Resolving Cases ‘On The Merits’, Revisited & Resolución de Casos ‘Sobre el Fondo’, Revisada

*备忘录后显示纯文本 <> 西班牙语之下的中文

Read full reference JAY TIDMARSH’s Denver University Law Review article by Clicking

Resolving Cases ‘On The Merits’, Revisited

first posted on Social Media as follows in this meme:

Resolving Cases ‘On The Merits’, Revisited


Our modern [Judicial] procedural system was built largely on the foundations of Roscoe Pound’s vision.3 That vision, which was first implemented in the Federal Equity Rules in 1912 and then even more fully embraced in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938

3. See Jay Tidmarsh, Pound’s Century, and Ours, 81 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 513, 513 (2006)


Roscoe Pound, Harvard Law Dean 1916-1936

(Roscoe) “Pound Principle” of Jurisprudence

The fundamental reason for the endurance of Pound’s paradigm is its elegant simplicity: it promises to resolve each claim and each issue on its factual and legal merit, without letting procedural technicalities or traps derail the decision. No other vision—for instance, “decide claims by the most efficient means”—captures this most basic aspiration of an ideal civil justice system. Like any aspiration, resolving cases “on the merits” is never perfectly achievable.6 Nevertheless, this paradigm has continued to battle all other policy objectives—such as achieving efficiency, fostering settlements, preventing jury confusion, and balancing party control against active judicial management—in debates over the architecture of our procedural rules.

    When the Social Darwinists (1870s) rebranded as Progressives in the US (1890s), they began an unconventional revolution by slow, covert infiltration. As evinced here, Progressive Elite Judges have been working to slowly change the rules to allow them to more easily fix case outcomes, while still appearing to be acting in the best interest of the masses and our country. Resolving Cases on Technicalities, Summary Judgement and/or Administrative Courts, makes it easier to fix cases and removes the uncertainty of having juries comprised of the allegedly ignorant masses, as part of the process.

Most of the efforts at procedural reform in the past thirty years have been attempts to walk away from, or tamp down the consequences of, Pound’s belief in a simple, uniform, discretionary, “decide each case on its merits” approach to legal procedure.5Although these efforts can loosely be associated with a law-and-economics perspective (in the sense that they are all attempts to rein in perceived excess costs in the present litigation system), it is fair to say that, while we are in the process of rejecting Pound’s paradigm, we have yet to come up with a paradigm to replace it.


In this instance, our traitor Progressive Judiciary argues for Court matters to be resolved by Judges on technicality for efficiency; rather than on Merit by Juries comprised of our peers. The pretext for this change being Economics (saving money). (Let me be clear, by technicality violation my interests is in violations of court rules and procedures in civil matters, not violations of constitutional rights in criminal matters.)  But, in removing Merit to resolve court matters, Progressive Judges ignore the individuals unalienable Natural and Constitutional Rights to Due Process and a Jury Trial. (Apparently, Progressive Judges need a remedial course on what “Unalienable” means.) Progressive Elites have a history of advancing their evil, unconstitutional agenda by making it appear they are acting in the best interests of the masses. [e.g., The Minimum wage was originally conceived as an instrument of Racism. Progressive Elites reasoned that the less productive immigrants, minorities and women would be priced out of the labor market. Progressive Elites sincerely believed only White Men could produce value in excess of the higher Minimum wage. (Page 140, Chapters 5, 7-10, “Illiberal Reformers”, 2016, Thomas Leonard.). Eventually, business would choose to only hire White Men of their own accord, for this reason.]

Most of this thinking flows from the Progressive Elite’s assertions of alleged superiority over the masses (Pages 51-52, Ibid.) Some, but NOT all of the other unconstitutional things Progressive Elites believe, include that the concept of Rights of the Individual is “nonsense” (Page 25, Ibid.), the masses are too ignorant to govern themselves (Pg. 52,) and that the Constitution’s Checks and Balances are outdated and should be ignored (Page 66, Ibid.).

Under Progressive Democratic President Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), the Progressives created a 4th Branch of Government. This Administrative State was created to spearhead the mostly unconstitutional Progressive Agenda, and to reduce government accountability to the masses by being inserted between WE THE PEOPLE and the original 3 Branches of Government. At the point where Progressive Elites took actions to make their unconstitutional thoughts a reality, their actions became Sedition (US 18 Code 2384), Insurrection (US 18 Code 2383) and TREASON (USC Article III, Section 3; & US 18 Code 2381).

Which brings us to the matter of Election Fraud 2020. As we have demonstrated, the Progressive Globalist Insurgency began in earnest circa 1913. As we introduced earlier, the Progressive Globalists premeditated plan was to overthrow our government via nontraditional revolution by slow, covert infiltration over generations so no one generation would notice enough change to resist, revolt or mount a counter-revolution. More than 100 years later, the Progressive Globalist Insurgency assessed that it had infiltrated enough key government positions and consolidated enough power that it could successfully rig an election without WE THE PEOPLE noticing, or at least NOT noticing enough to mount a counter-revolution. And this is how this final, conclusive grab for power has so far played out

The matter of Election Fraud 2020, was decided in an unconstitutional manner, without Due Process nor a Jury, in violation of each SCOTUS Judges’ oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Election Fraud 2020 was wrongfully resolved on Technicality rather than the Merits. And, the appearance that this was “lawful” was only made possible by decades of premeditated, duplicitous, criminal change to the Court Rules and Case Law to make such a decision seem “legal”. This premeditated, duplicitous slow change in Court Rules and Case Law replaced the “Rule of Law” with Progressive “Rule of Man” and “Might Makes Right”. These changes further evince the case that the US Supreme Court’s failure to hear Election Fraud 2020 matters was/were/are acts of Conspiracy Against Rights (US 18 Code 241), Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law (US 18 Code 241), Sedition (US 18 Code 2384), Rebellion and Insurrection (US 18 Code 2383) and TREASON (USC Article III, Section 3; & US 18 Code 2381).


Prove me wrong!


I believe that with the recent series of articles I have written, I have irrefutably demonstrated that WE THE PEOPLE can no longer proceed with our lives as though everything is “normal”, or even will be normal if and when this bogus COVID-19 crisis is ever over. WE THE PEOPLE must begin to act to counter this rising despotism now… Now, while the small actions of many citizens acting in unison provides a good chance of restoring our Republic with the least disruption to each of our lives.

While some suggest more traditional, alternative remedies, I advise otherwise. I suggest that before WE THE PEOPLE consider alternative remedies, we must adapt to this new method of revolution the Progressive Globalist insurgency is utilizing. Most fundamentally, I posit we should begin by: 1) Create unity of the masses, to counter Progressive fomented division; 2) Restore First Principles of our Representative, Constitutionally-Limited Republic that have been erased by Progressive “Common Core” Education and Progressive Mainstream Media. As well as restoring our traditions and values; 3) We must counter the infiltration of Progressives into the leadership of institutions that are supposed to “support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Initially, I think we should concentrate on Law Enforcement and the Military. Perhaps most effective would-be Family members communicating with rank-and-file members in Law Enforcement and the Military during family functions, such as Holidays. For example, discussions about values and expectations of the family if family members in law enforcement and/or the military are UNLAWFULLY ordered to fire upon civilians. Further, asking family members to make sure they Establish Truth for themselves and not to blindly rely upon the representations of superiors (who may be compromised Progressive operatives). And then, to act in a manner they feel best reflects their duty and oath, to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

If others disagree, feel free to so advise. And if others have better ideas for restoring the Republic, please communicate them. I have no compelling need to lead this restoration of the Republic… Please someone else step up with a better plan with a greater chance of success, so I can step aside…

Those were my thoughts.

Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot

This composition inspired by Richard Kovacevich, David Lillehaug, Wells Fargo Bank, NA and William Bunker

Resolución de Casos ‘Sobre el Fondo’, Revisada

Resolución de Casos ‘Sobre el Fondo’, Revisada


Nuestro moderno sistema procesal [judicial] se construyó en gran medida sobre los cimientos de la visión de Roscoe Pound.3 Esa visión, que se implementó por primera vez en las Reglas de Equidad Federal en 1912 y luego se adoptó aún más plenamente en las Reglas Federales de Procedimiento Civil en 1938

  1. Ver Jay Tidmarsh, Pound’s Century, and Ours, 81 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 513, 513 (2006)


Roscoe Pound, Decano de Derecho de Harvard 1916-1936

(Roscoe) ‘Principio de libra’ de jurisprudencia

La razón fundamental de la perdurabilidad del paradigma de Pound es su elegante simplicidad: promete resolver cada reclamo y cada problema según su mérito fáctico y legal, sin permitir que los tecnicismos o trampas procesales descarrilen la decisión. Ninguna otra visión, por ejemplo, ‘decidir las reclamaciones por los medios más eficientes’, captura esta aspiración más básica de un sistema de justicia civil ideal. Como cualquier aspiración, la resolución de casos ‘sobre el fondo’ nunca es perfectamente alcanzable.6 Sin embargo, este paradigma ha continuado luchando contra todos los demás objetivos políticos, como lograr la eficiencia, promover acuerdos, evitar la confusión del jurado y equilibrar el control de los partidos con la gestión judicial activa. —En debates sobre la arquitectura de nuestras reglas procesales.

Cuando los darwinistas sociales (década de 1870) se rebautizaron como progresistas en los Estados Unidos (década de 1890), iniciaron una revolución poco convencional mediante una infiltración lenta y encubierta. Como se demuestra aquí, los jueces de élite progresista han estado trabajando para cambiar lentamente las reglas para permitirles arreglar más fácilmente los resultados de los casos, sin dejar de parecer estar actuando en el mejor interés de las masas y de nuestro país. La resolución de casos sobre tecnicismos, juicios sumarios y / o tribunales administrativos, facilita la resolución de casos y elimina la incertidumbre de tener jurados compuestos por las masas supuestamente ignorantes, como parte del proceso.

La mayoría de los esfuerzos de reforma procesal en los últimos treinta años han sido intentos de alejarse o aplastar las consecuencias de la creencia de Pound en un enfoque simple, uniforme y discrecional de “decidir cada caso por sus méritos” del procedimiento legal. 5 Aunque estos esfuerzos pueden asociarse libremente con una perspectiva de derecho y economía (en el sentido de que todos son intentos de controlar los costos excesivos percibidos en el actual sistema de litigios), es justo decir que, mientras estamos en el proceso de rechazar el paradigma de Pound, todavía tenemos que encontrar un paradigma para reemplazarlo.


En este caso, nuestro traidor Judicial Progresista aboga por que los asuntos de la Corte sean resueltos por los Jueces en términos de tecnicismo para la eficiencia; en lugar de por el mérito de los jurados compuestos por nuestros pares. El pretexto para este cambio es la Economía (ahorrar dinero). (Permítanme ser claro, por tecnicismo me refiero a violaciones de las reglas y procedimientos judiciales en asuntos civiles, no violaciones de los derechos constitucionales en asuntos penales). Pero, al eliminar el mérito para resolver asuntos judiciales, los jueces progresistas ignoran los derechos naturales y constitucionales inalienables de las personas. al debido proceso y un juicio con jurado. (Aparentemente, los jueces progresistas necesitan un curso correctivo sobre lo que significa “inalienable”). Las élites progresistas tienen un historial de promover su agenda malvada e inconstitucional al hacer parecer que están actuando en el mejor interés de las masas. [Por ejemplo, el salario mínimo fue concebido originalmente como un instrumento de racismo. Las élites progresistas razonaron que los inmigrantes, las minorías y las mujeres menos productivas serían excluidos del mercado laboral. Las élites progresistas creían sinceramente que solo los hombres blancos podían producir un valor superior al salario mínimo más alto. (Página 140, Capítulos 5, 7-10, “Reformadores iliberales”, 2016, Thomas Leonard.). Eventualmente, las empresas optarían por contratar solo a hombres blancos propios, por esta razón].

La mayor parte de este pensamiento se deriva de las afirmaciones de la élite progresista de supuesta superioridad sobre las masas (páginas 51-52, ibid.) Algunas, pero NO todas las otras cosas inconstitucionales que creen las élites progresistas, incluyen que el concepto de derechos del individuo es “ tonterías ”(página 25, ibid.), las masas son demasiado ignorantes para gobernarse a sí mismas (pág. 52,) y que los controles y balances de la Constitución están desactualizados y deben ser ignorados (página 66, ibid.).

Bajo el presidente demócrata progresista Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), los progresistas crearon una cuarta rama del gobierno. Este Estado Administrativo fue creado para encabezar la Agenda Progresista, en su mayoría inconstitucional, y para reducir la rendición de cuentas del gobierno a las masas al ser insertado entre NOSOTROS EL PUEBLO y las 3 ramas originales del gobierno. En el momento en que las élites progresistas tomaron medidas para hacer realidad sus pensamientos inconstitucionales, sus acciones se convirtieron en Sedición (Código 18 de EE. UU. 2384), Insurrección (Código 18 de EE. UU. 2383) y TREASON (Artículo III, Sección 3 de USC; y Código 18 de EE. UU. 2381). .

Lo que nos lleva al asunto del Fraude Electoral 2020. Como hemos demostrado, la Insurgencia Globalista Progresista comenzó en serio alrededor de 1913. Como presentamos anteriormente, el plan premeditado de los Globalistas Progresistas era derrocar a nuestro gobierno a través de una revolución no tradicional mediante una infiltración lenta y encubierta sobre generaciones para que ninguna generación se diera cuenta de los cambios suficientes para resistir, rebelarse o montar una contrarrevolución. Más de 100 años después, la Insurgencia Globalista Progresista evaluó que se había infiltrado en suficientes posiciones clave del gobierno y consolidado suficiente poder como para poder manipular con éxito una elección sin que NOSOTROS EL PUEBLO nos diera cuenta, o al menos NO nos diera cuenta lo suficiente para montar una contrarrevolución. Y así es como se ha desarrollado hasta ahora esta toma de poder final y concluyente.

El asunto del Fraude Electoral 2020, se resolvió de manera inconstitucional, sin el debido proceso ni un jurado, en violación del juramento de cada uno de los jueces de SCOTUS de apoyar y defender la Constitución de todos los enemigos, extranjeros y nacionales. El fraude electoral 2020 se resolvió erróneamente por tecnicismo en lugar de méritos. Y, la apariencia de que esto era ‘legal’ solo fue posible gracias a décadas de cambios premeditados, engañosos y criminales en las Reglas de la Corte y la Jurisprudencia para hacer que tal decisión pareciera ‘legal’. Este cambio lento, premeditado y engañoso en las Reglas de la Corte y La jurisprudencia reemplazó el ‘Estado de derecho’ por el ‘Estado del hombre’ progresivo y ‘Podría hacer lo correcto’. Estos cambios evidencian aún más el caso de que el hecho de que la Corte Suprema de los EE. UU. No haya escuchado los asuntos de Fraude Electoral 2020 fue / fueron / son actos de conspiración contra los derechos (Código 18 de los EE. UU. 241), Privación de derechos bajo el color de la ley (Código 241 de los EE. UU. 18), Sedición (Código 18 de EE. UU. 2384), Rebelión e insurrección (Código 18 de EE. UU. 2383) y TREASON (Artículo III de la USC, Sección 3; y Código de EE. UU. 18 2381).


¡Prueba que estoy equivocado!


Creo que con la reciente serie de artículos que he escrito, he demostrado de manera irrefutable que NOSOTROS EL PUEBLO ya no podemos seguir con nuestras vidas como si todo fuera “normal”, o incluso será normal si y cuando esta falsa crisis de COVID-19. se acaba para siempre. NOSOTROS EL PUEBLO debemos comenzar a actuar para contrarrestar este despotismo creciente ahora … Ahora, mientras las pequeñas acciones de muchos ciudadanos actuando al unísono brindan una buena oportunidad de restaurar nuestra República con la menor perturbación en cada una de nuestras vidas.

Si bien algunos sugieren remedios alternativos más tradicionales, yo recomiendo lo contrario. Sugiero que antes de que NOSOTROS EL PUEBLO consideremos remedios alternativos, debemos adaptarnos a este nuevo método de revolución que está utilizando la insurgencia globalista progresista. Fundamentalmente, postulo que deberíamos comenzar por: 1) Crear la unidad de las masas, para contrarrestar la división fomentada por los progresistas; 2) Restaurar los primeros principios de nuestra República representativa, constitucionalmente limitada, que han sido borrados por la educación progresiva de “núcleo común” y los medios progresivos convencionales. Además de restaurar nuestras tradiciones y valores; 3) Debemos contrarrestar la infiltración de los progresistas en el liderazgo de las instituciones que se supone que “apoyan y defienden la Constitución de todos los enemigos, extranjeros y domésticos”. Inicialmente, creo que deberíamos concentrarnos en las fuerzas del orden y las fuerzas armadas. Quizás los posibles miembros de la familia más efectivos se comunican con miembros de base en las fuerzas del orden y las fuerzas armadas durante las funciones familiares, como las vacaciones. Por ejemplo, discusiones sobre los valores y expectativas de la familia si los miembros de la familia en las fuerzas del orden y / o el ejército reciben la orden ILEGAL de disparar contra civiles. Además, pedir a los miembros de la familia que se aseguren de establecer la verdad por sí mismos y que no confíen ciegamente en las representaciones de los superiores (que pueden ser agentes progresistas comprometidos). Y luego, actuar de la manera que consideren que mejor refleja su deber y juramento, de apoyar y defender la Constitución de todos los enemigos, extranjeros y nacionales.

Si otros no están de acuerdo, no dude en avisarnos. Y si otros tienen mejores ideas para restaurar la República, comuníquenlas. No tengo una necesidad imperiosa de liderar esta restauración de la República … Por favor, alguien más dé un paso adelante con un plan mejor con una mayor probabilidad de éxito, para que pueda hacerme a un lado …

Esos fueron mis pensamientos.

Gracias por tu tiempo.

En libertad
Don Mashak
El patriota cínico

Esta composición inspirada en Richard Kovacevich, David Lillehaug, Wells Fargo Bank, NA y William Bunker






我们现代的[司法]程序系统很大程度上建立在Roscoe Pound的愿景的基础上。3这一愿景最初于1912年在《联邦股权规则》中得以实施,然后在1938年的《联邦民事诉讼规则》中得到了更全面的体现。

3.参见庞德的世纪Jay Tidmarsh和我们的《 Notre DAME L. REV》 81。 513,513(2006)

(Roscoe Pound) 罗斯科·庞德,哈佛法学院院长,1916-1936年


庞德范式之所以能够长久,根本原因是其优雅的简单性:它承诺根据其事实和法律价值解决每一项索赔和每个问题,而不会让程序技术性或陷阱破坏决策。 没有其他的愿景——例如,’用最有效的手段决定索赔’——抓住了理想民事司法系统的这一最基本的愿望。与任何愿望一样,’根据案情’解决案件是永远无法完全实现的。 然而,这种模式继续与所有其他政策目标作斗争——例如提高效率、促进和解、防止陪审团混乱、平衡政党控制与积极司法管理——在关于我们程序规则架构的辩论中。


过去三十年来,在程序改革方面,大多数努力都是试图摆脱或淡化庞德相信一种简单、统一、自由裁量、’根据案情决定每个案件’的法律程序方法的后果。 虽然这些努力可以松散地与法律和经济观点联系在一起(从某种意义上说,它们都是试图控制目前诉讼制度中感知到的超额成本),但可以公平地说,虽然我们正在拒绝庞德的范式,但我们尚未提出一个范式来取代它。(第408页)

在本案中,我们的叛徒进步司法机构主张由法官就效率的技术性问题解决法院事项:而不是由我们的同龄人组成的陪审团的功绩。这种变化的借口是经济学(省钱)。(让我说清楚,从技术上来说,我指的是民事事项中违反法院规则和程序的行为,而不是刑事事项中侵犯宪法权利的行为。 但是,进步法官在取消解决法院事务的功绩时,忽视了个人不可剥夺的正当程序自然和宪法权利以及陪审团审判。(显然,进步法官需要就’不可剥夺’的含义进行补救课程。进步精英们有推进其邪恶、违宪议程的历史,他们似乎在为群众的最佳利益行事。[例如,最低工资最初被设想为种族主义的工具。进步精英们认为,生产率较低的移民、少数民族和妇女将被排除在劳动力市场外。进步精英们真诚地相信只有白人才能创造超过更高最低工资的价值。(第140页,第5章,第7-10章,’自由改革者’,2016年,托马斯·伦纳德)。最终,企业会选择只雇用自己的白人,为此。

这种想法大多来自进步精英声称对群众的优越性 (第 51 – 52 页, 同上) 。进步精英们认为,一些,但不是所有其他违宪的事情,包括个人权利的概念是’无稽之谈’(第25页,同上),群众太无知,无法管理自己(第52页),宪法的制衡已经过时,应该忽略(第66页,同上)。

在进步民主党总统伍德罗·威尔逊(1913-1921)的领导下,进步党设立了政府第四分部。建立这个行政国家是为了领导大部分违宪的进步议程,并通过在人民和原来的3个政府部门之间插入来减少政府对群众的责任。在进步精英采取行动使他们的违宪思想成为现实时,他们的行为变成了煽动叛乱(美国18号法典2384)、起义(美国18号法典2383)和叛国(USC第三条,第3节;&US 18法典2381)。

这让我们想到了 2020 年选举舞弊的问题。正如我们所证明的,进步的全球主义叛乱开始于1913年左右。正如我们前面所介绍的,进步的全球主义者有预谋的计划是通过非传统革命推翻我们的政府,通过几代人缓慢、秘密的渗透,这样没有一代人会注意到足够的变化来抵抗、反抗或发动反革命。100多年后,进步的全球主义叛乱组织评估说,它已经渗透到足够的关键政府职位,并巩固了足够的权力,它能够在没有我们人民注意到的情况下成功地操纵选举,或者至少没有注意到足以发动反革命的选举。这就是这场最终决定性的权力争夺战迄今所发挥的。

2020年选举舞弊问题以违宪方式作出,没有正当程序,也没有陪审团,这违反了每个SCOTUS法官支持和捍卫宪法免受国内外所有敌人的伤害的誓言。2020年选举舞弊案是因技术性而非优点而错误地解决的。而且,只有几十年的有预谋、重复的、刑事对《法院规则》和《判例法》的修改才有可能使这一决定看起来’合法’。法院规则和案例法的这种有预谋的、重复的缓慢变化,用渐进式的’人治’和’可能使权利’取代了’法治’。这些变化进一步证明,美国最高法院未能审理2020年选举舞弊案是/现在/是阴谋侵犯权利的行为(美国第18号法典第241条),根据法律颜色剥夺权利(美国 18 法典 241)、煽动叛乱(美国 18 代码 2384)、叛乱和叛乱(美国 18 代码 2383)和叛国(USC 第三条,第 3 节: •美国18代码2381)。



在同一时间,按照我们的创始人提供给我们的处理暴政的路线图,我们人们必须在考虑其他补救措施之前,先废除我们的和平补救措施!我断言,选举2020的欺诈行为以及政府的失败和法院适当地减少了选举2020的问题;证明选举作为一种和平的补救措施已经失去了“我们为人民服务”的能力。 “我们人民”是美国的主权。此外,在我们考虑实施其他补救措施之前,我们必须继续记录所有剩余的和平补救措施。其余的一些和平的补救措施是“普通法大陪审团”和新的“因果宣告”,以我们的创始人于1775年7月6日为例。 (处显示了一个示例。)


尽管有些人建议使用更传统的替代疗法,但我建议不这样做。我建议,在我们人们考虑其他补救办法之前,我们必须适应渐进的全球主义叛乱正在利用的这一新的革命方法。最根本的是,我认为我们应该从以下几点开始:1)建立群众团结,以对抗渐进式分裂。 2)恢复渐进的“共同核心”教育和渐进的主流媒体所抹去的代表宪法限制的共和国的第一原则。以及恢复我们的传统和价值观; 3)我们必须制止进步派渗透到应该“支持和捍卫宪法,使其不受国内外敌对者”的机构的领导下。首先,我认为我们应该集中精力于执法和军事。在家庭活动(例如假期)期间,也许最有效的可能是家庭成员与执法和军方中的普通成员进行沟通。例如,如果在执法和/或军人家庭成员被勒令非法向平民开枪的情况下,关于家庭的价值观和期望的讨论。此外,要求家庭成员确保自己为自己建立真理,而不是盲目依赖上级的代表(上级可能是妥协的进步特工)。然后,以一种他们认为最能体现自己的责任和誓言的方式行事,支持和捍卫宪法,免受国内外敌人的侵害。




唐·马萨克(Don Mashak)

此作品的灵感来自Richard Kovacevich,David Lillehaug,NA,Wells Fargo Bank和William Bunker





我們現代的[司法]程序系統很大程度上建立在Roscoe Pound的願景的基礎上。3這一願景最初於1912年在《聯邦股權規則》中得以實施,然後在1938年的《聯邦民事訴訟規則》中得到了更全面的體現。

3.參見龐德的世紀Jay Tidmarsh和我們的《 Notre DAME L. REV》 81。 513,513(2006)





過去三十年來,程序改革的大多數努力都是試圖擺脫或減少龐德對簡單,統一,可酌情決定的“根據案情決定案件”方法的信念的信念。 5儘管這些努力可以與法律和經濟學的觀點鬆散地聯繫在一起(從某種意義上說,它們都是試圖遏制當前訴訟系統中超額成本的嘗試),但可以公平地說,關於否定龐德的範式,我們還沒有想出一個範式來代替它。


在這種情況下,我們的叛徒進步司法機構主張法院的事項應由法官解決,以提高效率為目的;而不是由我們的同行組成的評審團的功績。此更改的藉口是經濟學(省錢)。 (讓我清楚一點,從技術上講,我的意思是在民事事項上違反法院的規則和程序,而不是在刑事事項上違反憲法的權利。)但是,在消除解決法院事項的優點時,進步法官無視個人不可剝奪的自然權利和憲法權利正當程序和陪審團審判。 (顯然,進步法官需要對“不可剝奪”的含義進行補救課程。)進步精英們有通過使自己看起來符合群眾的最大利益而推進其邪惡的,違憲的議程的歷史。 [例如,最低工資最初被認為是種族主義的工具。進步精英認為,生產力較低的移民,少數民族和婦女將被排除在勞動力市場之外。進步精英真誠地相信,只有白人才能創造出高於最低工資標準的價值。 (第140頁,第5章,第7-10頁,“自由改革者”,2016年,托馬斯·倫納德。)最終,由於這個原因,企業最終會選擇只僱用自己的白人。]


在進步民主黨總統伍德羅·威爾遜(Woodrow Wilson)(1913-1921)的領導下,進步黨建立了政府的第四分支。成立這個行政州的目的是帶頭將大多數違憲的進步議程帶入世界,並通過在WE THE PEOPLE和政府的最初三個分支之間插入政府來減少對群眾的問責制。在進步精英採取行動使違憲思想變為現實的時候,他們的行動變成了煽動叛亂(美國18法規2384),暴動(美國18法規2383)和叛國罪(美國法規第3條第3款;美國18法規2381)。 。

這使我們進入了2020年選舉欺詐問題。正如我們所證明的那樣,漸進的全球主義叛亂始於1913年左右。正如我們早先介紹的那樣,漸進的全球主義者的有預謀的計劃是通過非傳統的革命,通過緩慢的,秘密的滲透來推翻我們的政府。世代相傳,所以沒有哪個世代會注意到足以抵抗,反抗或發動反革命的變化。 100多年後,漸進式全球叛亂組織評估說,它已經滲透了足夠的政府重要職位並鞏固了足夠的權力,以至於在沒有WE THE PEOPLE注意到或至少沒有引起反革命的注意的情況下,它可以成功地進行選舉。到目前為止,這就是最後的決定性權力爭奪的方式。

2020年選舉欺詐問題是在沒有正當程序或陪審團的情況下以違反憲法的方式做出的,違反了每位SCOTUS法官宣誓支持和捍衛憲法,免受國內外敵人攻擊的問題。選舉舞弊2020錯誤地解決了技術性而不是優點。而且,只有數十年來對《法院規則》和《判例法》進行了有預謀性的,雙重性的,刑事性的修改,才使這一決定看起來“合法”,才使這種看起來“合法”的事情成為可能。判例法將“法律規則”替換為漸進的“人的規則”和“力量決定權利”。這些變化進一步證明了以下情況:美國最高法院未能審理2020年選舉欺詐案是/是共謀侵犯權利行為(US 18 Code 241),法律色彩下的權利剝奪(US 18 Code 241),煽動叛亂。 (US 18 Code 2384),叛亂和叛亂(US 18 Code 2383)和叛國罪(USC第三條第3節;以及US 18 Code 2381)。



在同一時間,按照我們的創始人向我們提供的處理暴政的路線圖,我們人們必須在考慮其他補救措施之前,先廢除我們的和平補救措施!我聲明,選舉2020的欺詐行為以及政府的失敗和法院適當地減少了選舉2020的問題;證明選舉作為一種和平的補救措施已經失去了“我們為人民服務”的能力。 “我們人民”是美國的主權。此外,在我們考慮實施其他補救措施之前,我們必須繼續記錄所有剩餘的和平補救措施。其餘的一些和平的補救措施是“普通法大陪審團”和新的“因果宣告”,以我們的創始人於1775年7月6日為例。 (此處顯示了一個示例。)


儘管有些人建議使用更傳統的替代療法,但我建議不這樣做。我建議,在我們人們考慮其他補救辦法之前,我們必須適應漸進的全球主義叛亂正在利用的這一新的革命方法。最根本的是,我認為我們應該從以下幾點開始:1)建立群眾團結,以對抗漸進式分裂。 2)恢復漸進的“共同核心”教育和漸進的主流媒體所抹去的代表憲法限制的共和國的第一原則。以及恢復我們的傳統和價值觀; 3)我們必須制止進步派滲透到應該“支持和捍衛憲法,使其​​不受國內外敵對者”的機構的領導下。首先,我認為我們應該集中精力於執法和軍事。在家庭活動(例如假期)期間,也許最有效的可能是家庭成員與執法和軍方中的普通成員進行溝通。例如,如果在執法和/或軍人家庭成員被勒令非法向平民開槍的情況下,關於家庭的價值觀和期望的討論。此外,要求家庭成員確保自己為自己建立真理,而不是盲目依賴上級的代表(上級可能是妥協的進步特工)。然後,以一種他們認為最能體現自己的責任和誓言的方式行事,支持和捍衛憲法,免受國內外敵人的侵害。




唐·馬薩克(Don Mashak)

此作品的靈感來自Richard Kovacevich,David Lillehaug,NA,Wells Fargo Bank和William Bunker

Harvard Law Dumps US Constitution & La ley de Harvard Elimina la Constitución de EE UU


Harvard Law Dumps US Constitution


Harvard Law Dumps US Constitution


   President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan made several changes as Dean of Harvard Law School. Many commentators have focused on her ban on military recruiting but CNS news reports on another major change — eliminating U.S. Constitutional law as a required course:

    “As dean, Kagan won approval from the faculty in 2006 to make major changes to the Harvard Law’s curriculum.

    “My understanding is that she instituted three new courses to the required curriculum and, in so doing, got rid of a requirement to take constitutional law,” Robert Alt, senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, told

    “Currently, at Harvard, constitutional law is not required for first-year law students, or even for graduation,” Alt added.

    Indeed, according to Harvard documents, constitutional law is NOT listed among the law school’s academic requirements, though the catalogue for 2010-2011 does list more than a dozen elective courses dealing with some form of constitutional law.

    But in a 2006 Harvard news release explaining the changes, Kagan explained the move away from constitutional law was deliberateRead more:

MY TAKE: America was founded upon NATURAL LAW (para 1, Declaration of Independence) & the RULE OF LAW. (The Rule of Law requires one set of laws applied equally to all citizens with no preference for wealth, status or government position) That one set of Laws is our US Constitution. How can you teach the Rule of Law to Lawyers without first teaching them the foundations of the Rule of Law, which is our Constitution? In future CITIZEN GRAND JURY trials [ Read more: ] or conspiracy to commit sedition and treason, and/or in drafting your NEW DECLARATION OF CAUSES [ ] fmake sure to include this chapter of the crime.

This is an example of a battle in the unconventional revolution by slow, covert infiltration by the Progressive Globalist Insurgency, I have long spoken of. As you can see, the Progressives are slowly and covertly infiltrating our Legal System and removing the foundational elements that protect WE THE PEOPLE from the tyranny and despotism of a rogue government.

Those were my thoughts.
Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot

This document inspired by Richard Kovacevich, David Lillehaug, Wells Fargo Bank, NA and William Bunker

La ley de Harvard elimina la Constitución de EE. UU.

La ley de Harvard elimina la Constitución de EE. UU.


La candidata a la Corte Suprema del presidente Obama, Elena Kagan, hizo varios cambios como decana de la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard. Muchos comentaristas se han centrado en su prohibición del reclutamiento militar, pero las noticias de CNS informan sobre otro cambio importante: eliminar la ley constitucional de los EE. UU. Como un curso obligatorio:
“Como decano, Kagan obtuvo la aprobación de la facultad en 2006 para realizar cambios importantes en el plan de estudios de Harvard Law.

‘Tengo entendido que instituyó tres nuevos cursos para el plan de estudios requerido y, al hacerlo, eliminó el requisito de cursar derecho constitucional’, dijo Robert Alt, investigador jurídico senior y subdirector del Centro de Estudios Legales y Judiciales de la Heritage Foundation, le dijo a

“Actualmente, en Harvard, la ley constitucional no es un requisito para los estudiantes de derecho de primer año, ni siquiera para la graduación”, agregó Alt.

De hecho, según los documentos de Harvard, el derecho constitucional NO figura entre los requisitos académicos de la facultad de derecho, aunque el catálogo para 2010-2011 enumera más de una docena de cursos electivos que tratan de alguna forma de derecho constitucional.

Pero en un comunicado de prensa de Harvard de 2006 que explica los cambios, Kagan explicó que el alejamiento del derecho constitucional fue deliberado … Leer más:

MI TOMA: Estados Unidos se fundó sobre la LEY NATURAL (párrafo 1, Declaración de Independencia) y el ESTADO DE DERECHO. (El Estado de derecho requiere que un conjunto de leyes se aplique por igual a todos los ciudadanos sin preferencia por la riqueza, el estatus o la posición gubernamental) Ese conjunto de leyes es nuestra Constitución de los Estados Unidos. ¿Cómo se puede enseñar el Estado de derecho a los abogados sin antes enseñarles los fundamentos del Estado de derecho, que es nuestra Constitución? En futuros juicios del GRAN JURADO CIUDADANO [Leer más:] por conspiración para cometer sedición y traición, y / o en la redacción de su NUEVA DECLARACIÓN DE CAUSAS [] haga asegúrese de incluir este capítulo del crimen.

Este es un ejemplo de una batalla en la revolución no convencional por la infiltración lenta y encubierta de la Insurgencia Globalista Progresista, de la que he hablado durante mucho tiempo. Como puede ver, los progresistas se están infiltrando lenta y encubiertamente en nuestro Sistema Legal y eliminando los elementos fundamentales que protegen a NOSOTROS EL PUEBLO de la tiranía y el despotismo de un gobierno canalla.

Esos fueron mis pensamientos.
Gracias por tu tiempo.

En libertad
Don Mashak
El patriota cínico

Este documento inspirado por Richard Kovacevich, David Lillehaug, Wells Fargo Bank, NA y William Bunker

Citizen Grand Jury, Republic of Texas & Gran Jurado Ciudadano, República de Texas


Citizen Grand Jury, Republic of Texas

Citizen Grand Jury, Republic of Texas
And, so it begins

As announced by “Administering Your Public Servants”

A group of Texas Citizen-Patriots is convening a Citizen Grand Jury on

Tuesday, 9 March 2020, 11 am CST
307 US Highway 67 Frontage Road Est, Keene Texas 76059
The Republic of Texas 888-656-5515

All people are welcome to participate if they live in the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) area

This is an attempt at peaceful remedy intended to put a stop to the corruption.

It is time for “WE THE PEOPLE” to step up and assert our unalienable Natural Rights as the Sovereigns of our Country.

Please RSVP if you plan to attend so I can adjust logistics as necessary.

                Best Regards, Glenn

US Supreme Court Validates People’s Rights to Establish Common Law Grand Jury

In a stunning 6 to 3 decision Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government “governed” and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights. This is the solution to taking back our government county by county . . . state by state! [US vs Williams (1992)]

What Power Does the Common-Law Grand Jury Hold?
“The grand jury is an English institution, brought to this country by the early colonists and incorporated in the Constitution by the Founders. … “to provide a fair method for instituting criminal proceedings against persons believed to have committed crimes.” [Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956),]

The first American Revolution began with the Samuel Adams’ first Committee of Correspondence in 1772.
Per the US Founders, in regard to dealing with tyranny, WE THE PEOPLE must document exhausting our peaceful remedies before we consider alternative remedies. As a side note: Citizen Grand Juries are an attempt at peaceful remedy that we can easily document.

Gran Jurado Ciudadano, República de Texas

Gran Jurado Ciudadano, República de Texas
Y así comienza

Como lo anunció ‘Administrar a sus servidores públicos’

Un grupo de ciudadanos patriotas de Texas está convocando a un gran jurado ciudadano para

   Martes, 9 de marzo de 2020, 11 a. M. CST
   307 US Highway 67 Frontage Road Est, Keene Texas 76059
   República de Texas 888-656-5515

Todas las personas pueden participar si viven en el área de Dallas / Fort Worth (DFW)

Este es un intento de remedio pacífico destinado a detener la corrupción.

Es hora de que “NOSOTROS EL PUEBLO” intensifiquemos y afirmemos nuestros inalienables Derechos Naturales como Soberanos de nuestro País.

Por favor confirme su asistencia si planea asistir para que pueda ajustar la logística según sea necesario.

                Saludos cordiales, Glenn

La Corte Suprema de EE. UU. Valida los derechos de las personas para establecer un gran jurado de derecho consuetudinario

En una asombrosa decisión de 6 a 3, el juez Antonin Scalia, en representación de la mayoría, confirmó que el gran jurado estadounidense no forma parte de los poderes judicial, ejecutivo ni legislativo del gobierno, sino que pertenece al pueblo. En efecto, es una cuarta rama del gobierno ‘gobernada’ y administrada directamente por y en nombre del pueblo estadounidense, y su autoridad emana de la Declaración de Derechos. Esta es la solución para recuperar nuestro gobierno condado por condado. . . estado por estado! [Estados Unidos contra Williams (1992)]

¿Qué poder tiene el gran jurado de derecho consuetudinario?

“El gran jurado es una institución inglesa, traída a este país por los primeros colonos e incorporada a la Constitución por los Fundadores. … ‘para proporcionar un método justo para iniciar procesos penales contra personas que se cree que han cometido delitos’. [Costello contra Estados Unidos, 350 U.S. 359 (1956),]

Nota: La primera Revolución Americana comenzó con el primer Comité de Correspondencia de Samuel Adams en 1772. Según los fundadores de EE. UU., Con respecto a lidiar con la tiranía, NOSOTROS EL PUEBLO debemos documentar el agotamiento de nuestros remedios pacíficos antes de considerar remedios alternativos. Como nota al margen: Citizen Grand Juries es un intento de remedio pacífico que podemos documentar fácilmente.

US 18 CODE 2383 – Rebellion or Insurrection & US 18 CODE 2383 – Rebelión o Insurrección


US 18 CODE 2383 – Rebellion or Insurrection

US 18 CODE 2383 – Rebellion or Insurrection

18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or Insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Our Constitution & the settled Metaphysics of Natural Law (Par. 1, Declaration of Independence) are the established civil authority of our Country. Per these, WE THE PEOPLE have inalienable Rights, and as the Sovereigns, have the right to abolish our government if it ignores the Constitution and Natural Law.

FELLOW AMERICANS, YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED. THE PROGRESSIVE GLOBALIST ELITES ARE THE REAL INSURRECTIONISTS. And, have been so for 100+ years. Progressives Elites have many unconstitutional beliefs. (eg. concept of rights of the individual is nonsense, Pg 25; Constitution’s Checks & Balances hinder government, Pg 66; & the masses are too ignorant to govern themselves, Pgs 51-52; Progressive Globalist Elites are superior to, & are not accountable to the masses, Pgs 51-52 & many more). The unconstitutional beliefs of the Progressive Elites became Sedition & Treason when they ACTED to make them reality circa 1913. They created the 4th Branch of government aka Administrative State (Pgs 40-49) ) to spearhead their revolution by slow, covert infiltration.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2382 – Misprision of treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

This document inspired by Richard Kovacevich, David Lillehaug, Wells Fargo Bank, NA and William Bunker

US 18 CODE 2383 – Rebelión o insurrección

US 18 CODE 2383 – Rebelión o insurrección

18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebelión o insurrección
Quien incite, ponga en pie, ayude o participe en cualquier rebelión o insurrección contra la autoridad de los Estados Unidos o sus leyes, o le brinde ayuda o consuelo, será multado bajo este título o encarcelado no más de diez años, o ambos; y será incapaz de ocupar ningún cargo en los Estados Unidos.

Nuestra Constitución y la establecida Metafísica de la Ley Natural (Par. 1, Declaración de Independencia) son la autoridad civil establecida de nuestro País. Por estos, NOSOTROS EL PUEBLO tenemos Derechos inalienables, y como Soberanos, tenemos el derecho de abolir nuestro gobierno si ignora la Constitución y la Ley Natural.

AMERICANOS, HAN SIDO ENGAÑADOS. LAS ELITAS GLOBALISTAS PROGRESIVAS SON LOS VERDADEROS INSURRECCIONISTAS. Y lo han sido durante más de 100 años. Las élites progresistas tienen muchas creencias inconstitucionales. (p. ej., el concepto de los derechos del individuo es una tontería, pág. 25; Los controles y balances de la Constitución obstaculizan el gobierno, pág. 66; y las masas son demasiado ignorantes para gobernarse a sí mismas, págs. 51-52; las élites globalistas progresistas son superiores y no responsable ante las masas, págs. 51-52 y muchas más). Las creencias inconstitucionales de las élites progresistas se convirtieron en sedición y traición cuando ACTUARON para hacerlas realidad alrededor de 1913. Crearon la cuarta rama del gobierno, también conocida como Estado Administrativo (págs. 40-49)) para encabezar su revolución mediante una infiltración lenta y encubierta.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy

Si dos o más personas en cualquier Estado o Territorio, o en cualquier lugar sujeto a la jurisdicción de los Estados Unidos, conspiran para derrocar, sofocar o destruir por la fuerza al Gobierno de los Estados Unidos, o para librar la guerra contra ellos, o para oponerse por la fuerza a su autoridad, o por la fuerza para prevenir, obstaculizar o retrasar la ejecución de cualquier ley de los Estados Unidos, o por la fuerza para apoderarse, tomar o poseer cualquier propiedad de los Estados Unidos en contra de la autoridad de los mismos , cada uno será multado bajo este título o encarcelado no más de veinte años, o ambos.

18 U.S. Code § 2382 – Misprisión de traición

Quien, debiendo lealtad a los Estados Unidos y teniendo conocimiento de la comisión de cualquier traición en su contra, encubre y no divulga y da a conocer, tan pronto como sea posible, lo mismo al Presidente oa algún juez de los Estados Unidos, o ante el gobernador o ante algún juez o magistrado de un Estado en particular, es culpable de delito de traición a la patria y será multado bajo este título o encarcelado no más de siete años, o ambos.

Este documento inspirado en Richard Kovacevich, David Lillehaug, Wells Fargo Bank, NA y William Bunker

2020 US Election Fraud Facts & Datos sobre el fraude electoral en EE. UU. 2020

Sorry, but many sources don’t have Spanish version/subtitles <> Lo siento, pero muchas fuentes no tienen subtítulos o versión en español

2020 US Election Fraud Facts

2020 US Election Fraud Facts

Pillow Man, Mike Lindell, reveals the Election 2020 Fraud Facts that traitor SCOTUS Scehmed to avoid hearing on technicality rather than ruling upon the merits.

More Sources:

I have been an election judge a decade or more. I wrote this long before the election
I raised the issue of rigged computer code in Electronic Ballot Boxes going
back several elections. I was shut down at every turn.

So many people ask me to provide proof of 2020 US Election fraud. Here is one source. Remember, the US Supreme Court dismissed all of the Election Fraud Lawsuits on a technicality, instead of ruling on the Merits. All US Judges and Lawyers take oaths to support and defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And longstanding legal tradition favors courts deciding cases on the merits, not technicality. There is no higher legal issue for the courts to decide in a Representative, Constitutionally limited Republic than the integrity of our Elections. Our US Supreme Court aided and abetted the seditious and treason Progressive Globalist Coup in contriving to dismiss these matters on a technicality. Think about it. There are 1.3 million lawyers in America. 335 of the 555 members of Congress are lawyers. How is it that not one single lawyer could draft a lawsuit that could not be tossed out on a technicality? All those who suppress these facts are guilty of aiding and abetting the seditious and treasonous Progressive Globalist Insurgency. Remember, all who conspired in these matters are motivated to suppress the facts to avoid trials for sedition and treason, a conviction for sedition and treason and hanging for sedition and treason. Pillow Man, Mike Lindell’s documentary is a credible source.

Datos sobre el fraude electoral en EE. UU. 2020

Hombre de almohada, Mike Lindell, revela los hechos fraudulentos de las elecciones de 2020 que el traidor SCOTUS Scehmed para evitar escuchar sobre tecnicismos en lugar de pronunciarse sobre los méritos.

el vídeo:
Más fuentes:

He sido juez electoral durante una década o más. Escribí esto mucho antes de las elecciones
Planteé la cuestión del código de computadora manipulado en las urnas electrónicas
Atras varias elecciones. Me cerraron a cada paso.

Mucha gente me pide que proporcione pruebas del fraude en las elecciones estadounidenses de 2020. Aquí hay una fuente. Recuerde, la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos desestimó todas las Demandas por Fraude Electoral por un tecnicismo, en lugar de fallar sobre el fondo. Todos los jueces y abogados estadounidenses prestan juramento de apoyar y defender la Constitución estadounidense de todos los enemigos, tanto nacionales como extranjeros. Y la tradición legal de larga data favorece a los tribunales que deciden los casos en función del fondo, no del tecnicismo. No hay un asunto legal más importante para que los tribunales decidan en una República Representativa y constitucionalmente limitada que la integridad de nuestras Elecciones. Nuestra Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos ayudó e instigó al sedicioso y traidor Golpe de Estado Globalista Progresista a intentar desestimar estos asuntos por un tecnicismo. Piénsalo. Hay 1,3 millones de abogados en Estados Unidos. 335 de los 555 miembros del Congreso son abogados. ¿Cómo es posible que ni un solo abogado pueda redactar una demanda que no pueda descartarse por un tecnicismo? Todos aquellos que reprimen estos hechos son culpables de ayudar e incitar a la sediciosa y traidora insurgencia globalista progresista. Recuerde, todos los que conspiraron en estos asuntos están motivados a reprimir los hechos para evitar juicios por sedición y traición, una condena por sedición y traición y ahorcamiento por sedición y traición. Pillow Man, el documental de Mike Lindell es una fuente creíble.

HON or POS? Is Dakota County MN suspending the Rule of Law in the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki matter?


SandraGrazziniRuckiCloseup07252016This writer’s followers on Twitter and other Social Media are familiar with his intention of uniting rank and file Americans under one common Perspective of Reality. A Perspective of reality far truer than the false Perspective of Reality promoted through the divisive propaganda of the Main Stream Media and the two faux major political parties. With this article, this writer intends to build upon creating that truer, common Perspective of Reality so WE THE PEOPLE can unite against our government and hold our government officials accountable for their departures from the Rule of Law (aka Abuse of Power and/or Abuse of Discretion) and betrayals of the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE.

Yesterday morning this writer went to the continuing trial of Sandra Grazzini Rucki in Dakota County MN on various criminal charges relating to allegedly wrongfully depriving her ex husband, David Rucki, of parental rights, etc. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s well-founded and well-recognized affirmative defense is that she was acting to protect her children from what she reasonably believed was danger from their father.  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki numerous times went to the appropriate channels to seek the safety of her children, and resorted to helping the girls escape their allegedly abusive father only when the police, the courts and Child Protective Services (CPS) failed her.

This writer does not really know Sandra Grazzini-Rucki from Adam. This writer first became aware of her abuse at the hands of the Dakota County MN Courts and our Government in 2014, through his involvement with the Judicial TAR (Transparency, Accountability and Reform) Movement. Judicial TAR is a group of citizens who have sought a hearing before the Minnesota Legislature dedicated to receiving evidence and testimony of Systemic Corruption in the Minnesota Courts every year from 2005, and every year our requests for said hearing have been denied.  From this, WE THE PEOPLE of Judicial TAR believe it is reasonable for all American citizens to conclude that Minnesota Government and Courts, at a minimum have something to hide, and more likely are complicit in the Systemic Corruption of the Minnesota Courts. [Systemic Corruption means that the aspects of government that are supposed to prevent & punish corruption instead are complicit in and cover it up] In 2009, WE THE PEOPLE of Judicial TAR came to believe it would be unlikely we would ever have our request for said hearing granted. With victims of the Abuse of Power of the Courts and their advocates  getting frustrated, becoming disheartened, moving away and dying, WE THE PEOPLE of Judicial TAR held an Ad Hoc hearing on the Systemic Corruption in the Minnesota Courts to preserve our Petitions for Redress for Posterity:

03MAR2009 Ad Hoc MN hearing: Corruption in Judiciary 1/2

03MAR2009 Ad Hoc MN hearing: Corruption in Judiciary 2/2

 From this writer’s experience with the Judicial TAR Movement, this writer has learned nuances of the legal profession that most Americans are unaware of.  Add to this, this writer’s own experience in his personal civil litigation and 1 bogus criminal charge (eventually dismissed for lack of Probable Cause), and this writer asserts that he is uniquely qualified to understand how our Courts fix the outcomes of Court cases and educate his fellow rank and file citizens of the true nature of their government and courts.

This writer has written previously on the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Matter in Dakota County Minnesota, but your government has seen fit to scrub those articles from the internet. (Main Stream Media (MSM) has seen fit to not publish this writer’s previous articles on the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki matter.) In total, almost 200 of this writer’s blogs and several hundred of his posts and articles have been scrubbed from the Internet.  One gets the sense that our government and courts don’t want rank and file Americans to have the information about their corruption, machinations and duplicity that this writer exposes. Yet, rather than try to recreate and reassert all the facts from those censored articles, this writer is going to focus on the mechanics of various allegations of how the Dakota County MN Courts are trying to fix the outcome of the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki litigation from a succinct, common sense legal perspective. (Fellow Minnesotan, Tim Kinley has a much better knowledge of the all the particular facts in the related previous matters under Judge David Knutson and underlying facts and minutia of the Dakota County MN Court departures from the Rule the Rule (aka Abuse of Power and/or Abuse of Discretion) under Judge Karen Asphaug which have led to this trial of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki – His Youtube Channel This article is written more from a macro-overview and general mechanics perspective.

This writer wanted to attend this trial yesterday because it was alleged that there were/are departures from the Rule of Law (aka Abuse of Power and/or Abuse of Discretion) occurring intended to fix the outcome of the case, and he wanted to confirm their accuracy. At the same time, recent events provide an opportunity for this writer to build upon the American Public’s current familiarity with the departures from the Rule of Law. Specifically, this writer refers to the FBI’s Comey’s and DOJ’s Lynch’s failure to charge Hillary Clinton over her various State Department Email related crimes despite facts in evidence which required Hillary Clinton to be charged (; For those not familiar with the concept of the “Rule of Law”;

It is the concept and requirement embodied in our founding documents that there only be one set of laws for all American citizens and that it be enforced equally on all
citizens without regard to status, wealth or government position.

Additionally, this writer will also build upon recent revelations by Wikileaks (and Edward Snowden) which have revealed to all Americans the lengths to which our government will go to conspire against WE THE PEOPLE’s free will and the Democratic Process. In this instance, this writer is specifically referring to a hack of the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer servers. Subsequently, the disclosed emails and documents from the DNC servers revealed that the level of Systemic Corruption extends not just to suspension of the Rule of Law but also to violations and machinations of the Democratic Process. (

In the present matter of the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki trial, it has been alleged:

  • The jury was tainted with a Newspaper containing an article placed in the jury holding room prior to jury selection;
  • The Court engaged in jury rigging in that it placed so many biased and/or unqualified potential jurors in the jury pool that the Defense could not eliminate them all with its limited number of “free boots” and Judge Karen Asphaug failed to remove at least two jurors for cause who eventually were empaneled on the jury;
  • The Court did/is engaging in fact shaping.

Now, as a member of the press, this writer went to the trial yesterday with the specific purpose of ascertaining if any of these allegations were true. This writer was denied the opportunity to make said inquiries.


This writer asserts the recent revelations of the magnitude of our government’s departures from the Rule of Law and Democratic Process warrant departures from accepted decorum. In some way, this writer feels he must signal to his fellow citizens that recent events require special attention. This writer will use these departures from decorum to signal to our fellow citizens that they can no longer remain calm and just go along with their normal daily routines; Rather our Government has departed so far from Constitutional and Natural Law, that the time has come for every American to question their blind loyalty to our government and actively work to restore our government’s accountability to WE THE PEOPLE. You have been fore-warned…

At the noon lunch break, as Prosecutor Kathryn M. Keena walked by where this writer was seated in the Courtroom gallery, this writer took the opportunity to shake her hand and introduce himself as a member of the Press and a member of the Judicial TAR Movement. Ms. Kathryn M. Keena continued toward the door as this writer began to ask her questions about the allegations. With the rudeness and arrogance of those Progressives who think they are better than all the rest of us (, Ms. Kathryn M. Keena continued into a conference room without even the professional courtesy of saying she did not want to hear what this writer had to say nor answering any of this writer’s questions. As Prosecutor Kathryn M. Keena entered the conference room, this writer turned to leave the foyer of the courtroom but was blocked by the egress of others from the court room and patiently waited his opportunity to exit the door. While this writer was standing their facing the exit door waiting for an opportunity to leave, the lying POS Prosecutor Kathryn M. Keena made a FALSE REPORT to a Bailiff that I tried to follow her into the conference room. Lying POS Prosecutor Kathryn M. Keena ordered the Bailiff to have me removed. This writer protested that POS Prosecutor Kathryn M. Keena was lying, and that the Bailiff himself and others had this writer standing near them patiently waiting to leave the foyer. Others advised me to give up my protest and this writer left the foyer and the building.  Once again, Dakota County MN Courts had succeeded in preventing this writer from verifying the truth of their corruption and publishing it for the world to see.


JudgeDrunkonJudicialImmunityNow, lets revisit the various acts of departure from the Rule of Law (aka Abuse of Power and/or Abuse of Discretion) that have been alleged, in a simple, non-legal gibberish way so the average American can understand it. (See also and Proposed Election 2012 caucus resolutions for judicial reform(updated) Part 2of2; Resolution 17

The alleged Court rules require that a Judge not do anything that might give the appearance of impropriety. Further, there is a requirement in the rules that says the “Finder of Fact” (Judge or Jury) allegedly can only consider facts and evidence on the OFFICIAL COURT RECORD. (When this writer says alleged, it mean that, in the writer’s opinion, the Courts so frequently ignore them one must question if they actually are adhered to or not.


In regard to the matter of the newspaper article about Sandra Grazzini-Rucki being in the jury waiting room before jury selection, shouldn’t there be a member of the staff assigned to ensuring that jury tainting evidence is not permitted in the jury waiting area.  Of course there is, but in this writer’s experience and knowledge, such methods of tainting juries are common in the courts.  To wit, every American has a right to a trial before an IMPARTIAL jury of their peers. To the point, if you were the one on trial how would you feel about a derogatory article about you being made available to potential jurors in the potential jury waiting room, potential jurors admitting they have read it and Judge Karen Asphaug ruling, “Ain’t no big deal”? In your opinion, if you are the Defendant, does Judge Karen Asphaug’s failure to redress this matter in a satisfactory manner give rise to an “appearance of impropriety”? (Untouchables – Switch Jury scene


Next, we move to the departure from the Rule of Law (aka Abuse of Power and/or Abuse of Discretion) in alleged jury rigging.  In jury selection, the judge is supposed to disqualify jurors for a variety of reasons such as they are a friend or relative of one of the parties, that they are already familiar with the case, or they state have already made up their minds as to guilt or innocence, etc. This writer wanted to ask if any of these allegations regarding the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki matter were true. POS Prosecutor Kathryn M. Keena use the arrogant Progressive tactic ( of having reporters not submissive to the Courts, booted. Therefore, it is necessary to say it is alleged  Judge Karen Asphaug failed to remove a person who said they read the article, knew about the case, felt that Sandra Grazzinni-Rucki was guilty and would be surprised if she was not found guilty.  Another allegation is that a potential juror admitted he had recently attended a party of a relative of David Rucki and was familiar with the case. Judge Karen Asphaug failed to disqualify either prospective juror, in the later case Judge Karen Asphaug said the potential juror’s assurances that they could remain impartial were sufficient to prevent her from disqualifying them. If you are the Defendant, “How impartial do you think these two jurors are going to be?” This is your life on the line here, should you be afforded every appearance of neutrality and fairness?

Now, in addition to the judge disqualifying jurors for cause, the Defense and Prosecution are allowed a small number of “free boots” of any juror for any reason.  It is alleged that Dakota County MN Court machinated the jury pool in the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki case so the Prosecution could get biased jurors on to the final jury panel.  It is alleged that the afore-mentioned two particular jurors should have been disqualified by the judge, but were not. It is alleged that so many biased/unqualified jurors had been machinated into the jury pool (stacked) by Dakota County MN Courts,  that the Defense would not have enough free boots, to get rid of them all. It is alleged that by the time these two particular prospective jurors turn in the jury selection process came up, the Defense had already expended all of its “free boots”.  In an allegedly random process, and with thousands of citizens living in Dakota County MN, what are the chances that 6 or more of about a 25 person jury pool would be biased against the Defense. Now, if you are the Defendant, do you think this was by chance or by deliberate machination of the process by the Dakota County Courts? ]Make sure you factor in your new understanding of your government’s lack of honor and integrity manifests itself in Government’s willingness to manipulate outcomes with recent revelations of its departure from the Rule of Law in the Hillary Clinton State Department Email matter and its willingness to engage in machinations to violate the Democratic Process reveal in the DNC Leaks (]


And lastly, there is the allegation in the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki matter that the Court is Fact/Evidence shaping the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki case.  As was mentioned earlier, the only facts and evidence the Finder of Fact (in this case the jury) is supposed to use in making its finding is the facts and evidence on the OFFICIAL COURT RECORD. Over time our courts have enacted a series of rules and precedents whereby they can include or exclude facts from the OFFICIAL COURT RECORD (let or keep the jury from seeing/hearing). In effect, judges can determine (fix) the outcome of any trial (or any other court proceeding) by only allowing on the OFFICIAL COURT RECORD those facts and evidence which support the desired outcome.

In this writer’s long experience with the Judicial TAR Movement, he has became aware of the practice in multiple cases of Judges “telegraphing” to the lawyers on both sides and other court personnel how the Judge would like to rule.  The lawyer fraternity (even the lawyer you paid) and other witness like Guardians Ad Litem and CPS, oblige the judge by only placing on the OFFICIAL COURT RECORD facts and evidence that will allow the Finder of Fact (Judge or Jury) to rule in the manner the judge has previously “telegraphed” to them. (Remember these judges and lawyers all go to the same continuing education courses, golf courses, country clubs and other social and professional events and speak their own “Legal-ease version of English – wink, wink; nudge, nudge; meaningful glance)

In the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki Matter, there is an allegation that Judge Karen Asphaug has purposely and wrongfully excluded and attempted to exclude facts and evidence from the OFFICIAL COURT RECORD which demonstrate Sandra Grazzini-Rucki reasonably feared for the health and safety of her children from their father David Rucki.

The question to you, if you are the Defendant, if Judge Karen Asphaug in fact acted in this matter, did she act in a way that gives an appearance of impropriety in the trial of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki? Did you get a fair trial? And, even if you have the money and emotional fortitude to appeal and win on appeal, is not the additional money and time spent amount to unjust punishment? (Progressive Conditioning

One single event/fact has cemented this writer’s belief in Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s representation that she feared for the lives and safety of her children. It has been alleged that at some point in all of this David Rucki gathered the family around a kitchen table. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki alleges that David Rucki threatened to kill all of them and then himself. In the opposing version David Rucki only threatened to kill himself in front of the entire family gathered around the kitchen table. In this writer’s humble opinion, regardless of which version is true, this event also cemented the Parental Alienation of David Rucki’s children towards himself. That some version occurred is a matter of relevant fact. You can hear David Rucki in his own words try to spin the event to his best advantage in this newscast. ( at 4m 45s to 5m); 4m 50s to 5m 3s) David Rucki’s admission of some version of this event is what cements in this writer’s mind that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki reasonably believed her children were in danger, and when the legal authorities failed to act in accordance with the Rule of Law, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was forced to assert her own UNALIENABLE NATURAL RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE and act to protect her children from her reasonably perceived threat from their father.

It is important to remember went to the Courthouse yesterday and tried to make inquiries and ask these questions so he could assert them as facts rather than allegations. But POS Prosecutor Kathryn M. Keena resorted to Progressive tactics to keep rank and file Americans ignorant of the systemic corruption of the Dakota County MN Courts.

What you also don’t know, are the allegations that Judge David Knutson made decisions in prior litigation related to the Rucki Divorce that also depart from the Rule of Law(aka Abuse of Power and/or Abuse of Discretion).  (In this writer’s humble opinion; think bribe, other consideration or Teddy Kennedy and Chappaquiddick dynamics) As Judge David Knutson is on the Discipline Review Board, its tough to pursue the truth through that avenue.  As the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards is a legal black-hole and essentially a Public Relations firm for Minnesota Judges, no relief is available there either. And, as the Minnesota Legislature for 10+ years has refused to the Judicial TAR Movement a hearing dedicated to receiving evidence and testimony of systemic corruption in the Minnesota Courts, no relief will be force coming there. Still, someone should ask Judge David Knutson to explain his departures from the Rule of Law(aka Abuse of Power and/or Abuse of Discretion) in the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki matter, and this writer even suggests Judge David Knutson should submit to a polygraph to “avoid the appearance of impropriety”. [Here again, and especially, Tim Kinley has a much better grasp and understanding of the minutia and specifics of the departures from the Rule of Law allegedly committed by Judge David Knutson than does this writer. See his YouTube Channel “Speechless” (]

This writer has an additional special qualification in this case of asserting the likely truthfulness of the allegations of departures from the Rule of Law(aka Abuse of Power and/or Abuse of Discretion)  in the Sandra Grazzini-Rucki matter.  Judge Karen Asphaug was one of the Judges in the only criminal matter this writer has ever been charged with (besides minor traffic tickets – No DWIs).  In that matter, this writer was in another Dakota County Courtroom in 2014 investigating allegations that Dakota County MN Law Enforcement was complicit in the local Drug Trade.  A woman complained that her X-husband was getting special treatment from Dakota County Law Enforcement and the Courts because he was the main supplier of these illegal drugs. The matter was eventually dismissed for LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE(meaning it was BS). But along the way, I told Judge Karen Asphaug as I stood before her, “The charge and being forced to defend one’s self is the intended punishment” Our Government brings bogus charges against people to achieve its agenda because it knows the trauma, time and expense is punishment enough to scare people off or cow them into submission. Behind closed doors our government officials often laugh and think its funny to terrorize citizens. (Progressive Conditioning

Before the case against this writer was dismissed for being bogus, Judge Karen Asphaug ruled from the bench that the case should be heard by a Judge from a different jurisdiction as it involved Bailiff’s who work closely with Judges. This writer alleges that later Judge Karen Asphaug was instructed by former US MN AG and current MN Supreme Court POS Justice David “The Bag Man” Lillehaug (aka Killehaug) to cooperate in fixing the criminal case against this writer for political reasons and in furtherance of an ongoing criminal conspiracy against this writer.  Dakota County lined up 4 Bailiff’s/Sheriff’s Deputies to perjure themselves against this writer by saying he disrupted the Court and was guilty of “Disorderly Conduct”(while they believed no video existed). For months, the POS Prosecutor Dan Fluegel insisted all exculpatory video tape was destroyed. Only when this writer produced written correspondence from the Dakota County Sheriff’s Department confirming this writer demanded the video tape be retained within days of the incident, did some of the exculpatory video tape appear and the 4 Bailiff’s/Sheriff’s Deputies willing to perjure themselves slink away(Yet not fired or punished).  Only this writer’s appeal to the Minnesota Appellate Court along with a copy of the Court transcript forced Judge Karen Asphaug to make sure a Judge from another jurisdiction was administratively assigned to this writer’s case. You can read more about that here: Don Mashak Notice of Claims to Dakota County MN 10_09_2015 ( You can also learn how a Sheriff’s Deputy can “Blow someone’s face off and the Union will have him back on the job the next day”.  So arrogant and above the law is Dakota County MN, that even though they are required by law to perform an investigation and provide a copy of the findings when a Notice of Claims is filed, they simply refused to comply. And apparently no government agency exists to force them to comply.

[With the topics we have covered in this article in mind, let us take a moment for this writer to acknowledge he sympathizes with the underlying causes of action pursued by “Black Lives Matter” (BLM). Though this writer does not agree with their methods, this writer has reached out to the “Black Lives Matter” Movement, offered them advice and asked them to join the Judicial TAR Movement. (]

So now, you understand why when Dakota County MN Courts and Judge Karen Asphaug are accused of departing from the Rule of Law(aka Abuse of Power and/or Abuse of Discretion), this writer has special qualifications for assessing the validity of those allegations. Really, Judge Karen Asphaug, you are going to put a woman in jail for being forced to protect her children when the police and legal system failed her? Really Judge Karen Asphaug, you don’t think your oath of office requires you to do something regarding Judge David Knutson requiring Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s Lawyer to defend her client handcuffed to a wheel chair without notes or client her client present? When will you act to “avoid the appearance of impropriety”? Judge Karen Asphaug, there are so many other, “Really?” type posits, but in the end Judge Karen Asphaug, Is this what you really want to be known as?

Its up to you, Judge Karen Asphaug; HON or POS?

It is apparent from my one interaction with POS Prosecutor Kathryn M. Keena, she is in the habit of flippantly lying and ignoring her oath of office and should never be known as HON.

In closing, as I believe that WE THE PEOPLE are in fact the equals of the arrogant Progressive POS’s [despite Progressive Educated Elite assertions to the contrary (], I believe WE THE PEOPLE have the right to judge them for their failure to answer our questions and provide documents we request. And, I further assert WE THE  PEOPLE have a right to view these refusals in the manner prescribed by the US Supreme Court.

The Finder of Fact (You and I) may presume that the failure of a person (POS Prosecutor Kathryn M. Keena/Judge Karen Asphaug/Judge David Knutson) to answer questions and/or produce documents may be interpreted as an indication that their truthful responses would have been detrimental to their legal position.

POS Prosecutor Kathryn M. Keena refused to answer my questions and lied, to prevent the Press from exercising its First Amendment Right of Freedom of the Press. This writer never got a chance to query Judge Karen Asphaug. Others have tried to query Judge David Knutson, unsuccessfully.

This writer gives POS Prosecutor Kathryn M. Keena and Judge Karen Asphaug until 6pm CDT 28 JULY 2016 to respond to these allegations or summarily, WE THE PEOPLE may judge them to be accurate and true, in accordance with the rules the US Supreme Court that apply to anyone of WE THE PEOPLE when we appear before them.

Judge Karen Asphaug is aware of my contact information from her previous court related departure from the Rule of Law (aka Abuse of Power and/or Abuse of Discretion).

My fellow Americans, this writer hopes this article helps you all in forming a truer Perspective of Reality that permits us, as equals, to unite together and make our Government once again accountable to WE THE PEOPLE. Millennials and GenX’rs, as I have promised you elsewhere, you now have a better handle on the true nature of our Government and Courts. Keep fighting the good fight!

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good [people] do nothing”

~ Edmund Burke

Government and Courts; Please take note, WE THE PEOPLE shall include lack of proper redress of our concerns in this matter, and our future Third Declaration of Causes (, in determining if and when it is appropriate for WE THE PEOPLE to withdraw our CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED.

This article was written by Don Mashak alone without seeking advice, direction or permission of anyone else. I alone am responsible for the content and publication of this article.

Those were my thoughts.

Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot




MN Cities consider dumping Progressive Arrogance with return to Citizen Review of Police

CitizenReviewBoard07252016The Progressive Rag, the Minneapolis Star and Sickle, earlier this week wrote an article on the return of citizens to Police Review Committees. Apparently it was so controversial, they have made it extremely difficult to find online.  Lets take a moment to work on creating a truer common Perspective of Reality so WE THE PEOPLE can unite against our Government and hold it accountable.

About the time of the American Revolution (1776), the Country’s Founders warned that government must be constructed with the nature of man in mind or it was doomed to failure.

John Locke summed up the nature of man as:

“being tolerance with a tendancy towards reason, but who can be selfish”

The Founders’ perception of the nature of man perhaps is best summed up in the Cato Letters:

“All People[men] have free will and are not virtuous by nature”

Thus our Founder’s constructed our government with “Checks and Balances, Transparency and Accountability”

Enter the Progressives, circa 1900.

Similar to how the “Left” accused the TEA Party Movement of being funded and the brainchild of the Koch Brothers, The Progressive Movement was actually the brainchild of the Wealthy. The Wealthy grew tired of government being transparent and accountable to the masses.  The Media “MuckRakers” of the day, drove the Wealthy Trusts up the wall.

The wealthy trusts had the Progressive Movement promote the idea that:

“The Nature of Man is to be trustworthy and altruistic”

From this pile of manure came the idea that the Progressive educated elite, being trustworthy and altruistic, should be allowed to make decisions on behalf of the masses without accountability to the masses. (See also Social Darwinism)

This began a long trend of removing transparency and accountability to the masses in a wide variety of Government Agencies. The Police, Judges and Lawyers among them.

Of course, in much the same way a dam built on the premise that water runs up hill must fail, so must a government based on some other than actual human nature.

Without the transparency and accountability of citizen oversight, Law Enforcement across the country fell into systemic corruption. Its only human nature to protect those who you work with everyday, especially when one day you might need some “quid pro quo”. See the movies “The Untouchables”, “Lawless” and “Serpico” as evidence of this writer’s assertions.

With tensions rising and the two alleged major political parties using them for political purposes, American Law Enforcement has been forced to consider returning to a large presence of civilians to rebuild trust between Law Enforcement and the Civilian Community.

It just is Common Sense that average citizens, being outside, impartial “Finders of Fact” will most often find the actual truth, rather than cave to politically machinated results.

This writer would just ask you to never forget that it was the Progressives that removed the civilian oversight in the first place. And if the Founders were still around, they would be able to say, “We told you so.”

One last quick comment, shame on the American Main Stream Media not covering this in a color blind manner. And shame to the politicians that try to spin these events for political gain. In each of these events the the only possible results should be right, wrong and honest mistake/human error.

There are good and bad people in every group of people, regardless of what characteristics you use to define it. Once the honest and truthful determination of what happened is determined, the only way the event should be framed is in a colorblind manner of good people against bad people, and/or sadness for tragedy out of honest human error and a resolve to work  to avoid future tragedy.

Those were my thoughts.

Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot


Natural Law: How WE THE PEOPLE got to the 4th of July, 1776 – Part 1 of 2

KingGeorgeIIIAmericanRevolution390X500This article was originally published on on July 3, 2013. (see original print graphic at end of article) This writer’s entire column on was CENSORED within 24-48 hours of this writer submitting a credible petition on 11/06/2015 to the Minnesota Supreme Court to Remove a Minnesota District Court Judge from the bench for conspiring to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court.(An additional almost 200 blogs of this writer have been censored since 2012) The Minnesota Establishment has also taken other unlawful and unconstitutional punitive actions against this writer. I put it to you that your government is trying to erase your knowledge of Natural Law and Natural Rights to make you less able to resist their attempts at enslaving you. This writer leaves it to reader to deduce for themselves who wanted these articles CENSORED, and why the US Government wants this writer silenced.



Natural Law: How WE THE PEOPLE got to the 4th of July, 1776 – Part 2 of 2


This article was originally published on on July 4, 2013. (see original print graphic at end of article) This writer’s entire column on was CENSORED within 24-48 hours of this writer submitting a credible petition on 11/06/2015 to the Minnesota Supreme Court to Remove a Minnesota District Court Judge from the bench for conspiring to perpetrate a fraud upon the Court.(An additional almost 200 blogs of this writer have been censored since 2012) The Minnesota Establishment has also taken other unlawful and unconstitutional punitive actions against this writer. I put it to you that your government is trying to erase your knowledge of Natural Law and Natural Rights to make you less able to resist their attempts at enslaving you. This writer leaves it to reader to deduce for themselves who wanted these articles CENSORED, and why the US Government wants this writer silenced.

A suggestion to dejected Bernie Sanders followers

BernieSandersNoMentionofHillaryClintonat09JUNE2016DCRallyBefore we begin, this writer wants to tip his hat to Bernie Sanders and his supporters for efforts to confront the corrupt status quo Democratic Party Establishment to date. While most Bernie Sanders supporters consider Mainstream Media pronouncement of Hillary Clinton as the presumptive Democratic Party Nominee, what Mainstream Media (MSM) failed to say is the real story. The real story being that it is remarkable to consider that even with the overwhelming support and machinations of the Democratic Party Establishment and the 1%, Hillary Clinton, the Establishments puppet, is barely beating Bernie Sanders(the candidate of rank and file Democrats). That having been said, lets assess the playing field as it stands now.

To begin with, this writer asks the reader to please forgive him if he hasn’t fully digested and processed all the facts and drama surrounding Bernie Sanders Meeting with President Barack Obama yesterday(09June2016) . (Nor had time what is MSM propaganda and what is truth) And that meeting was quickly followed by President Barack Obama’s public announcement of his endorsement of Hillary Clinton as the presumptive Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party Establishment. (as opposed to rank and file Democrats)

The flood of reporting from Mainstream Media yesterday had this writer believing that Bernie Sanders came away from his meeting with President Barack Obama yesterday with the demeanor of a whipped dog.

After Meeting With Obama, Bernie Sanders Moves Toward Peace

But later in the day, prospective Democratic Party nominee Bernie Sanders made no mention of Hillary Clinton at his rally in DC:

The Latest: No mention of @HillaryClinton at @BernieSanders rally in DC

So where does this leave ardent Bernie Sanders supporters. And more importantly to this writer, where does that leave rank and file members who are tired of corruption permitted and encouraged by the political establishment of both major parties. (This writer strongly identifies and aligns himself with that portion of Bernie Sanders Campaign that called for a strong and forceful redress of systemic corruption in America.) It seems to this writer, that if Bernie Sanders’ admonishments that he was going to take on the systemic corruption in Washington were/are sincere, there is no conceivable way Bernie Sanders can throw his support to Hillary Clinton.  Hillary Clinton is part and parcel of the corrupt status quo in DC and will make no efforts to reign in corruption. Worse, Hillary Clinton will expand and promote any corrupt scheme she believes she can personally profit from.  But, perhaps there is an explanation for Bernie Sanders sudden support for Hillary Clinton (and we will address this a little later) But for now, this all seems to leave Bernie Sanders supporters with two choices; vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton or don’t vote at all.

But perhaps there is a third option for those Bernie Sanders supporters who remain committed to confronting and reforming the corrupt status quo establishment in Washington.  And that third option comes from America’s own history. And ironically, this suggested option is inspired by George Washington himself.  At the time of the revolutionary war, the military tradition was for linear  warfare. Essentially, Military Leaders had rank and file soldiers lined up across from each other in parallel lines and fired at each other until one side or the other ran out of soldiers and/or ammunition.  General Washington knew that in this style of warfare England, with its larger, better trained and better supplied military, would soon win by attrition.  Because of this knowledge, General George Washington adopted a “Quasi-Guerilla style warfare” This included surprise attacks, night raids and taking cover (hiding behind bullet stopping objects).  Only because of General George Washington’s thinking “outside the box” did America come to be free. Had George Washington blindly conformed to tradition, America would have lost the Revolutionary War. This writer encourages those Bernie Sanders’ followers whose allegiance to Bernie Sanders was based on principle over loyalty to learn from George Washington’s example.

In the present scenario, the corrupt American Political Establishment have created an unfair and fraudulent election process which makes it virtually impossible for rank and file Americans to get someone who will champion their best interests elected. Perhaps even more infuriating is the way the Establishment then cites this machinated fraud of an electoral system as reflecting the “will of the masses” to quell those who dare criticize our government.

The Political Establishment of both major parties is better organized and gets “party delegates” loyal to the establishment elected in large majority over novice rank and file party delegates. (This writer believes there are not actually two major political parties but rather one Tyrant Class pretending to be two major parties, but for the majority of this article will continue to speak in the false left/right two party paradigm) These delegates then vote in lock step with the Party Establishment at every level of the process, including the State and National Party Conventions.  The party rules are written to give the Establishment’s preferred candidate(s) an advantage, particularly in the bogus Democrat Super-Delegate system. Further, veteran establishment party officers use their knowledge of the rules (and their interpretations of the rules) to the further detriment of true rank and file challengers.  Still further, the hard and soft money the Party Establishment and the 1% give to their preferred Presidential Candidates is just enormous. Add to this that some how, the Political Establishment exercises control over the Mainstream Media to control the political conversation; in the present case giving Hillary Clinton far greater media coverage than Bernie Sanders. The point here being that the current electoral system, similar to the traditional linear warfare George Washington encountered, is stacked in favor of Establishment candidates and against candidates who would champion the best interests of rank and file Americans.

And, then there is the “White House Woodshed” Yesterday President Barack Obama took Bernie Sanders to the proverbial White House woodshed and told him the way things really are and will be.  (This portrayal reflects this writer’s perception of Bernie Sanders as a man of integrity, as opposed to the typical lying politician) This writer believes Bernie Sanders would not willingly support Hillary Clinton, a person antithetical to reform and cracking down on corruption. Yet Mainstream Media is full video and soundbites of Bernie Sanders now saying he supports Hillary Clint.

This writer can tell you from personal experience, the Political Establishment has a variety of carrots and sticks to cajole and/or force people to tow the party line.  If Bernie Sanders is chairman of any Senate committees, he was likely warned he would lose them if he didn’t give full support to Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders was also likely reminded that cooperation in moving any of his legislation forward would dry up if he failed to “play ball”  And of course, the Party has a large budget at its discretion it can use to support its preferred members seeking reelection. Say bye, bye to that….   And of course, the 1% have large sums of money they can offer anyone to induce them compromise their principles. The point here being that what Bernie Sanders says publicly, may not reflect what he believes personally. This writer submits Bernie Sanders, the man of principle, would want his followers to follow their hearts and principles to achieve the goal of combating corruption and restoring the “Rule of Law” in any legitimate matter available to them.

The Founder’s provided just such a legitimate course of action for dealing with tyranny and injustice.  The road map for dealing with rogue and tyrannical government can be found in the First Declaration of Causes (July 6, 1775) and the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1775).   This process calls for using all peaceful remedies before considering alternative remedies.  This process calls for documenting the exhausting of all peaceful remedies.  This process calls for a final Petition for Redress of Grievances (First Amendment) in the form of a “Declaration of Causes” that asserts WE THE PEOPLE have nearly exhausted our peaceful remedies and giving a deadline for the government to comply with redress of grievances in the document.  Only upon documenting all the exhausting of all peaceful remedies, submitting a Declaration of Causes to the Government containing a reasonable deadline, and that deadline expiring are WE THE PEOPLE free to consider and implement alternative remedies.


Every year since 2005, the Judicial TAR (Transparency, Accountability and Reform) Movement in Minnesota has asked for a hearing before the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The purpose of these hearing being to have these committees receive evidence and testimony of systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. Each year we have been denied said hearing. Additionally, the Government has engaged in unlawful and unconstitutional retaliation against the leaders of this movement causing some to move out of the state and at least one to move out of the country to escape the retaliation. Requests for such hearings at the Federal level have also been rebuffed. Clearly, WE THE PEOPLE have exhausted our peaceful remedies on this matter.

In 2009, sensing we would never be given a hearing and with people dying and moving away, we video taped an Ad hoc hearing on corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. You can see them here if you are interested:

03MAR2009 Ad Hoc #MN hearing:#Corruption in Judiciary 1/2
03MAR2009 Ad Hoc #MN hearing:#Corruption in Judiciary 2/2

Further, as this article goes to press this writer has litigation before the US Supreme Court moving to declare the Federal Reserve (Banking) System unconstitutional.  The FED’s Debt Based Money is the largest single cause of the growing wealth disparity in the USA. Upon the US Supreme Court Failing to declare the Federal Reserve (Banking) System, et. al. unconstitutional and further, satisfactorily redressing the damages the FED has caused, we believe we can declare that WE THE PEOPLE have exhausted our peaceful remedies on this matter. Our peaceful remedies through elections and the Courts having been bought off using the very Debt Based Money revenues which are amongst the reasons the FED is unconstitutional.

There is a third proof that WE THE PEOPLE have almost exhausted (sans serving upon Congress our own Declaration of Causes) that this writer has been personally involved in. This writer has asked Wright County, Minnesota (where his residence has been located in since 2000) for various government financial information that is supposed to be a matter of public record.  This writer intended to post this information on the internet so all Wright County residents could “audit” the spending of their tax dollars. This writer has asked for this information every year since 2008. Yet, as of 2016, this writer has not received this information. Clear Wright County, MN has no intention of providing this information. This writer has been advised by persons from other counties through out the united States of America that they have had similar experiences when asking government entities for financial records.   Transparency and Accountability are requirements the Founders build into our system of government. And clearly the present government intends to ignore that requirement. You can read more this saga here:

                            Minnesota Republicans (& Democrats) resist Fiscal TAR                               (Transparency, Accountability & Reform

Many other issues are included in the First draft of our Declaration of Causes. The first Draft of our proposed Declaration of Causes can be found at this link> (Please note, at present we believe the redress of the corruption and inequities, along with the restoration of Government transparency and accountability,  will correct the current wealth disparity thus making a change to Socialism unnecessary.)

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 [Government] 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 Independence ~ July 4, 1776

WE THE PEOPLE TAR invite Bernie Sanders supporters to review our proposed Declaration of Causes. We invite you to join us and suggest appropriate additions, corrections and deletions.

You can join the 90,000+ American Patriot strong conversation on Twitter We follow people from across the political spectrum. As long as you are respectful and constructive, you will not be blocked or muted. (Less than 10 people have been blocked/muted since 2009)

WE THE PEOPLE TAR asserts that Tyrant Class has been successful in oppressing WE THE PEOPLE by dividing and conquering WE THE PEOPLE with issues and labels.  WE THE PEOPLE refuse to fall prey to this divide and conquer strategy of the Tyrant Class again. The 66% of Americans in the middle of the political spectrum are the natural majority of America. We vow to cast off the attack politics the Establishment of both major parties have trained us in and instead resolve to have constructive political discourse that unites WE THE PEOPLE.

Please join us in taking back our country from the Tyrant Class, and restoring the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Please help us recruit young adults to be the Face and the Leaders of the Movement.

Please don’t vote for corrupt Hillary Clinton and allow the Tyrant Class to further consolidate their strangle hold over us.

Those were my thoughts.

Thank you for your time.

In Liberty,

Don Mashak

WE THE PEOPLE TAR (Transparency, Accountability and Reform)