show up. Court refuses motion for summary judgment. Court sets next date as 9/29/2011 29) In late May, 2011 Appellants retain attorney Olson; 30) Appellant Mashak Files Appellate Brief in TRO matter himself; 31) Learn that Attorney OBrien missed deadline for filing appellate Brief; 32) Finally get Court file back from Attorney OBrien, left in an open vehicle on my property; 33) For 2 months or more, Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board says they cant force OBrien to give Appellant Mashak back the Client File; 34) Meet the Police at office of Attorney OBrien but they say they wont make contact because this is a civil Matter; 35) Attorney Obrien Disappears; 36) December 2010, retain Attorney OBrien; 37) Attorney Longrie wont surrender files. 38) Attorney Longrie Not returning calls, not doing depositions; 39) Attorney Longrie pursues Amended Finding of Facts in re harassment restraining order; 40) Attorney Longrie files for appeal of small claims court decision; 41) The day before the original small claim matter is to be held, Attorney Longrie says she cant be there and Appellants cannot ask for a continuance. Deliberately omits documents that she knows to be necessary to prevail on repossession deficiency; 42) Spring 2010 Appellants retain Appellee Diana Longrie.
6

43) Appellees file harassment restraining order against Appellants making wild and colorful accusations about Appellant Mashak as a strategy to fight law suit; 44) Anoka county Court calls Appellees and tell them Appellants know address and are about to serve process on them; 45) Fall 2009, Finally find correct address for Appellees Meeks Hull 46) For about a year, Appellees Meeks and hull avoid small claims service of process; 47) Appellees Meeks and Hull refused certified letter service of process; (the Anoka failed to tell me that the refused envelope was considered sufficient service of process) 48) In or about December 2007, file in small claims court because Appellees would not be able to pay a large judgment even if said judgment was granted. Therefore most cost effective way is small claims court without including all claims. 49) Between Spring of 2006 and Fall of 2007, Appellants hear rumors and feed back that Appellees are spreading rumors, have started their own repo business in violation of their employment agreement, etc. 50) In Summer of 2006, Appellees try to sell Ford Expedition in which Appellants have a second lien in violation of MN Stat 609.62. In the end, Appellees force credit union to repossess the vehicle instead of return it to Appellant. 51) In January of 2006, while Appellant Mashak is out of the Country on vacation, Appellees embezzle money, steal company real and intellectual property and start their own repo business. SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT DEPARTURES FROM NORMAL DUE PROCESS So we have in this pattern in litigation irregularities 1) Wolfgram Admission to throwing the case, 2) Nearly identical documents missing from both the client and court file (prima facie evidence of conspiracy of Court with Appellants own attorney Wolfgram), so briefs cant be filed before deadlines; 3) Judge Yunker saying motions untimely when judge Yunker refused to set hearings for more than 3 months; 4) Judge Yunker refusing to set hearings for more than 3 months 9/29/2010-12/29/2010 and then finding the motions untimely because of the courts delay; 5) Judge taking extreme measures at the 12/29/2010 and 1/9/2011 hearings to make sure no extraneous recording devices were in the Court room; 6) Wolfgram fails to promptly file Notice of Deposition upon being retained; 7) Judge Yunker cancels 9/16/2010 Discovery hearing with Summary Judgment impending on 9/29/2010; 8) Judge Yunkers refusal to respond to calls by Lawyer Olson to replace allegedly missing scheduling order for more than 2 months; 9) Attorney Olsons Complaint that he is getting it from the front and the back 10) Attorney Olsons failure to amend complaint shortly after 6/9/10 hearing as court agreed; 11) The Courts failure to force Attorney OBrien to return the client file for more than 2 months; 12) Longrie deliberately tells Mashak certain document that was required to prove repossession deficiency was not required;
7

13) Longrie bails on representation the day before the most important hearing saying she has a conflict and court case cannot be rescheduled. Perhaps any one of these could be given a pass as happenstance, but this Federal Court can not ignore the overwhelming weight of all of these irregularities. Irregularities which always negatively impact Appellant and not the Appellee. The pattern to deprive Appellant of Due Process is clear, convincing and overwhelming. After all of those irregularities and non-compliance of the Rules by Appellees, Does this Court really intend to hand Appellants this bad ruling on a single wrongfully alleged failure of Appellants to comply with the rules? My fellow citizens, are you getting a feel for how the rules are used to allow the Courts to Rule the way they want instead upon the Facts in Evidence pursuant to the Rule of Law and Rights to due process? STANDARD OF REVIEW Different kinds of appellate tasks give rise to a more or less strict review according to the relative capacities of the trial tribunal and appellate court, the need for uniformity among cases, the perceived importance of the dispute, and the nature of the legal rules involved.[ Of these factors, perhaps the most fundamental notion behind a standard of review is that of defining the relationship and power shared among judicial bodies. CHILDRESS & DAVIS, supra note 4, 1.01, at 1-3 (citing James D. Phillips, The Appellate Review Function: Scope of Review, 47 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 1, 1 (1984)); Edward H. Cooper, Civil Rule 52(a): Rationing & Rationalizing the Resources of Appellate Review, 63 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 645, 649 (1988) (concluding that standards of review serve a vital institutional role in allocating the responsibility and the power of decision between trial tribunals and the courts of appeals). De Novo The strictest standard of review is de novo review for legal error. This is the standard that the appellant most desires. The Federal Circuit has acknowledged that the de novo standard is the long-recognized appellate review standard for issues of law in the trial proceeding, regardless of whether the case was tried to a judge or a jury. [Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 984 n.13, 34 U. S.P.Q.2d 1321, 1333 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), affil, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Because nonobviousness is generally regarded as a legal question, the Federal Circuit extended the rule of judicial decision on legal issues into the jury context, finding that the district court may ] In its de novo review of an issue of law, such as claim construction after Markman, the Federal Circuit will reach its own conclusion on the issue without deference to that of the district court. [Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1216, 36 U.S.P.Q 2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1995); seealso Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684, 690, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir.2001) (Enablement is a question of law reviewed by this court independently and without deference.). In theory, the appellate court decides the issue in a de novo review, [a] new; afresh; a second time, as if the trial tribunal had not before rendered a decision on the issue. [ BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 435 (6th ed. 1990). ] A federal circuit court reviews a district courts legal conclusions de novo. The strictest standard of review is de novo review for legal error. Under this standard, the trial tribunals decision receives little or
8

no deference. There are at least three levels of review within that standard: (1) the trial tribunals opinion will receive the most deference, because appellate courts know that trial tribunal errors occur less often, when the trial tribunal has simply applied settled law to the facts;[ See infra Section II.A.1] (2) the review will be strict, but there will be some deference to the trial tribunal in interpreting the law;[ See infra Section II.A.2 ] and (3) the appellate court will not defer at all in the relatively rare case when the trial tribunal must establish a new legal principle (i.e., in a case of first impression)..[See infra Section II.A.3] Abuse of Discretion - Conformance with Standards The trial tribunal does not have unlimited leeway when exercising its discretion. The exercise of discretion must conform to standards announced by the Federal Circuit, and the appellate court will review the decision carefully to assure that the trial tribunal applied those standards. If the trial tribunal considers impermissible factors or fails to consider factors that it should have evaluated, the Federal Circuit may reverse. In this category are cases seeking a preliminary injunction, a declaratory judgment, or an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Often, when the abuse of discretion standard applies, there may be an underlying issue of fact, making review less deferential than would at first appear. Paul R. Michel, Appellate Advocacy: One Judges View, 1 FED. CIR. B.J. 1, 4-5 (1991). Abuse of Discretion - Legal Error/Erroneous Factual Underpinning One reason why almost all exercises of discretion may actually get meaningful appellate review is that a discretionary judgment often has legal or factual components. [Glaverbel Societe Anonyme & Fosbel, Inc. v. Northlake Marketing & Supply, Inc., 45 F.3d 1550, 1557, 33 U.S.P.Q 2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cit. 1995) (The determination of the issue of inequitable conduct . . . is within the district courts discretion . . . . Thus the district courts ruling on the issue of inequitable conduct will be affirmed unless it was based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or a misinterpretation or misapplication of law, or manifested a clear error of judgment. (citations omitted)); A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1039, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc) (An appellate court, however, may set aside a discretionary decision if the decision rests on an erroneous interpretation of the law or on clearly erroneous factual underpinnings. If such error is absent, the determination can be overturned only if ] . When the abuse of discretion standard applies, there may be an underlying issue of fact, making review less deferential than would at first appear. If there is an underlying issue of law, review can become nondeferential. [Paul R. Michel, Appellate Advocacy: One Judges View, 1 FED. CIR. B.J. 1, 4-5 (1991).] Federal Rule 60 All and (b) in particular When it can be proved that a judgment of a court was obtained by fraud, the question arises whether or not it can be set aside and new trial had. Two different procedures are to be distinguished 2) An Independetn action to set the judgment aside brought in the same court or a different Court. The Minnesota Courts are systemically corrupt and therefore unfit to render any bonafide judgment within the bounds of the Rule of Law and Due Process. [ Common Sense, Rule of Law, Right to Due Process ]
9

Appellants include by reference information contained the original Notice of Appeal. ARGUMENT For the limited purpose of this appeal, Appellants will largely confine themselves to the Courts dismissing the matter because Appellant Mashaks Response to the Magistrates Ruling were untimely, refusal to allow Appellant to Amend his complaint, and the dismissal of claims against Appellee Wolfgram with prejudice. Federal Courts wants cases solved on merits Disposing of cases on the merits, however, is favored in this Court.); Azikiwe v. Nig. Airways Ltd., No. CV-03-6387, 2006 WL 2224450, at * (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2006) (refusing to grant the Appellants motion to strike the Appellees answer that was filed one month late because of the disfavored status of motions to strike and the Second Circuits preference that litigation disputes be resolved on the merits, [and] not by default). Appellants argue that the most important issues that the Appellate Court must consider in deciding to whether this case should be decided on the merits or technicalities are these: 1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances (without fear of reprisal) Fabian, May and Anderson v Volkommer MN App A10-1205 Minnesota Lawyers are not required to treat clients with integrity nor is the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct an implied covenant of a contract for legal services between a Minnesota Lawyer and their clients. In the Statement of Case, Appellants have expounded on how fundamental the 1st Amendment Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances is. There is no need to expound on this point further. In the Statement of Case and Statement of Facts, the Appellants have demonstrated that Appellant Mashak in fact has been involved in the Minnesota judicial TAR (Transparency, Accountability and Reform) Movement for coming on 8 years, long before this action was commenced. The Statement of Facts Clearly and Overwhelming evidence that Appellants rights Due Process and litigation based on the rule of law have been ignored. The facts listed in the statement of facts show a long and egregiously list of criminal and procedural wrong doings that have been inflicted on Appellants. The failure of the Lower Courts to correct themselves every time they have been given the opportunity demonstrates their malicious intent.

10

The Minnesota Courts ruling that Minnesota Lawyers dont have to treat their ethically pursuant to Fabian V Volkommmer MN A10-1205 demonstrates the systemic nature of the corruption in the Minnesota Courts which makes them unfit. The combination of the allegations of Reprisal for exercising 1 st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for redress of grievances, the overwhelming evidence of criminal and procedure wrongdoing by the Courts and Appellants own Attorneys, and the Minnesota Courts ruling that Minnesota Lawyers dont have to treat their clients ethically demand that this case be resolved on its merits before the Appellants jury of his peers and not by deliberate and/or negligent procedural error. Federal Rule 60 All and (b) in particular When it can be proved that a judgment of a court was obtained by fraud, the question arises whether or not it can be set aside and new trial had. Two different procedures are to be distinguished 2) An Independetn action to set the judgment aside brought in the same court or a different Court. Clearly the evidence provided herein proves that the lower courts decisions were based on fraud. Appellants are forced to represent themselves Pro Se because of criminal acts of Appellees. Appellants are not in the position to represent themselves Pro Se through any fault of their own. This is not a simple act of resource attrition by the Appellees. Appellants Pro Se status is the result of a criminal conspiracy by the lower courts and his own attorneys. Appellant Mashak sees no where in the rules where resource attrition caused by the unlawful acts of his own lawyers and the Court is legitimate under the Rules, the Rule of Law nor is consistent with Appellants Natural Law Rights to Due Process. It is Black Letter Law that participants in a crime can not be allowed to profit from their crimes. Further, it is Black Letter Law that victims of a crime should not have their damages and injuries increased through the Courts allowing criminals to realize the goals of their crime/conspiracy. Now the law requires that a Corporation be represented by a lawyer. The Court failed to allow Appellant to amend his complaint to acknowledge the corporation assigned all its rights and claims to Appellant Mashak Personally. Again, the criminal conspiracy cannot be allowed to profit from its crimes by causing claims emanating from the crime against the corporation to be extinguished because the corporation can not longer afford to hire a lawyer as a result of the crimes committed against it. Therefore, this court should allow wide latitude to Litigant Appellant Mashak forced to appear before them Pro Se because the Appellees have been wildly successful in destroying his life in unlawful reprisal for exercising his 1st Amendment Rights.

11

Clearly if this matter had been handled in accordance with the Rule of Law and within the scope of Due Process, $20,000.00 would have more than adequately covered the costs of litigation. Court did not provide accommodation under ADA Appellant asserts that there is no way this Court can not see and acknowledge the pattern of departure from normal litigation procedures based on the facts in the Statement of Facts. These series of recurring transgressions against Appellant Mashak resulted in severe feelings of anger and betrayal. And they resulted in large amounts of energy being used to restrain himself from acting on these feelings of anger at the hands of a criminal conspiracy instigated, aided and abetted by the Courts themselves. Appellant Mashak asks each judge to put themselves in the shoes of Appellant Mashak and read each of those irregularities in the Statement of Facts and allow themselves imagine and feel the emotions Appellant Mashak was experiencing while living through this travesty of injustice. And add to that seeing your lifes dreams, your business of 24 years, and health being destroyed and fading away. These transgressions this criminal conspiracy inflicted on Appellant Mashak resulted him being diagnosed by a doctor (part of the record) with a form of PTSD known as legal abuse syndrome. I encourage the court to families itself with the symptoms and effect of Legal Abuse Syndrome. Amongst them are the inability to concentrate when reading, especially reading material relating to the causative litigation. Appellant Mashak asked for accommodation under ADA early on in this litigation. On or about the 26th of January 2012, (about 4 & months after the hearing) Appellant Mashak was informed that the Magistrates Report and Recommendation was finished January 25, 2012. Appellant Mashak was informed it was or would be shortly in the mail. Over the next 10 days, Appellant called and informed the Clerk of Courts that the document had not been received. On each occasion the Clerk of Courts said just wait. Finally, the Clerk of Court agreed to resend. Appellant Mashak received the document with an answer do the next day. The document was 70 days long and filled with legal minutia. With all the irregularities that had previously occurred in this litigation, Appellant Mashak was overwhelmed with the thought that the same systemic corruption that existed in the Minnesota State Courts existed in the Federal Courts. The Judges Chambers did not answer the phone nor return messages in a timely manner. Therefore, Appellant Mashak in less than 36 hours, drafted and submitted a brief in opposition to the 70 Report and Recommendation.
12

This is the brief the Judge bludgeons Appellant with, but betrays his true state of mind when he does not make it known the circumstances and time constraints under which this document created. Now, originally this court tried to require a Pro Se response to a 70 page heavily technical document created by some trained in the law with access to law specific data bases in less than 14 days. By the time the court granted the extension, Appellant Mashak effectively had another 15 days to respond. The Court failed to accommodate Pro Se Appellant Mashaks disability by giving him sufficient time to review and respond to a 70 page technical document created over 4 and months by a trained professional with access to online legal resources. The Court should have granted the Appellant Mashak additional time to respond.
Other Court Irregularities.

This line of thought continues from the timeline under Court did not provide ADA Accommodation In making its original ruling that Appellant Mashaks request for additional time was untimely and not warranted, another irregularity occurs. The Court failed to read and rule upon the 2/23/2012 brief, before ruling on the later 2/27/2012 brief. It ruled not to allow additional time to submit a Opposing brief in opposition to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate. The court has patently misunderstood Appellants, and/or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, which made an error not of reasoning but of comprehension Again, the 2/27/2012 motion was timely. The 2/23/2012 motion was not ruled upon. Even if the Court insists the 2/27/2012 brief was not timely, clearly the request for an extension of time on 2/23/2012 was timely. Apparently the Court has not understood that a Pro Se Litigant faced with Appellees not required to follow the rules, orders and laws of the Court, needs more than 15 days to respond to a 70 page report and recommendation drafted by a professional with access to electronic case law records over the course of 4.5 months. Apparently the Court does not understand that no lawyers are willing to reduce to writing their willingness to represent Appellants honestly and with integrity can be found in the state of Minnesota. Apparently the Court does not understand that after spending $20,000 thousand on attorneys, a vehicle to get to a law library and/or free electronic access to case law is necessary. During the final days to file the brief in opposition to the Magistrates report and recommendation, Appellant Mashak had vehicle
13

problems. Not used to not having employees fix his vehicles, it took time diagnose & time to raise money for parts. The nearest law library is 120 miles away, round trip. Further, with the advent of electronic legal resources, Law Libraries have allowed their physical resources to age. And, in violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Minnesota Constitution, the Courts have entrusted their case law etc to electronic sources which require payment. Access to up to date legal resources is necessary to create a legal brief. As Appellant Mashak qualifies for IFP, the Court should have granted access to the unconstitutional pay for access Legal Databases. The Court failed to read and rule upon the 2/23/2012 brief, before ruling on the later 2/27/2012 brief, in which It ruled not to allow additional time to submit a Opposing brief in opposition to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate.
As both briefs were timely and the accommodation was just and reasonable, the Court should have granted Appellant Mashaks accommodation for access to pay for use electronic legal resources and, more importantly, his extension of time to prepare and file the brief in opposition to the Magistrates Report and Recommendation. Abuse of Discretion

From the facts in evidence, it is clear the Lower Court Abused its discretion. This Appellate Court has before it a Citizen who alleges that his business, finances and health have been destroyed in unconstitutional and unlawful reprisal for his exercise of his 1 st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances. This Appellate Court has before it evidence, much of it incontrovertible, of a criminal Conspiracy to obstruct justice and tamper with evidence. The Lower courts and Appellants own attorneys engaged in Simulated Litigation and Fact Shaping which unlawful and/or in violation of the rule of law. The point of this being to fix this case against Appellant in unlawful and unconstitutional reprisal for Appellant Mashak simply excursing his 1st Amendment Rights. Simply, the Appellate Court cannot simply ignore the criminality that has been clearly demonstrated herein. Simply, the Appellate Court should not want to be party to said criminal conspiracy by letting the lower courts procedural ruling prevent this matter from being decided on it merits. Simply, the Appellate Court cannot allow claims and issues involving the First Amendment, Criminal Conspiracies by the Lower Courts to fix this court case and Systemic Corruption of the Minnesota Courts irrefutably established in Fabian v Volkommer MN A10-1205 to be decided on technicalities rather than the merits. Appellant Mashak has provided substantial evidence of a criminal conspiracy, tampering with evidence and other wrongdoing not in accordance with Due Process and the Rule of Law.

14

The Lower Court abused its discretion in attempting to allow litigation involving such major claims, issues and constitutional matters to resolved by technicality rather than on the merits before a jury of Appellant Mashaks Peers. The Lower Court was clearly erroneous on this basis. The Lower court was also Clearly Erroneous in ruling that the 2 separate requests for an extension of time were untimely. And the lower Court was Clearly Erroneous in not providing and extension of time to reply to the 70 page highly technical brief prepared by a professional over the course of 4 and months as an accommodation to the Disability of Don Mashak under the ADA. Appellants have demonstrated that all the Court has allowed the Appellees to act and proceed on to much lower standard than Appellants. Again, the list of irregularities which at set forth in the Statement of facts shows conclusively that not only have the courts permitted huge transgressions of procedure by the Appellees. To allow the Lower Court to dismiss this case on a technicality with all the transgressions, illegal acts and technical irregularities Appellants have been force to endure is inequitable. The lower courts decision to kill this litigation on a litigation on a technicality in face of the far lower standard the Courts have allowed the Appellees to perform at, can not be allowed to stand in the for the sake of equity and fairness. CONTROLLING OR SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE LAW OR FACTS SINCE THE SUBMISSION OF THE ISSUE TO THE COURT Since the lower court did not consider or rule on the 2/23/2012 brief until after the 2/27/2012 brief, it did not consider that information in making its ruling on the 2/27/2012. Appellant Mashak asserts that however the lower Court came to not review and rule on the 2/23/2012 Motion before the 2/27/2012 motion, when the court did address it, it likely just ruled according to the momentum of the 2/27/2012 adverse ruling. Therefore, this appellate Court should consider that new information may be found within that 2/23/2012 Motion and Memorandum of Law. WhistleBlower Protections Clearly, not only was Appellant Mashak and the hundreds of Minnesotans who attempted to petition the Government for redress of grievances, but they were also whistleblowing on the corruption in the Minnesota State Judiciary. As such, various protections afforded to whistleblowers should also accrue to Appellant Mashak. Appellant 1st National Repossessors, Inc., a Corporation without a lawyer There are 4 points here: 1st , requiring a Minnesota Corporation to have a lawyer is inequitable.
15

With the Minnesota Courts ruling that a Minnesota does not have to treat their client ethically, it is simply and inequitable and unjust requirement that any Corporation, let alone one with only one owner, be required to retain a lawyer void of any requirement to treat them ethically. [Fabian V. Volkommer MN A10-1205 ] Further, Appellant Mashak has contacted many Minnesota Attorneys and none will add language to their standard contract to the effect that they will treat clients ethically nor within the bounds of the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct. As it stands, the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct constitutes false advertising and fraudulent inducement. Still further, Again Appellant 1st National Repossessors, Inc. cannot afford to retain counsel as a result of the criminal acts of Appellees. Appellees cannot be allow to profit from their criminal acts by extinguishing claims against them caused by their criminal acts because Appellant can no longer afford to retain a lawyer. Finally, Appellants attempted to amend their complaint to reflect First National Repossessors, Inc. inability to afford an attorney. First National Repossessors has assigned all of its rights, claims and assets to Don Mashak, an individual. However, the lower court refuse to allow that amendment which included that language. Along those same lines, is the Court refusing to allow Appellants to correct a deficiency involving the original complaint regarding the judges by indicating whether they are being sued personally or in their official capacity. Again, the lower court is placing emphasis on technicalities rather than the letting the matter be resolved on its merits. Minnesota Courts Systemically Corrupt and Unfit to adjudicate The facts put forward in the Statement of Case and Statement of Facts demonstrate conclusively the corruption which exists in the Minnesota Courts. The failure of the Minnesota Courts to correct themselves when they are given every opportunity to do so, demonstrates the Minnesota Courts Malicious intent. Finally, the Court Case of Fabian, May and Anderson v Volkommer MN A 10-1205 which states that Minnesota Lawyers do not have to treat their clients ethically nor are they bound to the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct, demonstrates how brazen the Minnesota Courts are in their malicious systemic corruption. Claims against Appellee Wolfgram dismissed with predjudice Appellant Mashak asserts to this Appellate Court that nothing reflects the mindset of the lower court than its dismissing claims against Appellant Mashaks Former Lawyer in this matter, Appellee Wolfgram. Really, on procedure technicality, the Lower Court wants to forever bar my claims against Appellee Wolfgram.
16

Appellee Wolfgram who personally admitted to Appellant Mashak the existence of the criminal conspiracy? Appellee Wolfgram who returned the client file to Appellants missing almost exactly the same documents that were missing from the Court file for weeks and only turned up when Appellant Mashak went to the police department to file a police report. Appellant Mashak asserts that it is clear that the lower court was extending some kind of fraternal and/or professional courtesy to Appellee Lawyer Wolfgram as a reward or quid pro quo consideration for Appellee Wolgram aiding and abetting the criminal conspiracy. Is Appellant Mashak wrong in coming to that conclusion? The dismissal with prejudice of Appellants claims against Lawyer Appellee Wolfgram cannot be allowed to stand.

Default judgment not granted against Appellees Meeks-Hull, Hull and Longrie These 3 Appellees never provided an answer, never attended any hearing and never responded to any motions. Appellants moved for Default Judgment, but the lower Court did not provide the requested relief. The Courts reasons are unfathomable in face of the overwhelming evidence and the failure of these 3 Appellees to respond. Default Judgment against these 3 Appellees should be granted.

Miscellaneous The Lower Court makes exaggerates errors of Appellants. We have discussed how Appellant had about a day to draft a response to a 70 page highly technical document. Without explaining all the circumstances of initial brief, the lower court goes on to say approximately, Appellant will not address each item individually. Clearly, the lower court intended this to be inflammatory. Appellant asserts that a Pro Se litigant with a day to answer a day to answer a 70 page, highly technical document, has not had the time to fully research. Appellant believes this misrepresentation of the lower court was inappropriate. Given the time and opportunity, this Pro Se Appellant has no problem addressing each item in the Magistrates report and recommendation individually. Appellant believes that the layout of this Appellate Informal Memorandum of law speaks to this Appellants grasp of the law and ability to comply with the rules when treated with the same decorum as a trained lawyer.
17

Too be further inflammatory, the lower court tosses in comments about Appellant wanting to be heard by a real judge. First, Judges and lawyers can enjoy their mutual admiration fraternity all they want, that does not mean that the real world and real citizens are not passing judgment. No court personnel answer questions. The Minnesota Courts have ruled that Minnesota lawyers dont have to tell the truth. Judges dont answer questions or grant interviews. So that leaves us Judicial Annoyances otherwise known as citizens and litigants to try to make sense of the black box that is the Judiciary. We wretched peasants, serfs and oafs have come to understand that people that are actually elected or appointed to office dont deliver the bad news, you have an underling do it. Police Chiefs have the next in command do it. Mayors have the city manager do it. Congress folks and State legislators have their chiefs of staffs or other staffers do it. Another wretched oath proposed that Magistrates are the fall folks for the elected and appointed judges. Now review all that Appellant Mashak has endured as indicated in the Statement of Facts. How does a litigant make sense of things happening that are not consistent with reality, the evidence, the rules and the Rule of Law. You Judges leave we the people to try to figure out what Simon Says gotcha tripped us up. When it was suggested to by another rank and file oaf that Magistrate Judges were the Simon Says Gotchas in this Federal Arena, it was as reasonable as any other explanation. And you Judges, your staff and the Minnesota Lawyers who are licensed to lie certainly arent going to provide a more true and legitimate explanation. So I respectfully ask yourself to understand the frustration and anger this Appellant feeling and not judge him to harshly for desperately trying to avoid losing again, especially after having lost his business, his wealth, his home and his health. Appellants simply cannot merrily trusting the Judicial System in the face of everything that has been inflicted upon him. Demanding a real judge was an act of desperation to somehow try to avoid being screwed again by the judiciary. Appellants close this section by saying how absolutely ironic is that the lower court would try to chastise him on such issues while not commenting on how 2 years and $20000.00 resulted in no Depositions, No Compelled Discovery and no amended Complaint. The lower Court waxes minor technical issues of the Appellants, while failing to address nearly identical documents missing from the Court and Client File constituting prima facie evidence of a conspiracy between the Court and Appellants own attorneys. The Lower Court makes no comment on a Judge refusing any physical or telephonic hearings for 3 months and then finds the motion brought untimely.

18

It appears to this Appellant that the lower Court was more concerned about covering up the corruption and criminal activity that occurred that actually rendering a judgment on the merits based on the rule of law? Is this Appellants summation of what is occurring accurate?
CONCLUSION What has happened in this litigation is a manifest gross miscarriage of justice. How can any citizen be expected to believe that their own attorney, paid thousands of dollars, will engage in activities contrary to them winning their case. Appellants paid good money of $20,000.00 which should have been more than adequate to cover the litigation of the original matter. It is clear from the evidence and the record that Appellants were not afforded Due Process. The lower Courts initiated, aided and abetted the criminal conspiracy to engage in an unconstitutional against Appellant Mashak for exercising his first Amendment Rights. This is the Courts opportunity to restore the publics opinion that the Courts do not make their decision on the merits but rather on other considerations. Have all of the Court Rules and Case Law been made to facilitate rather than hinder Government Corruption? Appellant Mashaks fellow citizens would like to know. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances is so fundamental to American Government and Justice, that it cannot be allowed to be killed on a mere alleged technicality. Nor can this case be allowed to be killed just because a obvious criminal conspiracy increased the costs of litigation and destroyed Appellants business and finances. Appellant sought to peacefully Petition his Government for redress of grievances, has had his life destroyed as his reward. This REPRISAL is specifically prohibited and unconstitutional. The method and manner of reprisal are criminal. And again Appellates remind this Court that the lower Court failed to accommodate Appellant Mashak disability as required by the ADA. A disability resulting from the criminal actions intentionally and maliciously inflicted on him by the criminal conspiracy. Appellant again remind this Court that he request oral argument so the justices can ask any questions this Pro Se Appellate has left unanswered. Appellates also request that the oral argument be recorded and a copy provided for inclusion in Lawless America, The Movie http://LawlessAmerica.com Based upon the facts in evidence and the arguments herin, Appellants pray the Court grant their proposed Order; Dated: May 18, 2012 Don Mashak 612-326-6070 Rt 1 Box 231 Albertville, MN 55301 s/ Don Mashak

19

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL 8TH CIRCUIT

Don Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc., Appellants, V. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Lee Wolfgram, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s), Appellees.

Appellate Case File No. 12-1935 US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM

AFFIDAVIT OF DON MASHAK IN SUPPORT OF APPELLATE BRIEF TO: The Appellate Court and Appellees
I, Don Mashak, do hereby swear and affirm by my signature below, the following:

1) That I am a Appellant in this matter; 2) That the facts alleged in the associated memorandum of law are truthful, as I prepared them; 3) That any Exhibits included are true and correct copies.
The above I do affirm and swear to under penalty of perjury: __________________________ Don Mashak (personally and as owner) 612-326-6070 1st National Repossessors, Inc. POB 231 Albertville MN 55301 Signed and Sworn before me

this day ________________, 2012 ___________________________ Notary Public

May 17, 2012

Don Mashak (personally and as owner) 612-326-6070 1st National Repossessors, Inc. Rt 1 Box 231 Albertville, MN 55301 s/ Don Mashak 5/17/2012

EXECUTED AFFIDAVIT SEPERATE

20

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL 8TH CIRCUIT

Don Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc., Appellants, V. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Lee Wolfgram, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s), Appellees.

Appellate Case File No. 12-1935 US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM

1st Amendment Right to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances (without fear of reprisal) US Declaration of Independence Volkommer V Fabian, May and Anderson MN A10-1205. [Unpublished] Among other things, the Minnesota Courts ruled that the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct was not an implied covenant of a legal services contract between a Minnesota Lawyer and their clients. Disposing of cases on the merits, however, is favored in this Court.); Azikiwe v. Nig. Airways Ltd., No. CV-03-6387, 2006 WL 2224450, at * (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2006) (refusing to grant the Appellants motion to strike the Appellees answer that was filed one month late because of the disfavored status of motions to strike and the Second Circuits preference that litigation disputes be resolved on the merits, [and] not by default). 2009 Adhoc MN Judicial Reform meeting video http://bit.ly/ylWyAM and here http://bit.ly/r1DDao Federal Rule 60 and in particular 60(b) Americans with Disabilities Act ADA CHILDRESS & DAVIS, supra note 4, 1.01, at 1-3 (citing James D. Phillips, The Appellate Review Function: Scope of Review, 47 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 1, 1 (1984)); Edward H. Cooper, Civil Rule 52(a): Rationing & Rationalizing the Resources of Appellate Review, 63 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 645, 649 (1988) (concluding that standards of review serve a vital institutional role in allocating the responsibility and the power of decision between trial tribunals and the courts of appeals). Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 984 n.13, 34 U. S.P.Q.2d 1321, 1333 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), affil, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Because nonobviousness is generally regarded as a legal question, the Federal Circuit extended the rule of judicial decision on legal issues into the jury context, finding that the district court may ]

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

21

Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1216, 36 U.S.P.Q 2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1995); seealso Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684, 690, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir.2001) (Enablement is a question of law reviewed by this court independently and without deference.). BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY 435 (6th ed. 1990) In theory, the appellate court decides the issue in a de novo review, [a] new; afresh; a second time, as if the trial tribunal had not before rendered a decision on the issue. Infra Section II.A.1] (2) the review will be strict, but there will be some deference to the trial tribunal in interpreting the law;[ See infra Section II.A.2 ] and (3) the appellate court will not defer at all in the relatively rare case when the trial tribunal must establish a new legal principle (i.e., in a case of first impression)..[See infra Section II.A.3] Paul R. Michel, Appellate Advocacy: One Judges View, 1 FED. CIR. B.J. 1, 4-5 (1991) there may be an underlying issue of fact, making review less deferential than would at first appear. Glaverbel Societe Anonyme & Fosbel, Inc. v. Northlake Marketing & Supply, Inc., 45 F.3d 1550, 1557, 33 U.S.P.Q 2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cit. 1995) (The determination of the issue of inequitable conduct . . . is within the district courts discretion . . . . Thus the district courts ruling on the issue of inequitable conduct will be affirmed unless it was based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or a misinterpretation or misapplication of law, or manifested a clear error of judgment. (citations omitted)); A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1039, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc) (An appellate court, however, may set aside a discretionary decision if the decision rests on an erroneous interpretation of the law or on clearly erroneous factual underpinnings. If such error is absent, the determination can be overturned only if ] Paul R. Michel, Appellate Advocacy: One Judges View, 1 FED. CIR. B.J. 1, 4-5 (1991). When the abuse of discretion standard applies, there may be an underlying issue of fact, making review less deferential than would at first appear. If there is an underlying issue of law, review can become non-deferential. Whistleblower protections Common Sense Rule of Law Right to Due Process
Dated: May 18, 2012 Don Mashak (personally and as owner) 612-326-6070 1st National Repossessors, Inc. Rt 1 Box 231 Albertville, MN 55301 s/ Don Mashak John and Jane Doe(s) 22

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL 8TH CIRCUIT

Don Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc., Appellants, V. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Lee Wolfgram, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s), Appellees.

Appellate Case File No. 12-1935 US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM

The above-entitled matter came before the Court on the Appellants Appeal against the above named Appellees. Based upon the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1) The lowers courts orders of 3/19/2012 and 3/21/2012 are reversed. 2) Both are remanded back to the lower court with these stipulations; 3) The lower Court will allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to reflect all of First National Repossessors claims, rights and assets have been assigned to Don Mashak personally; 4) The lower Court will allow Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to reflect properly identifying whether the Judges involved are being sued in their official or personal capacities; 5) Appellants Motion for Default Judgment against Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull and Dianna Longrie are granted; 6) The lower Court decision to dismiss claims against Appellee Wolfgram is reversed and the lower Court is directed to not dismiss claims against Appellee Lawyer Wolfgram on technicalities, only proven merit or the finding of a jury; 7) A new lower Court judge will be appointed for this matter; 8) An elected or appointed judge and not a magistrate shall be assigned to this matter; 9) The Court shall appoint an attorney to represent Appellants/Plaintiffs; 10) Said attorney to be paid up to $20,000.00 by the Minnesota Courts, the Minnesota Bar, the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards, the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, the Minnesota Attorney Generals office or the FBI, as the lower court sees fit. 11) The Court will impose on said attorney an oath to act with integrity and to the best of their ability to represent Appellants and to adhere to the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct; 12) The lower Court shall grant Appellants and there knew lawyer 45 days from the date of this order to submit a response to the Magistrates Report and Recommendation; 13) The Lower Court Shall make accommodations for Plaintiff Mashaks disabilities; 14) The lower Court shall provide Appellants/Plaintiffs Mashak with free access to electronic legal resources pursuant to an IFP. 15) THE FBI and the DOJ are directed to investigate and prosecute these matters to the fullest extent of the law.
23

FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Plaintiffs paid $20,000.00 in attorneys fees and were not represented properly; 2) $20,000.00 should have been more than adequate to litigate this case if it were handled properly; 3) The failure of any of Appellants attorneys to secure even 1 deposition after 2 plus years and $20,000.00 plus in legal services is the result of deliberate unethical acts, not happenstance; 4) Other courts handling these matters have not acted in accordance with the rules nor in compliance with the standard of the rule of law. 5) Minnesota courts are unfit as a result of a series of rules and case law the Minnesota courts have implemented to permit it to fix the outcome of cases; 6) That appellants former attorney Appellee Wolfgram did not act ethically nor to the best of his ability in representing appellants with the obvious intent to cause appellants to lose their case; 7) Whether Appellants other attorneys did not act ethically, nor to the best of their ability requires further discovery and litigation of this matter. 8) Appellants to date have not received Due Process in Accordance with the Rule of Law. 9) The Minnesota District, Appellate and Supreme Court Ruling in Fabian v Volkommer MN A101205, renders the Minnesota Lawyers Code of Professional Conduct, false advertizing and a fraudulent inducement. 10) That Minnesota District, Appellate and Supreme Courts Ruling in Fabian v Volkommer MN A101205 stands diametrically opposed to the standards and intent of the Rule of Law and Due Process; 11) Appellee Wolfgram did not represent Appellant Mashak to the best of his ability nor with integrity and honesty; 12) Appellee Wolfgram deliberately handled Appellants litigation in such a manner as to allow the Court to rule against Appellant Mashak; 13) Appellee Lee Wolgram committed theft by Swindle when he fraudulently induced Appellant Mashak to pay him money by saying he would represent Appellant Mashak to the best of his ability and with integrity and honesty; 14) What has happened to Appellant Mashak is and example of what US citizens mean when say the Government can destroy anyone it want to. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated:____________, 2012 __________________________________

24

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL 8TH CIRCUIT

Don Mashak and First National Repossessors, Inc., Appellants, V. State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Mary Yunker, Timothy R. Bloomquist, Diana Longrie, Lee Wolfgram, Dannette Meeks-Hull, Michael Hull, John and Jane Doe(s), Appellees.

Appellate Case File No. 12-1935 US District Case File No. 11-473 JRT/JSM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR APPELLATE BRIEF I hereby certify that on May 18, 2012, I caused the following documents:

1) APPELLATE BRIEF
2) Certificate of Service to be sent in the following manners: The State of Minnesota, Minnesota Supreme Court, Mary Yunker, Timothy Bloomquist represented by John Garry by emailing to John Garry at john.garry@state.mn.us To Appellee Wolfgram at email wolfgramclerk@gmail.com To Appellee Longrie at email longrie@hotmail.com I certify that I placed an envelope containing true and correct copies of said document(s) with the correct address and proper postage in a mail Receptacle on May 17, 2012 to Appellee Dannette Meeks-Hull and Michael Hull at 27015 BAYSHORE DRIVE, Isanti MN 55040 And the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals fax 314-244-2780 and Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, Missouri 63102 (also mailed 5/18/2012) Dated: May 18, 2012 Don Mashak (personally and as owner) 612-326-6070 1st National Repossessors, Inc. Rt 1 Box 231 Albertville, MN 55301 s/ Don Mashak John and Jane Doe(s) Address unknown

25