STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD AKA MINNESOTA LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL COVERUP AND PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM AKA AN EXAMPLE OF THE REASONS FOR UNREST IN PLACES LIKE FERGUSON MISSOURRI.

DON MASHAK,CITIZEN AND COMPLAINANT

VS.

DAN FLUEGAL,PROSECUTOR AND DEFENDANTANDALEXANDER ROGOSHESKEPUBLIC PRETENDER, COCONSPIRATOR AND CODEFENDANTTo : MN Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility 345 St. Peter Street #1500 St. Paul, MN 55102-1218651-296-3952 1-800-657-3601

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

This is one of those rare occasions where a citizens lack of knowledge of how the system works, actually works to their advantage. In this case, Complainants own lack of knowledge of how the criminal justice system works, caused the criminal conspiracy against him to take certain criminal actions to further the goals of the criminal conspiracy presuming normal courses of litigation that will now come back to bite them in the behind.

On March 12, 2014, Complainant Mashak attended a hearing in the matter of Sperling vs Sperling as a member of the Press. Ms. Sperling alleged Mr. Sperling was getting preferential treatment from the Court and local law enforcement. Ms. Sperling alleged this preferential treatment was due to a quid pro quo arrangement for Mr. Sperling’s role as the major local drug supplier and that local law enforcement were complicit in said drug trade.Complainant alleges that he was arrested on bogus Disorderly Conduct charges outside of Courtroom 1D on the afternoon of March 12, 2014. Complainant alleges that he was originally arrested to prevent coverage of the hearing by the Press (Complainant had previously reported on court cases in Dakota County). The tactic was successful in that Complainant was locked up in solitary confinement until after the Courthouse closed. Later, Prosecutor Fluegel began violating Complainant’s Natural, Constitutional and Civil Rights when he discovered that Complainant Mashak was an alleged leader of the Minnesota Judicial TAR Movement (Transparency, Accountability and Reform).

Prosecutor Fluegel then tried to use this Bogus Disorderly conduct charge to exact unlawful and unconstitutional reprisals and punishments against Complainant Mashak. These unlawful and

unconstitutional reprisals and punishments being in retaliation for Don Mashak being perceived as a leader of a diverse group of Minnesotans attempting to exercise the their Natural Right to Petition the government for Redress of Grievances without fear of punishment and reprisal as reduced to writing in the First Amendment. Every year since 2005, a group of hundreds of independent Citizens and groups have asked the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees for a hearing dedicated to receiving evidence and testimony of systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary and been denied. (It is somewhat ironic that our Governments denial of this right to Petition for Redress of Grievances contributes to the necessity of this complaint.)

Complainant alleges Prosecutor Fluegel has, among other unlawful and unconstitutional directives, directed Dakota County Law Enforcement and others to destroy exculpatory video evidence that demonstrates Complainants innocence completely and could be used as evidence in disciplinary evidence against the various co-conspirators.

Public Pretender Alexander Rogosheske then attempted to aid and abet the criminal conspiracy by not properly representing Complainant Mashak. In Complainant Mashak’s first two meetings with Rogosheske, Rogosheske never asked Complainant “his side of the story nor if Complainant had evidence to corroborate his side of the story”. Further, Complainant Mashak had asked Rogosheske to review the Court file prior to meeting. It was obvious during those first conversations that Rogosheske lacked of knowledge he would have acquired by reviewing the Court file before those meetings. But perhaps the biggest betrayal of Complainant Mashak’s interests is reflected in Rogosheske’s response to Complainant Mashak’s concerns about the missing/destroyed video. Instead of being keenly attuned to the prospect of the case being dismissed on the grounds of “spoilage of exculpatory evidence”, Mr. Rogosheske said words to the effect, “Its probably best that the video was destroyed as it likely did not show you in the best light” This despite my saying that the video would exonerate me and could be used in disciplinary actions and other litigation against the perpetrators of this criminal conspiracy. It is at this point that Complainant realized the “fix” was in this matter and began writing to others to remove Rogosheske as his Public Pretender. (Complainant asserts that any respectable lawyer immediately recognizes that Rogosheske’s statements regarding the destruction of the exculpatory video were wholly inappropriate.)

Within the first few days following Complainant’s arrest, I had numerous verbal communications with various Dakota County Law Enforcement and other employees. At almost every instance Complainant verbally demanded that the video of my incarceration in solitary confinement for hours and my arrest outside of Courtroom 1D, be retained for use in my Defense and for use in disciplinary actions against the perpetrators. But, as I said at the beginning, in this instance being Pro Se and not having prior experience with the criminal courts has caused the perpetrators to ensnare themselves.

As the spoken word “evaporates”, Complainant will rely on written communications and confirmations to prove that the video evidence was requested to be secured for his defense and in

verified as having been secured within days of his arrest. (However, Complainant would ask the reader to realize that far more verbal communications to retain the exculpatory data were made than few written confirmations and proofs that Complainant can provide.)

Complainant notes that this is the sort of crap that leads to the apparently righteous unrest occurring in places like Ferguson, Missouri. WE THE PEOPLE are sick and tired of Lawyers, Prosecutors, Judges and other Government officials playing Gods with our lives. Complainant Mashak is investing great effort in documenting how Lawyers, Prosecutors and Public Defenders conspire to take advantage of their client’s lack of knowledge of the legal system. They use their client’s lack of knowledge of the law and betray the trust they instill in their clients to fix cases against their own clients yet have it appear as though it was done pursuant to the Rule of Law. Complainant intends that all Americans should come to know the true nature of their government. This whole situation disgusts me.

The written, indisputable facts contained herein will bare to all America the true nature of its Government and System of Injustice. (My fellow Americans, the lawyers have written the laws and rules far too complexly for the average person to understand. And then, they then instill in their clients the false belief that said lawyer can be trusted to represent their best interests. And because most folks don’t understand the law, they don’t even realize when a court case has been “fixed” against them with the cooperation of their own lawyer; the one they paid good money for.

How many of Complainant’s fellow Americans would even know that no attorney can be trusted? And then, have the knowledge this Complainant has to extricate themselves from the evil machinations and superior resources of a systemically corrupt Government?

It should be noted that Complainant already filed an appeal in this matter. You can see that appeal at MN Appellate Court File 14-1425. In that appeal, we are addressing Judge Asphaug orderingfrom the bench that the matter be heard by a judge from another county and then Prosecutor Dan Fluegel mysteriously trying to prevent the matter from being heard by a judge from another county or in another county.

To my regular readers on social media who are astonished by what they have just read and what they are now about to read, I say, “Yes America, your government is just this evil and corrupt.”

FACTS

1) On March 12, 2014, Complainant Mashak attended the matter of Sperling vs Sperling as a member of the press for purposes of determining the credibility of Ms. Sperling’s Allegations that her husband was receiving preferential treatment for his role as a drug supplier in the local drug trade, in which local law enforcement were alleged to be complicit.

2) The hearing broke numerous times for other business and lunch.

3) In the afternoon, Complainant returned numerous times to find the Court still occupied with other matters and/or not yet in session.

4) Eventually Complainant returned to find the hearing already in session.5) Bailiff Voi?asked Complainant to step out of the courtroom.6) Complainant complied.7) Bailiff Voi? told Complainant Mashak to leave the building.8) Complainant asked Voi? his name and Voi refused repeatedly.9) Bailiff Voi? arrested and handcuffed Complainant.10) Complainant has never been read his rights in this matter.11) Complainant informed Voi? and other officers he wanted to see a judge or the County

Attorney immediately and was refused.12) Complainant informed Voi? and other individuals he intended to make a citizens’ arrest

of them upon release and that the video would prove his justification for the arrest and his innocence.

13) Complainant was subjected to implied threats in which he was told by an officer approximately that “the officer could blow someone’s face off and the union would have him back on the job the next day. (Exhibit 1)

14) Complainant was not released from solitary confinement until after 4:30pm, presumably to insure he could not contact a judge, the County Attorney or the Sheriff to file a complaint and/or seek other relief.

15) Complainant was escorted outside the building, found the doors locked and went to the Sheriff’s Office next door.

16) Complainant used the emergency “after-hours” phone and was told no one could help him as the Sheriff’s Department was closed.

17) Complainant believes he told the Sheriff Dispatcher that he wanted all the video saved.18) Complainant then left the area and returned to his residence an hour or more away.19) The next day, Complainant called and spoke to several Dakota County Personnel.20) Complainant told almost everyone he spoke to that he wanted the video of his solitary

confinement and of his arrest outside of Courtroom 1D saved for use in his defense. At some point, Complainant been broadening his video requests to include video of himself anywhere in the Dakota County Courthouse on the day of his arrest.

21) On or about March 14, 2014 Defendant filed a complaint on an official Citizens Complaint Form. (Exhibit 1)

22) The jury and/or finder of fact will note that contained in that complaint is the sentence “I repeat my demand that the video be secured to prevent tampering or erasure of the incidents of arrest in front of Courtroom 1D and while I was in solitary confinement.”

23) Complainant can think of no other more official demand that the video be reviewed and retained than to include the demand in his official complaint filed with the proper Dakota County authorities (Leslie).

24) The jury and/or finder of fact will note that the complaint already mentions “coverup”, “terroristic threats”, “conspiracy”, “excessive force”, “illegal search”, “obstruction”, “entrapment”, and “violating his First Amendment Rights”.

25) Dakota County Law Enforcement then created and/or solicited fabricated evidence, knowing the exculpatory Video had been, was or would be soon erased.

26) Please see next my email to Officer Joseph Leko in which I say “Please confirm that per out discussion yesterday you have secured the video of my confinement in solitary confinement and the video in the front of courtroom 1D” (Exhibit 2)

27) Please see next Officer Leko’s responsive email, “Mr. Mashak, detention services division noted that they have the video and secured it with the case file.” (Exhibit 3)

28) Please next see Complainant’s March 17, 2014 letter to Dakota County Sheriff Bellows in which Complainant states, “Please make sure that in addition to those videos, all video of me though out the Court house on the day of my arrest is retained for my defense and for evidence in disciplinary hearings”. Exhibit 5

29) Now, this is the part where being Pro Se and not having any evidence with the criminal justice system comes back to bite Prosecutor Fluegel, Public Pretender Rogosheske and the rest of the criminal conspirators in the arse. On May 30 and June 10, 2014, Complainant sent Data Practices Requests to Dakota County alleged Record Specialist Sally Anderson. Among the requested items is the video Complainant had previously requested as already documented earlier in these facts. (Exhibit 6A)

30) On June 10, 2014, Complainant wrote to Sally Anderson (Exhibit 4), “May I presume you are not allowing any of these records to be destroyed? Or are you conspiring to obstruct justice by allowing the records to be destroyed?”

31) On June 10, 2014, I received a letter from Helen Brosnahan of the Dakota County Attorney office (Exhibit 6B) indicating among other things that “The video recordings you have requested contain data on other individuals which can’t be separated out, and therefore can’t be released without a court order permitting Dakota County to release the information to you See MN Stat 13.82.”

32) Complainant puts it to the jury and/or finder of fact that the video existed at the time of this letter otherwise there would be no way for the Dakota County Attorney’s office to know there were other people in the video.

33) On the morning of the June 11, 2014 hearing before Judge Asphaug, Complainant first went to the Court Clerks window to get Subpoenas with the just belief these would fulfill the same role as a Court order with the Dakota County Attorney and alleged data specialist Sally Anderson.

34) The Dakota County Court Clerks window refused to give Complainant any Subpoenas and said Complainant needed a Judge’s permission. Complainant asked for the Rule Number requiring this procedure but was refused an answer.

35) During the June 11, 2014 hearing before Judge Asphaug, Complainant expressed considerable angst over exculpatory video evidence being destroyed and the Court Clerks window refusing to give him a Subpoena. (Complainant directs the jury and/or finder of

fact to the Transcript of the June 11, 2014 hearing (a copy currently in Appellate Case 14-1425) for written documentation of these facts.)

36) During said hearing, Judge Asphaug said she knew of no rule requiring Complainant to get permission from a Judge to get a subpoena. Judge Asphaug directed the question to Prosecutor Fluegel who also said he was unaware of any such rule.

37) Judge Asphaug indicated that Prosecutor Fluegel would produce the video and Prosecutor Fluegel made no indication at that time that the video was lost, missing or destroyed.

38) On June 17, 2014, apparently responsive to Judge Asphaug’s directive to provide all the subject video to Complainant, Prosecutor Fluegel instead sent Complainant this letter (Exhibit 7). in which he declares that all video except the solitary confinement video has been erased because I did not ask for it until May 30, 2014.

39) In Complainant’s letter to Prosecutor Fluegel of July 23, 2014, Complainant points out that Fluegel made no mention of the erased or missing video during the June 11, 2014 hearing.(Exhibit 8)

40) In Complainant’s letter of July 23, 2014, the last sentence indicates Complainant’s intent to introduce at an upcoming hearing many of the exhibits contained herein.

41) In this same letter of July 23, 2014, Complainant points out that he made request for this video on March 14, 2014 from a Dakota County Officer.

42) Now, one would think that a reasonable person would immediately take note that the video was retained and stored in the case file. But not the cocksure Prosecutor Fluegel with a ton of systemic corruption to help him persecute his agenda.

43) Also on July 23, 2014, Complainant was having an email exchange with now coconspirator Sally Anderson. (Exhibit 9)

44) In email exchange that is Exhibit 9, Anderson talks about video being over written in about 30 days depending on activity levels.

45) In the same email exchange Exhibit 9, Anderson says that if the Sheriff pulls video for an investigation, they request it and it the retention on that portion of the video becomes the same as that of an investigative file.

46) And so in the Email Exchange Exhibit 9, Complainant follows up by asking for the evidence retention times for Misdemeanors and complaints against officers.

47) To which, also in Exhibit 9, Anderson says Misdemeanors….. 10 years after closing and internal investigation for 6 years after the employee’s separation from employment.

48) Again pursuant to the email exchange Exhibit 9, Complainant informs Anderson she is mistaken, that Complainant has verbal and written communication that much more video was viewed and/or retained by the Sheriff’s Department. (By this point, Complainant was often reticent to give specific information on who may have the video, fearing that would just lead Prosecutor Fluegel to destroy copies of the video that were until that point unknown to him)

49) Clearly video requested to be saved and/or affirmed to be saved in an official complaint and emails confirming retention from a Dakota County Officer in March of 2014 are

required to be retained and available as exculpatory evidence for Complainants defense, yet Dan Fluegel has had them destroyed.

50) At the July 23, 2014 hearing, Complainant intended to introduce all the exhibits introduced so far in these facts.

51) However, at the July 23, 2014 Judge King summarily said Complainant qualified for a Public Defender and Complainant was not allowed to enter these exhibits on the record at said hearing. (There have been no hearings since)

52) On or about July 29, 2014, Complainant again contacted Officer Tim Leslie (Exhibit 10 Page 1 of 3)

53) On August 4, 2014, Complainant has an email exchange with Officer Tim Leslie. (Exhibit 10 Pages 2&3 of 3)

54) Officer Leslie responds that “As part of its investigation into complaint, the Dakota County Sheriff’s office did not request nor did it review a video from inside the courtroom or a video from the public hallway/lobby area outside the courtroom where the general public enters the court room”

55) How is it possible Complainant makes a specific request regarding these videos in his official Citizen Complaint but the Sheriff’s Department, which officer Leslie pledged would do a thorough investigation, chooses not to review the video Complainant cites in his original official Citizens Complaint? A video not reviewed even after Leko has said that the video of my confinement and of outside Courtroom 1D have been secured in the CASE FILE?

56) It was by accident and only upon Complainant’s initiative that Complainant found out that Judge King was not from a different County. And given the loose cannons rolling around Dakota County, Complainant felt he could not immediately redress the matter with Judge King, lest more trumped up charges appear. Judge King would only say no order was in the file.

57) Complainant’s subsequent letters to Judge Asphaug went unanswered.58) A phone call to Judge Asphaug’s Legal Assistant alleged some administrative snafu but

also a refusal to reduce the Order to writing.59) At about this point, Complainant made an appeal to the Appellate Court to force the

matter to be heard by a Judge from outside the County MN App. Ct 14-1425.60) Complainant was next supposed to be represented by Public Pretender Ms. Lightbody,

who after reading the file removed herself and became a witness against Complainant.61) Complainant was then supposed to be represented by Public Pretender Alexander

Rogosheske.62) Send in the clowns. In my first two conversations with Public Defender Rogosheske, he

never asked me basic information like “my side of the story”; evidence to support my innocence, witnesses to my innocence, etc. Nor did Rogosheske seem overly interested in resolving the refusal to force Judge Asphaug’s order from the bench that this matter be heard by a judge from a different county. Complainant repeatedly asked Mr. Rogosheske

to get Prosecutor Fluegel to commit in writing that he has done an extensive search for the video and it is gone, but Mr. Rogosheske refuses.

63) Complainant met once by phone on or about August 29, 2014 with Rogosheske.64) In that first conversation, Complainant immediately sensed Rogosheske was attempting

to aid and abet Prosecutor Fluegel in fixing the case against me. When Rogosheske could not successfully use that “Lawyers Intimidation yelling” technique to cow me down, Rogosheske said Complainant should fire him. This being Complainant first time at the criminal prosecution dog and pony show, Complainant was unsure what his options were and so did not fire Rogosheske at that time.

65) Complainant met with Public Pretender Rogosheske in person at a restaurant in St. Paul MN on or about Sept ember 3, 2014. Public Pretender Rogosheske tried the same lawyer sly and slick tactics again in trying to fix this case against Complainant.

66) During the conversation, Complainant tried to explain to Rogosheske that not only was the missing video exculpatory, it could be used in possible future disciplinary actions and litigation against Dakota County Coconspirators.

67) Rogosheske’s approximate statement was that it was “no big deal the video was destroyed and it was probably a good thing the video was destroyed because it probably would show me in a bad light”. That was the final straw in Complainant not just losing confidence in Rogosheske but in reaching the conclusion Rogosheske was working against Complainant’s best interests.

68) Unnamed sources in the Courts told Complainant he could request another Public Defender.

69) The Public Defender’s office, namely Steve Holmgren, refuses to replace Mr. Rogosheske, to this Complainant mind proving just how systemically corrupt the Minnesota Justice System is. (Exhibit 11)

70) The Public Defender’s office says Complainant is stuck with Rogosheske (who obviously is committed to fixing the case against me) or Complainant can fire Rogosheske and represent himself. How do either of these two options sound compatible with the Rule of Law?

71) It is telling that Public Pretender Rogosheske did not start asking for Complainant’s side of the story until after Complainant began asking for Rogosheske to be removed as my Public Defender.

72) On October 3, 2014, Public Pretender Rogosheske sends an email (Exhibit 12) that says he wants a meeting to discuss Complainants “version of the incident as well as any relevant evidence you may have”. This evidences the fact that Rogosheske did not ask these questions during the first phone call, the first meeting and for more than a month, and only after Complainant began requesting Rogosheske’s removal. For the general Public reading this, Shouldn’t a legitimate lawyers legitimate representation begin with asking their client, “What is your side of the story?” and “Do you have any evidence that supports your position?”

73) If Public Pretender Rogosheske was actually representing the best interests Complainant, all of this information Complainant has submitted would already have been in his possession and submitted to the Court, instead of half-hearted motions with no evidence to support them.

74) There are no recognizable issues in the District Court’s jurisdiction. Before Complainant even contemplates pleading “Not Guilty”, the State needs to establish that there even are recognizable issues that come under the District Court’s jurisdiction

75) It has been more than nine months since Complainants arrest and he has not been provided an omnibus hearing.

76) For Don Mashak’s regular readers, this is an example of how your corrupt, Progressive Government punishes whistleblowers, the Press that dares write the truth and the voices of political dissent. This also is demonstrative of the source of frustration amongst residents of Ferguson, MO.

LAW

CIVIL LIABILITY FOR POLICE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE http://www.aele.org/law/2009all09/2009-09MLJ101.pdf

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Brady v. Maryland, #490, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), established clearly that prosecutors have an affirmative duty, as a matter of constitutional law, to disclose all known exculpatory evidence to the accused in a criminal proceeding. If the prosecution suppresses evidence favorable to an accused, it violates due Process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What is “exculpatory evidence”? It is any evidence in the possession of the government that could be favorable to the accused. It includes not only evidence relevant to the issue of guilt, but also evidence relevant to the issue of the appropriate punishment. And Subsequent cases have also made it crystal clear that “exculpatory evidence” includes evidence reflecting on whether witnesses against the accused are credible, which might be used by the defendant’s attorney at trial for purposes of impeachment. Giglio v. United States.450 U.S. 150 (1972).

If a witness against the defendant is testifying, in part, because they’ve been offered the prospect of their own potentially lighter sentence on pending criminal charges, or even a promise not to prosecute them, this must be disclosed, as must such motivations for testifying as the promise of a financial reward for doing so. The motivation of the witness for testifying, and the possibility that they might be motivated by something other than a desire to tell the truth (or even have a powerful motive to lie),is material highly valued by defendants and their counsel for use in court.

Police officers are often witnesses in criminal proceedings, and the Principles in Brady and Giglio mandate that facts (such as any indication of having written false reports in the past) bearing on an officer’s veracity and credibility must also be disclosed. Additionally, the courts have held that this obligation on the part of the prosecution is an ongoing one, one that even extends beyond a finding of guilt in a criminal trial. A prosecutor who comes

into possession or knowledge of exculpatory evidence after a trial, therefore, is required to then disclose it to the defendant or his counsel, who can use the information in the context of post-trial motions, direct appeals of a conviction or sentence, and in seeking habeas relief in state or federal court.

Under these decisions, the expectation is that law enforcement agencies that have investigated a crime and developed the evidence that a prosecutor is going to use to carry out a prosecution will make the prosecutor also aware of potentially exculpatory evidence, as defined by the case law, so that the prosecution may disclose it to the defense.

Brady and its progeny have also firmly stated that the “good faith” or “bad faith” of a prosecutor in failing to disclose exculpatory evidence does not matter.

The consequences of failing to do so, in the context of a criminal prosecution can be severe. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Kyles v. Whitley, #93-7927, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), for example, ruled that a failure to disclose exculpatory Brady material means that a conviction cannot be upheld if a reasonable probability is found that the evidence would have produced a different trial result. If a habeas petitioner establishes such a “reasonable probability, the error committed cannot be found “harmless.” What about when the exculpatory evidence is not in the hands of a prosecutor, but in the possession of a law enforcement investigating agency? In United States v. Blanco 103 #03 - 10390, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 26815, 392 F.3d 382 (9th Cir. 2004), the court reasoned that:

“exculpatory evidence cannot be kept out of the hands of the defense just because the prosecutor does not have it, where an investigating agency does. That would undermine Bradyby allowing the investigating agency to prevent production by keeping a report out of the prosecutor’s hands until the agency decided the prosecutor ought to have it, and by allowing the prosecutor to tell the investigators not to give him certain materials unless he asked for them.”

Understandably, therefore, prosecutors are concerned that police officers understand the nature of the obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence, and the consequences of failure to do so, to encourage officers to bring such material to the prosecutor’s attention.

Both prosecutors’ offices and police departments have conducted training about Brady obligations.

This case, Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco, #06-15426, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13885 (9th Cir.), was filed by two men in California who wound up serving close to 13 years being incarcerated on a conviction for murder in a purportedly gang-related murder before being set free based on a finding of factual innocence.

On the plaintiffs’ lawsuit against the investigators, the federal appeals court rejected the investigators’ defense that the duty to disclose Exculpatory evidence was not theirs, but the prosecutor’s alone.

The appeals court pointed to language in Youngblood v. West Virginia, 547 U.S. 867 (2006), in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated that Brady is violated when the government fails to turn over even evidence that is “known only to police investigators and not to the prosecutor.” It also cited Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747 (7thCir. 2001) for the Proposition that it was clearly established, as long ago as 1979 and 1980, that police could not withhold exculpatory information about fingerprints and the conduct of a lineup from prosecutors.

Legal elements of malicious prosecution

Malicious prosecution is legally defined in Minnesota as follows:

(1) An action is brought without probable cause or reasonable belief that the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits,

(2) The action is instituted and prosecuted with malicious intent, and

(3) The action is terminated in the defendant's favor

See Stead-Bowers v. Langley, 636 N.W.2d 334, 338 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn.Feb. 19, 2002).

Legal elements of abuse of process

Abuse of process is using the legal process to try to obtain a result that's beyond the scope of the process.

"The essential elements for a cause of action for abuse of process are the existence of an ulterior purpose and the act of using the process to accomplish a result not within the scope of the proceedings in which it was issued, whether such a result might otherwise be lawfully obtained or not."

Rule 9.01 Disclosure by Prosecution

Subd. 1. Disclosure by Prosecution Without Order of Court. Without order of court and except as provided in Rule 9.01, subd. 3, the prosecuting attorney on request of defense counsel shall, before the date set for Omnibus Hearing provided for by Rule 11, allow access at any reasonable time to all matters within the prosecuting attorney's possession or control which relate to the case and make the following disclosures:

(1) Trial Witnesses; Grand Jury Witnesses; Other Persons.

(a) The prosecuting attorney shall disclose to defense counsel the names and addresses of the persons intended to be called as witnesses at the trial together with their prior record of convictions, if any, within the prosecuting attorney's actual knowledge. The prosecuting attorney shall permit defense counsel to inspect and reproduce such witnesses' relevant written or

recorded statements and any written summaries within the prosecuting attorney's knowledge of the substance of relevant oral statements made by such witnesses to prosecution agents.

(b) The fact that the prosecution has supplied the name of a trial witness to defense counsel shall not be commented on in the presence of the jury.

(c) If the defendant is charged by indictment, the prosecuting attorney shall disclose to defense counsel the names and addresses of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury in the case against the defendant.

(d) The prosecuting attorney shall disclose to defense counsel the names and the addresses of persons having information relating to the case.

(2) Statements. The prosecuting attorney shall disclose and permit defense counsel to inspect and reproduce any relevant written or recorded statements which relate to the case within the possession or control of the prosecution, the existence of which is known by the prosecuting attorney, and shall provide defense counsel with the substance of any oral statements which relate to the case.

(3) Documents and Tangible Objects. The prosecuting attorney shall disclose and permit defense counsel to inspect and reproduce books, grand jury minutes or transcripts, law enforcement officer reports, reports on prospective jurors, papers, documents, photographs and tangible objects which relate to the case and the prosecuting attorney shall also permit defense counsel to inspect and photograph buildings or places which relate to the case.

(4) Reports of Examinations and Tests. The prosecuting attorney shall disclose and permit defense counsel to inspect and reproduce any results or reports of physical or mental examinations, scientific tests, experiments or comparisons made in connection with the particular case. The prosecuting attorney shall allow the defendant to have reasonable tests made. If a scientific test or experiment of any matter, except those conducted under Minn. Stat. Ch. 169, may preclude any further tests or experiments, the prosecuting attorney shall give the defendant reasonable notice and an opportunity to have a qualified expert observe the test or experiment.

(5) Criminal Record of Defendant and Defense Witnesses. The prosecuting attorney shall inform defense counsel of the records of prior convictions of the defendant and of any defense witnesses disclosed under Rule 9.02, subd. 1(3)(a) that are known to the prosecuting attorney provided the defense counsel informs the prosecuting attorney of any such records known to the defendant.

( 6) Exculpatory Information. The prosecuting attorney shall disclose to defense counsel any material or information within the prosecuting attorney's possession and control that tends to negate or reduce the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged.

(7) Scope of Prosecutor's Obligations. The prosecuting attorney's obligations under this rule extend to material and information in the possession or control of members of the prosecution staff and of any others who have participated in the investigation or evaluation of the case and who either regularly report or with reference to the particular case have reported to the prosecuting attorney's office.

Subd. 2. Discretionary Disclosure Upon Order of Court.

(1) Matters Possessed by Other Governmental Agencies. Upon motion of the defendant, the court for good cause shown shall require the prosecuting attorney, except as provided by Rule 9.01, subd. 3, to assist the defendant in seeking access to specified matters relating to the case which are within the possession or control of an official or employee of any governmental agency, but which are not within the control of the prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney shall use diligent good faith efforts to cause the official or employee to allow the defendant access at any reasonable time and in any reasonable manner to inspect, photograph, copy, or have reasonable tests made.

(2) Nontestimonial Evidence from Defendant on Defendant's Motion. Upon motion of the defendant who has been arrested, cited or charged under these rules, the court for good cause shown may require the prosecuting attorney to provide for defendant to participate in a lineup, to speak for identification by witnesses or to participate in other procedures which would require a court order to accomplish.

(3) Other Relevant Material. Upon motion of the defendant, the trial court at any time before trial may, in its discretion, require the prosecuting attorney to disclose to defense counsel and to permit the inspection, reproduction or testing of any relevant material and information not subject to disclosure without order of court under Rule 9.01, subd. 1, provided, however, a showing is made that the information may relate to the guilt or innocence of the defendant or negate the guilt or reduce the culpability of the defendant as to the offense charged. If the motion is denied, the court upon application of the defendant shall inspect and preserve any such relevant material and information.

ARGUMENT AND CONCLUSION

Clearly here, Dakota County employees and officials destroyed the exculpatory video evidence because the video exonerated Complainant and implicated them in various crimes. Dakota County employees were resorting to the tried and true strategy of you lie and I will swear to it. Absent the exculpatory video evidence, it would be their word against Complainants, and if they had it their way it would be before one of their own friendly judges.

There should be a criminal investigation of this matter by the FBI and the Minnesota Attorney General’s office. Clearly Complainant told law enforcement personnel of Dakota County to retain the video for his defense. While it should have been enough to include the DEMAND to

retain the video within the Formal Complaint filed 2 days after the arrest, Complainant has Sergeant Leko email verifying the retention of the solitary confinement video and the video of the arrest outside of Courtroom 1D. It should trouble this the powers that be in Minnesota Government and all Americans that Dakota County Law Enforcement had the gall to say they did not review the video even though the demand to retain the video for Complainants defense was contained in the Formal Complaint filed a couple days after the incident. CLEARLY THE VIDEO WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IF THE EVIDENCE HELPED THE PROSECUTION OF THE MATTER. IT WAS PURPOSELY DESTROYED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE VIDEO WAS EXCULPATORY.

Still, despite the overwhelming evidence that the video was exculpatory and has now been intentionally destroyed, Prosecutor Fluegel keeps wasting tax payer money and violating his oath of office, to pursue this bogus matter. And Public Pretender Rogosheske continues to aid and abet this malicious prosecution.

Clearly, this started out as an attempt to prevent the press from covering allegations of corruption of Dakota County Law Enforcement via complicity in the local drug trade. Clearly this persecution of Complainant has turned into the furtherance of the ongoing Progressive FBI MLK COINTELPRO style operation to demonize, discredit and marginalize Complainant for being a perceived leader of political dissent in Minnesota.

And this voice of political dissent puts it to his eventual readers of this saga of injustice:

1) How many of you would have just accepted the verbal word of a police officer or government official that the exculpatory Video evidence had been saved?

2) How screwed would Don Mashak be if he had just taken the word of Dakota County officials and not reduced the conversations to writing?

3) How many of you could defend yourself in this legal minefield of lawyers who pretend to be representing your best interests but are not?

4) How many of you now understand the true nature of your government?5) And how many of you now have a partial understanding of the source of the angst and

frustration of the citizens of Ferguson MO?

But this is the alleged Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility Board. Complaints here most often disappear down a black hole. This is by design. The Minnesota Legislature unconstitutionally delegated its Constructional duty to oversee and discipline Judges and Lawyers to the Judiciary. Thisis even worse than the fox guarding the hen house. In a better descriptive scenario our government has disguised a “legal slaughterhouse” as an innocent looking henhouse, and sends citizens through it without warning of what really lies ahead.

However, on the off chance that the Lawyers’ Board finds the exposure to sunlight this matter is about to receive enough to motivate it to do the right thing, suggests this. Dan Fluegel and Alexander Rogosheske should be disbarred to demonstrate these behaviors will not be tolerated.

And, further, there should be a full investigation and disciplining of all the coconspirators. However, the first thing that should be done is the single bogus charge of Disorderly Conduct against Complainant should be unilaterally dropped by the powers that be.

While I have no faith in your organization, I believe it will be useful to use your handling of this matter to alert all Americans as to the true nature of their government. Please consider this well documented proof of WE THE PEOPLE’s Fourth attempt to peacefully redress our government’s long train of abuses.

Those were my thoughts.

In Liberty,

Don MashakThe Cynical PatriotRt 1 Box 231Albertville MN 55301

11/15/2014

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

CASE TITLE:

Don MashakAppellant,

APPELLATE COURT CASE NO: A14-1425vs.

TRIAL COURT CASE NO: 19HA-CR-14-1019State of MinnesotaRespondent.To Clerk of Appellate Courts 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd #305 St. Paul MN 55155

MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE RELIEF AND EXPIDITED HEARING

Appellant originally brought this appeal because of Dakota County’s Rule violating shenanigans involving refusing to enforce Judge Asphaug’s order from the bench that the matter be heard by a Judge outside the County.

Even this appeal was not enough to cause Dakota County to immediately move to comply with Judge Asphaug’s Order from the bench. And only recently did Appellant get written notice that allegedly a Judge from another county is going to hear this matter. However, this was not in conformance with Appellant’s request that the matter be held in either Ramsey or Hennepin County representing midpoints for travel.

And since Appellant initiated this appeal, other disturbing events have since occurred which give rise to Appellants Motion. This matter is not being handled pursuant to the Rule of Law and/or in accordance with Appellants Natural Rights, Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights and the evidentiary rules.

Please find attached Appellants complaint to the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, laid out in such a way to comply with Motion Practice. From the facts therein this Court will see that exculpatory evidence in the form of video is no longer available to Appellant(Spoilage). Despite verbal and written assurances that video from his solitary confinement, his arrest outside of Dakota County Courtroom 1D and all other video of his travels within the Dakota County Court in question would be and were secured and in some instances, specifically retained in the Case file, the vast majority of exculpatory video has been destroyed. And this Appellant would openly assert that it was done at the direction of Prosecutor Dan Fluegel.But destroying the exculpatory video was not enough, Dakota County sent Complainant a Public Defender who lived up to the term Public Pretender. Amongst the things that revealed Alexander Rogosheske was not acting in the best interest of Appellant his client, was his approximate statement that the video being destroyed was not that big of a deal and that “it was probably good that it was destroyed as it probably would show appellant in a bad light”.

The fabrication of evidence, Dakota County’s failure to thoroughly investigate Complainant’s Citizen Complaint, the destruction of exculpatory video evidence, the irregularities surrounding Dakota County trying to prevent the matter from being heard by a Judge outside the County despite Judge Asphaug’s order from the bench to do so, the continuing refusal of Dakota County

to give Complainant Subpoenas, the terroristic threats made by Dakota County officials while Complainant was wrongfully incarcerated, and the clear and distinct evidence that Complainant’s alleged Public Defender was not acting in Complainant’s best interests as required by Rogosheske’s oath and law, give rise to Complainant’s reasonable belief that the new judge finally appointed months after Complainant’s appeal 14-1425 is simply a “ringer” that our systemically corrupt judiciary can count on to Engineer a guilty verdict against Complainant, pursuant to the Rule of Man rather than the Rule of Law.

To sum up the preponderance of irregularities in this matter to date:

1) Bogus arrest of member of the press.2) Terroristic threats against Complainant while confined.3) Failure of Dakota Count Police to do a thorough investigation of Complainant’s Citizen

Complaint.4) Alleged Failure of Dakota County Police to do a thorough investigation of Complainant’s

complaint by allegedly not viewing the Video Complainant referenced in Complainant’s official Citizen Complaint.

5) Attempts to countermand Judge Asphaug’s ruling that the matter be heard by a judge from outside of Dakota County to insure an impartial judge presides.

6) Destruction of exculpatory video evidence after verbal and written assurance it would be retained.

7) Fabrication of evidence.8) Continuing refusal of Dakota County Courts to allow Complainant to obtain subpoenas.9) Clear and convincing evidence Complainants own Public Defender was not acting in

Complainant’s best interests.10) Suspicious delay in appointing a judge from another county to the case months after

Judge Asphaug’s original June 11, 2014 order from the bench and Appellant’s appeal

To the point, Appellant asserts that these irregularities have risen to the level where Appellant faces the impossibility of getting a fair and impartial trial. To wit, the facts show this matter against Appellant should be summarily dismissed. (In a second, far less desirable alternative, this Appellant would ask this Court to order this matter be heard in Hennepin or Ramsey County by a Judge, from said county, who was first elected rather than appointed to the bench, and that Appellant be provide a legitimate and bonafide Public Defender from the respective County to represent Appellant/Defendant) Still further, that there should be an overt or covert investigation of the Dakota County Governance and Judiciary to make sure no further citizens be denied the Justice pursuant to the Rule of Law that is their Natural and Constitutional Right.

Appellant suggests to this Appellate Court that it needs to dramatically demonstrate to the American Public that insuring justice for all Americans is the overriding concern in the Administration of criminal justice. And that this priority overrides concern for the consequences to the careers of Government personnel who engage in such criminal obstruction of justice. Appellant reminds this Court that most Americans lack the grasp of the law that this Appellant possesses (and even Appellant’s knowledge of the law is far from complete and fluent) and so the frustration American’s feel when they have a feeling injustice has been inflicted upon them but they can’t “put a finger on it” displays itself as violent protests such as we have recently seen

in Ferguson, MO. Appellant asserts that a read of the facts and the evidence provided in his complaint to the Minnesota Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility Board will bring this Court to the conclusion that it must act, or have the chaos and corruption that prevails in Dakota County, MN be seen as a reflection upon themselves.

How many more citizens, less able to defend themselves than this present Appellant, will this Appellate Court allow Dakota County to throw under the bus because average Americans lack sufficient knowledge of the law and the system, thus making them vulnerable to duplicitous lawyers they are told they should trust?

Those were my thoughts.

In Liberty,

Don Mashak11/15/2014

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALSCASE TITLE:

Don Mashak AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICEAppellant,

APPELLATE COURT CASE NO: A14-1425vs.

TRIAL COURT CASE NO: 19HA-CR-14-1019State of MinnesotaRespondent.STATE OF MINNESOTACOUNTY OF __________________

I, Don Mashak, being first duly sworn, depose and say that on 11/14/2014, I served the attached

1) Motion for Immediate Relief and Expedited Hearing;2) Complaint to the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board;3) 12 Exhibits consisting of Letters and Emails.

on the following parties by mailing to each of them a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope, postage pre-paid, and by depositing the same in the United States Mail, direct to said party as follows:

Clerk of Appellate Courts MN State Attorney GeneralClerk of District Court 305 MN Judicial Center 445 Minnesota Street #14001560 Hwy 55 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. BlvdSt. Paul MN 55101Hasting MN 55033St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 800-657-3787Phone: 651-438-8199

Except that deliver to the following two parties

Prosecutor Dan FluegelPublic Defender Alexander Rogosheske999 Westview Dr St 1 105 Hardman Court, Suite 110Hastings, MN 55303-2432 South St. Paul, MN 55075Telephone No:651-438-9777 651-451-6411

Was made via the Minnesota Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility, their licensures who the rules prescribe must forward all complaints about them, to them for response: At MN Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, 345 St. Peter Street #1500 St. Paul, MN 55102-1218

______________________________Signature Don Mashak

Dated:________________________

NOTARY:__________________________________

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

CASE TITLE:

Don Mashak AFFIDAVIT OF DON MASHAKAppellant,

APPELLATE COURT CASE NO: A14-1425vs.

TRIAL COURT CASE NO: 19HA-CR-14-1019State of MinnesotaRespondent.To Clerk of Appellate Courts 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd #305 St. Paul MN 55155

AFFIDAVIT OF DON MASHAK

I, Don Mashak, do hereby affirm and attest that all of the facts I provided in Appellants Motion for Immediate Relief and Expedited hearing, and Complaint to the Minnesota Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility Board are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

The above I do affirm and swear to under penalty of perjury:

___________________________

Don Mashak Signed and Sworn before me

Pro Se and In Propea Persona his day ________________, 2014

Rt 1 Box 231

Albertville MN 55301 ___________________________

Notary Public

If this document is received unexecuted, an executed copy will follow shortly.

12/18/2014

Chief Judge Terrence E. Conkel, Minnesota First Judicial District

830 11th Street EastGlencoe, MN 55336Phone:  320/864-1281 Fax:  320/864-5905

Don MashakPOB 231Albertville MN 55301

RE: Lawyer’s Board Direction to Contact you re Public Defender.19HA-CR-14-1019 A14-1425

Hello:

I have appealed this matter to the Minnesota Appellate Court and the Minnesota Lawyer’s alleged Professional Responsibility Board (MNLPRB). The Courts have written the rules such that the Government can wrongfully harass anyone they want for as long as they want; Thisdespite overwhelming and incontrovertible facts in evidence which demonstrate pursuant to the Rule of Law, the matter should be immediately dismissed. (see attached Rulings of MN Appellate Court and MNLPRB). The Appellate Court essentially says I must be wrongfully convicted before they can address the Matter and the MNLPRB says that the Courts have written the Rule such that no Defendant can complain about the incompetence of their Public Pretender. (And the Courts wonder where the term Public Pretender comes from? And why folks across the Country are rioting in the streets about events in Ferguson MO and New York?) I would appeal both the Appellate Ruling and MNLPRB ruling, but in the First Instance I have to wait to be in jail first and in the second instance Judicial tyrants have written the rules such that there is no appeal. In the second instance, I would argue that the acts of the Public Pretender go beyond mere incompetence and rise to the level of criminal intent and criminal conspiracy to obstruct Justice. But I am left with this seemingly dubious method of recourse, and I must pursue to document the record for appeal and for posterity. As I have written about this matter in extensive detail in the attached pleadings, what I write in here, in whatis essentially a cover letter to those briefs, is merely a summary.

In short, I attended the hearing of Sperling v Sperling earlier this year as a member of the press. Ms.Sperling alleged that her husband was getting preferential treatment from the Dakota County Courts and Law Enforcement. Ms. Sperling alleged the local law enforcement were/are complicit in the local drug trade. Ms. Sperling alleged that her husband’s preferential treatment was based on his role as the supplier of the local drug trade. The interest to a member of the press, and the protections and rights of the press, should be obvious.

To the point, Public Defender Alexander Rogosheske only met with me essentially twice, once by phone and once in person at a bar/restaurant. In the first meeting, Rogosheske yelled at me in the protocol manner Lawyer’s use to cow clients into submission when the “fix” is in. The second meeting in person was similarly turbulent. However, there are 3 points which betrayed Rogosheske’s true intent. First, Rogosheske never asked me my version of the incident. I don’t know how any attorney expects to represent their client without knowing their version of events. Second, Rogosheske told me approximately that “it was probably a good thing the video was destroyed as it would likely show me in a bad light.” Now any competent lawyer knows that destruction of exculpatory evidence, deliberate or otherwise, is grounds for immediate dismissal. And Rogosheske never asked what evidence or witnesses I could produce in my defense. And because Rogosheske never asked me for my version of the incident or evidence and/or witnesses, Mr. Rogosheske did not know about my three written requests to Dakota County Law Enforcement within hours and days of the incident that all the video be retained. Only after this point did someone from the Courts tell me I could ask for a different Public Defender. But that apparently does not apply when the fix is in and the matter is NOT being handled in a manner consistent with Due Process and the Rule of Law.

I allege the charge of Disorderly Conduct against me was trumped up to prevent me from covering the hearing. And it was successful as they held me in solitary confinement for hours until after the Courthouse Closed. During the Course of my wrongful imprisonment, I got to hear a Bailiff tell me approximately that, “I can blow someone’s face off and the union will have me back on the job the next day.” As we all know now, police learn how to make their threats plausibly deniable and as the minutes, hours and days have went by, the true meaning and intent of this officer’s statement has become even clearer than the moment it was spoken.

From the very beginning, I told Dakota County Personnel I wanted all of the video from the arrest in front of courtroom 1D and of my incarceration viewed and retained for both my citizens complaint and any future Court proceedings. Virtually every Dakota County Official I spoke to I made that verbal demand. In at least three written communications within 24 to a few days after the incident, I repeated my demand. The most difficult one Dakota County has to refute is contained in the actual citizen’s complaint.(see attached)I also made the request in writing and got a written confirmation of that the video of my arrest outside Courtroom 1D and within the holding cell were retained and place “in the file” And a letter sent to the Sheriff’s Department requesting that all video of me anywhere in the courthouse be retained. (See these 3 Exhibits in the attached MNLPRB and Appellate Proceedings.) But as the fix was in, various people lost track of the facts when they were building upon their lies and fabricated evidence. They forgot about these requests and insisted I didn’t make my initial request until May, after the videos had already been automatically overwritten. As you can see from the exhibits, my requests to retain the videos were made in writing within hours and days of the incident in March. Common sense should evidence that a person making those requests in writing is also making verbal requests. And you can see evidence of the video being deliberately destroyed in other exhibits in the attached pleadings.

Right now, my choices are to be represented by a Public Defender who is conspiring with the Prosecutor to fix the case against me or fire the Public Defender and represent myself. I do not believe this is the Rule of Law the Founder’s had in mind at the inception of our country. But the apparently the only other remedy I have is to ask you to appoint another Public Defender to this matter and specifically charge them with representing me fully and not aiding and abetting the prosecutor in fixing this case against me.

None of what is transpiring here seems to be consistent with the Rule of Law, Judicial economy, and/or Protection of any Defendants Rights, but rather the rules the Courts have written seem to have been intended to allow the Minnesota Judiciary to be used terrorize and punish citizens and the voices of political dissent, prevent transparency and accountability, and pursue the Progressive Agenda to “condition” the masses into passive submission. In my humble opinion this matter should be immediately dropped, for a variety of reasons both included and excluded from this correspondence. But short of that, I need a real defense attorney not a Public Pretender who has already exposed his true colors.

Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,

Don Mashak

1/6/2014

Chief Judge Terrence E. Conkel, Minnesota First Judicial District

830 11th Street EastGlencoe, MN 55336 > Phone:  320/864-1281 Via Fax:  320/864-5905

Don MashakPOB 231Albertville MN 55301

RE: Your letter regarding my letter of 12/18/2014

Hello:

I am responding regarding your letter in which you state you are sending this matter an all the materials back to the Public Defenders office. I am writing this letter to preserve issues for appeal and to point out to my fellow citizens the sham that passes as justice in Minnesota.

Did you not even read the attached decision from the Minnesota Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility Board stating one of my next avenues of redress was the Chief Judge, that in this instance being you?

Do you folks just enjoy playing games with us citizens in Professor Jonathan Gruber Fashion. That being “the masses are too stupid to know what’s good for them, therefore Government Educated Elites can lie to them?”

I presume you are complicit with fixing this case against me. Exculpatory video evidence destroyed, the Public Defender telling me “its probably a good thing” it was destroyed. The man then sent motion hugely deficient in Citations but more importantly exhibits. Because Public Pretender Rogosheske neve asked me, the Defendant, my side of the story he also never asked me what evidence and witnesses I had that would corroborate my side of the story. Those exhibits being amongst the many documents I sent you. But you Courts having written the rules and case law such that the Government can punish and terrorize anybody they want for as long as they want when clearly my Natural and Constitutional Rights have been violated beyond all reasonable doubt. Like Hitler, our Courts have made rulings and Case Laws that violate the Rights of people, thereby given them the appearance of being legal and just.

What was the reason for the MN Lawyer’s Board referring me to you, if all your were going to do is write that it was a decision better handled by the Public Pretenders Office? All you have done is sent me back to the Public Pretenders office that is conspiring with the Prosecutor to fix this case again me.

Please advise why any citizen should not be upset at this injustice and circular advice? I note the Public Defender’s office has yet to contact me with a response to the materials you sent them.; The fix is in?

Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,

Don Mashak

CC: resent to you Letter from MN Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility Board in re Public Pretender Rogosheske