Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Minnesota Supreme Court Violates 1st Amendment - Threatens Arrest
Share:
by CynicalPatriot | May 6, 2009 at 12:07 pm
2653 views | 4 Recommendations | 96 comments
Buffalo Minnesota USA- May 6, 2009
by Don Mashak
Students at Buffalo Senior High had the opportunity today to see the Minnesota Supreme Court subtly yet tyrannically violate the 1st Amendment providing for Freedom of the Press. This Reporter went ot this event to cover "Minnesota Supreme Court to hear Oral Arguements at Buffalo Senior High" . [sorry, they jerked the link - I had copied the original text into a notepad file - it is display below - Not pretty but functional] The 48 hour press release notice stated "Media are welcome to attend all events. Please refer to the schedule below. Also attached is the "Cameras in the Courtroom" policy, which will be followed during oral arguments."
Not wanting sit through all the "fluff News", I arrived about a half hour before the scheduled "Question and Answer Period" per the press release. I checked in with the Hall Monitor and received directions to the room where the Supreme Court convening.
As luck would have it, it was on the other side of the building from where I parked. As I got in proximitiy to the Auditorium, a Law Enforcement Officer stopped me. I told him I was with the Press, and wanted to be seated. The officer had some list he looked through and said I was not permitted in because I was not on the list. Then he Commented I was late. I informed him that I did not have an interest in sitting through the PR fluff. He asked for Credentials and I pointed to my "Name Tag" which read "Minnesota 10th Judicial District Free Press". He said that still was not good enough and insisted I leave the building. I asked him if he was familiar with the Supreme Court Ruling of Near v. Minnesota. He said he was not and insisted I leave the building. I refused, demanding to speak to whoever was in charge.
Soon another law enforcement officer was at his side. I also informed him i was with the press. He also insisted that I had to leave. After much discussion, the new officer to the situation agreed to go ask persons higher up the food chain for directions. Mean while the original officer continued to harang and belittle me.
The Second Officer Returned with the news that a person with the Supreme Court and a local District Court Judge were ordering me off the property. I demanded to know names so I could include them in this News Story. The Second officer first looked at some papers and said either a Lois or Louise with no last name. The Second Officer then left to find out names.
When the Second Officer returned, he did not provide the names of those in charge who violated my Constitutional 1st Amendment Rights as a member of the Press. Instead, he said I would be seated but I could ask no questions.
During the course of this interaction I was threatened with arrest 3 times and I was intimidated by the 1st officer invading my personal space and condescending to me. Apparently the rest of the Minnesota Press has been so cowed into political correctness, there is no need for the Minnesota Supreme Court might take time to instruct persons representing them as to need to show respect, courtesy and proper consideration to the Press in the interest of at least the appearance of "Openess"
I was seated alone away from the rest of the press and away from the crowd. It reminded me of being sent to stand in the corner for you older folks, a time out in the hall for you younger folks. i was not allowed to ask any questions and law enforcement hovered over me at every instant.
I have other commitments i must keep now, but I will finish this news article by uploading pictures and audio when time permits.
For now i will depart with two of the questions I wanted to ask, and add the rest later.
1) The original Minnesota Constitution Article 6, Section 9 called for the Legislature to oversee and discipline the Judicial Branch. For those less familiar with Constitutional Law, you will recall from High School Civics The concept of the 3 Judicial Branches having Checks and Balances over each other. The purpose was to prevent any one branch of the government from become too powerful and tyrannical over America and her Citizens. For Simplicity of explanation, The Minnesota Legislature abdicated its Constitutional Duty to to oversee and discipline Judges referring that duty to the Judiciary itself. The Questions are; Does the Supreme Court believe this situation is Constitutional? And Second, "Do you believe it has led to the inevitable corruption of the Minnesota Judiciary per the adage, "Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely"?
2) Why are Citizens not permitted to bring personal audio recording devices to record their own Court Hearings ? There have been allegations of altered court transcripts and missing evidence. Would not allowing Citizens to record their own hearings provide them protection from intentional or accidental altering of transcripts and loss of evidence? Would not allowing Citizens to record hearings prevent them from being abused by "Tyrannical Judges behaving badly and prevent them having it be there word against a Judges word in instances of disagreement and/or misunderstandings?
Please return later when I have more time to complete this article. Instead of posting the Video here I am going to provide it Via a Interview I did on the TV Program Speechless. It should be online.... Sorry there is a delay until I can change the file format. Hopefully I can have it on line Friday, May 15, 2009. The conversion and up load of this large file is not as easy as I thought.
Respectfully,
Your Fellow Disgruntled Citizen
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot.
The Original Supreme Court Press Notification
News Item
MN Supreme Court Convening at Buffalo High School
Posted: Monday, May 04, 2009
The Minnesota Supreme Court will convene at Buffalo High School, 877 Bison Blvd.,
Buffalo, MN, at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 6, 2009. Oral arguments will be
followed by a question-and-answer session, lunch with students and Buffalo
Rotarians and classroom visits. The Court will hear oral arguments of a real
case - State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Meng Vang, Appellant (Case No. A08-588),
which originated in Anoka County District Court. The Court partnered with the
Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) Civic Education Committee to arrange
volunteer attorneys to visit classrooms at Buffalo High School in order to help
prepare students and staff for the visit. More than 800 Buffalo Area students
will watch the oral arguments and participate in the question-and-answer session
in the auditorium. The program will also be taped by QCTV (Quad Cities Television)
to be used in future classes.
Media are welcome to attend all events. Please refer to the schedule below.
Also attached is the "Cameras in the Courtroom" policy, which will be followed
during oral arguments. The Supreme Court began convening oral arguments in front
of high school students twice a year i n 1995 as part of its efforts to promote
better understanding of the role of the courts. The Buffalo High School visit marks
the 29th in-school oral argument for the Court.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
8:45 a.m. Media cameras must be set up. Please call Lissa Finne, Communications
Specialist, at (651) 297-5532 or cell (612) 201-7637 24 hours in advance to reserve
a place. Reserved seating will be available for media.
9:15 a.m. Welcome. (Buffalo High School Performing Arts Center, 877 Bison Blvd.,
Buffalo). Principal Mark Mischke welcomes students and introduces Tenth Judicial
District Judge Stephen Halsey. Judge Halsey will give an orientation to the
Minnesota court system and explain how the case came before the Supreme Court.
9:30 a.m. Supreme Court Oral Arguments (Buffalo High School Performing
Arts Center). The Supreme Court hears oral arguments of a real case State of
Minnesota, Respondent vs. Meng Vang, Appellant (Case No. A08-588). 10:35 a.m.
Question-and-Answer Period. Following the recognition, Supreme Court Justices
answer students' questions.
11:45 a.m. Student Media Availability. Members of the Buffalo High School
newspaper, the Hoofprint, will interview the court about the visit to the school.
12:00 p.m. Lunch with Supreme Court Justices (Bison Room). Minnesota Supreme
Court Justices, Tenth Judicial District Judges, Buffalo Rotary Club members and
other special guests will join Buffalo High School students for lunch. 1:00 p.m.
Classroom Visits. Supreme Court Justices will visit classrooms at Buffalo High
School, Buffalo Community Middle School, Parkside Elementary and Tatanka Elementary to speak to students about law-related careers and legal topics that affect young people.
CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM POLICY:
The following rules are established for audio and video coverage of the Minnesota
Supreme Court at Saint Paul Buffalo High School:
Notice of intent to cover court proceedings by either audio or video means shall be
given by the media to the Court Information Office 24 hours prior to the time of the
intended coverage by calling (651) 297-5532 or (612) 201-7637.
Camerapersons, technicians and photographers covering a proceeding shall avoid
activity which might distract participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings;
shall remain within the restricted areas designated by the Court; shall observe the
customs of the Court; shall conduct themselves in keeping with Court decorum; and
shall not dress in a manner which sets them apart unduly from the participants in
the proceedings.
Exact locations for all camera and video equipment in the auditorium shall be
determined by the Court Information Office. All equipment shall be in place and
tested 45 minutes in advance of the time the Court is called to order, and shall
be unobtrusive. All wiring shall be safely and securely taped to the floor
along the walls. Only existing auditorium lighting shall be used.
Cameras are free to move around the auditorium during the question-and-answer
portion of the program.
About the Minnesota Judiciary The Minnesota Judicial Branch is made up of 10 judicial districts with 289 district court judgeships, 19 Court of Appeals judges, and seven Supreme Court justices.
The Minnesota Judicial Branch is governed by the Judicial Council, which is chaired by Eric J. Magnuson, Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Minnesota Judicial Branch is mandated by the Minnesota Constitution to resolve disputes promptly and without delay, and handles approximately 2 million cases per year. The Minnesota Supreme Court hears appeals from the Court of Appeals, Workers' Compensation Court of Appeals and Tax Court; reviews first-degree murder convictions, and legislative election disputes.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
Audience Member (not verified)
Crowd Power
CynicalPatriot
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (96)
at 15:04 on May 7th, 2009
You forgot to mention the part where your cell phone rang twice during the Question and Answer portion of the event. You even answered it before excusing yourself. There were over 850 high school students in the audience and none of them was disrespectful enough to have a cell phone on them. They all arrived on time, as well.
What happened before you arrived was not PR, but rather actual oral arguments pertaining to a First Degree Murder conviction. There was not fanfare whatsoever beyond regular court proceedings.
There were media members present from both student and local presses, all of which requested permission in advance of the event and were not only granted that permission, but were also given special access to the justices and the day's events.
I support New Media and the strugger for legitimate bloggers to be recognized as the media, but your behavior was unprofessional and set the blogger-as-journalist image back in the eyes of all who were present. True Journalists, bloggers or not, should hold themselves to a set of professional, ethical guidelines.
You misrepresented the event, made serious allegations, and then did not write about anything but your own disruptive experience. Tell me what you were there to cover? What would your story had been if you had arrived on time and were granted admittance like the rest of the press? You had no purpose but to cause a disruption and then write about yourself.
at 15:31 on May 7th, 2009
The foregoing gentleman is from the Supreme Court I call upon him to correct himself. I ask him not to post the proof of what for now I will, just call an error of recollection. No requirement to call in advance was required. I was so rattled by the confrontation with the police that I forgot to shut my cell phone off. Sue me. As for not covering the event, I was there to ask real question not hear the court court answer softball questions like: If you were not a Supreme Court Judge and could be anything in the world, What would you be?" This question was appropriate for the age of the child that ask that question, But it was not real Journalism. You know the real questions already? When will the Supreme Court sit down in front of a Video Camera and answer real questions like the Constitutionality of the Legislature Repealing Article 6 Section 9 of the Original Constitution and abdicating its requirment to supervise the Judiciary? and Why persons cannot not record their own hearings under penalty of law? Are we on the same page now? Get a Pair and
The Cynical Patriot.
at 07:53 on May 8th, 2009
Dude that is so much bull that you "forgot to turn your cell phone off." You knew exactly what you were doing when you showed up late, had your own "I.D.", and you were taking pictures with your cell phone. and even if you did forget to turn off your cell, after it went off THE FIRST TIME, you would have been a decent person and respected the other people in the audience by turning it off. Maybe you could learn from your mistakes dumbass.
at 05:28 on May 8th, 2009
Why are Citizens not permitted to bring personal audio recording devices to record their own Court Hearings?
Because citizens can alter transcripts too. If you record an mp3 of something, anyone from this generation could easily change everything about the case. Then you get two forms of court records and the state then has to choose which one to uphold. Which one do you think the court will uphold in any case?
Second: if you don't want to be seated in the corner, SHOW UP ON TIME. Seats are first come first serve. Don't show up late with "press credentials" that were probably printed at your house in your basement and expect to be taken seriously.
Third: The reason law enforcement were hovering around you was because you had your cell phone on. If you were there before the trial you would know that any behavior that was disruptive was grounds for removal, and your phone went off more then once.
at 06:29 on May 8th, 2009
Hello Mike:
Why can't the Supreme Court answer the question?
Are you able to read minds?
Alterations of recordings are pretty detectable.
Again, I hate bringing up the pesky facts but read the press release. It said nothing about Press having to be there the entire day. I did not show up late. I showed up when i wanted to. I showed up for an opportunity to ask a question. Either During the Q&A or informally after.
The police hovered around long before my cell phone went off. Sorry for those pesky truths but that is what accurate reporting is about.
Again with the Pesky Facts... I Realize it is only a ruling of the US Supreme Court but it has ruled that "Licensing of the Press" Cannot be done. If you have read any of my blogs you know that I am a legitimate Reporter.
You do realize that at anytime i could "block users" of these negative comments. I leave them here because I do not want to stifle debate.
I believe in the philosphy of Free Speech that says, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it."
Thank you for your comments.
Respectfuly,Your Fellow Sovereign Citizen
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
at 16:48 on May 7th, 2009
I do not believe that your questions are unfair or unreasonable, and I think you deserve answers to those questions.
One of the justices spoke later about the difference between a cynic and a skeptic. A cynical person would enter the school - a place of education with the foremost responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of the children they are entrusted to care for - and be surprised that they were wary of an unannounced visitor with dubious credentials, because a cynic doesn't believe that the school may be motivated by the care for others. A cynic distrusts people constantly and inherently - believes all people act simply for their own betterment.
You have every right to be skeptical to to doubt the court and the legislature. That's your freedom, and you have a right to ask the questions you are asking. The supreme court support your freedom and honestly fights to defend that freedom for you. The press needs to ask those questions and be skeptical, but I don't think that cynicism is going to get you answers.
However, you said that you realized that this experience was designed for an audience of high school students and was presented on a school day in a school building. It's the job of a school to be skeptical of visitors. It's the job of the police to protect both the justices and the students. You gained admittance with both the school's and the police's blessing. A more professional, reasonable journalist could have thought through their entrance better to avoid causing a scene and gain a more balanced perspective on the event.
I don't think you should be silenced. However, I do think you made some mistakes in your plan for covering the event as you did and did not behave as an ethical journalist on that day.
at 01:30 on May 8th, 2009
I appreciate your candor. For reasons mentioned in my response to Brad, I am not going to address all the issues you raised.
I will point out to you that, except in the rarest of cases, All Court hearings and Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court are open to the general public. I was not excluded on some basis of safety, I was excluded for my political beliefs and my efforts to get MN House Resolution 1632 - Judicial Reform and Accountability Law passed by the Legislature. The Minnesota Courts are Corrupt. They have passed rules that say the Judges don't have to follow the rules, that the Judges can take tips (aka Bribes) and they are trying to take away your right to vote for Judges. Don't Believe me, write a letter to them and ask if I speak the truth.
I encourage you to participate in the excercise I suggested to Brad.
Thank you for your input.
Respectfully,
Your Fellow Sovereign Citizen
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
at 18:04 on May 7th, 2009
First off I'd like to recognize the author of the dissenting views to this blog -- I completely agree with you.
Now, on to the matter of this "blog". I can truthfully say I attended the Supreme Court’s hearing (not “PR”) at Buffalo High School Wednesday, May 6th 2009. I, like every student and guest, was granted access due to the nature of the event. It was not held in a courtroom or another formal area of deliberation, it was in a school, my school for that matter. The fact the police turned you down makes me feel good. Your “name tag” doesn’t constitute credentials. Our security, definitely at such an important event was extremely important. The fact you were ‘turned away’ tells nothing of the officers who obviously were doing their jobs. To criticize them is to criticize protecting children -- an obvious flaw on your part.
You did get in though, didn’t you? Frankly, the entire Performing Arts Center knew you did. After listening to approximately an hour of interesting oral arguments a cell phone rang, and now due to your witless rant I know exactly who it was: you. Instead of doing the polite thing (like ignoring the call) you decided you were more important than everyone else in the room and proceeded to leave the auditorium. If a group of teenagers aged 14-18 can manage to stay silent for over an hour listening to court preceding the least you could’ve done was turn you phone off.
Next came the Q & A, a time you so obviously wished to be a part of. Did it ever occur to you the time was designed for students to ask questions of the Justices. Your narcissism couldn’t have blinded you that much, could it have? Either way I’m proud to say I got one on one interview time with the court, something you might have been able to muster had you gone through appropriate channels and acted professionally. I found the Justices extremely likeable and equally intelligent. Each had a unique view on my questions and each was eager to answer them; in no way did they ‘suppress’ my first amendment rights. Where you went after this is beyond me; I had much more important things to attend to than wonder where the ‘cell phone man’ had scurried off to. After I had eaten lunch my group traveled back to our classroom and awaited Justice Paul Anderson. While he was a bit late in showing up I can say it was worth the wait. Not only did the man have the knowledge and experience of the court but he was a master explainer, used colorful examples and enriched the minds of dozens of students – nothing your rant has come close to accomplishing. Even after the bell had rang at 2:20 Justice Anderson stayed to discuss issues ranging from our future plans to the challenges and opportunities the future brings. He is a truly wise man.
I hope your readers, whoever they may be, are a bit more informed now after reading my comment. Your reckless factual inaccuracies frighten me; the fact people can spew such nonsense and still think of themselves as a credible source is a bit scary. What you have posted here is not Journalism. As a student of the art and supporter of the media I am a bit ashamed of you. For every reasonable and articulate blogger out there, there seems to be an equal amount of idiots like you who don’t understand what it means to report. I’ll offer you a piece of advice, assuming you continue with your idiotic rants: get your facts straight. Blogging is fine, just make sure you’re actually reporting next time. There’s a fine line between opinioned tirades and Journalism – you’ve crossed it.
So grow a pair of your own and get it right next time.
P.S I heard the ads you left on all the teacher's car windows went over great. One teacher went as far to call you, "A dumb ass."
Hope that meets your ego standard for today.
Brad Palmer
Editor-in-Chief
The Hoofprint
Buffalo High School
at 02:45 on May 8th, 2009
Hello Brad:
I am going to try to resist the temptation to tell you how to think. I am going to propose a little exercise hear to allow you to form your own opinion, unlike others who tell you how to think.
I propose that you send these to questions and the rest of the questions I wanted to ask to the Supreme Court. Tell them they can respond in writing, or by interview or on camera, but that you just want answers..
Then, based on any response your receive and on your own assessment of how satisfactory, direct or evasive the any answer you might receive, I would invite you to an on camera interview where we can discuss and/or debate your perceptions of the entire process. Does that sound fair enough? IUnlike other adults, I don't want to tell you how to think, I want you to experience the process yourself and form your own opinion.
After you form your own opinion I will give you a copy of a TV Interview I did tonight. (Which is why I have not responded until now.
And then, we can do our on camera Discussion or Debate, which ever you prefer, on what you learned along the way and your views of Freedom of the press.
As a tickler, I would ask you to consider why the main stream press has not asked and/or printed answers to the 2 questions I included in the main article.
Now I direct you to the Supreme Court Press Notice that I attached at the end of article. Please read said article. The only Press notice that was required was if you wanted space alotted for a large Video Camera. I did not bring a video Camera, no notice was required. There is no requirement stated that I must attend the entire event. Please note that this was the only information I had. Please note that words mean things. I cannot not know information, preferences or directions that are not included in the Press Notice. My position is that if your outline of the intent and requirements expected of the press are correct, then the writer of the Press Notice did a poor job of communicating.
Item Next, When I arrived at the Building, I did not know which side of the building this event was being held on. I entered from the far side and went immediately to the adult female hall monitor and asked directions to the correct room. She directed around the corner and down the long hall.
Item Next, Per a US Supreme Court Ruling the Press Cannot be required to be Licensed. All that is necessary is I identify myself as the Press. When I arrived. I did produce my Drivers license when the officer requested it, though I would have been within my rights to refuse to submit to his request. The Label Name Tag was a mere courtesy.
Yes, I did get in. I got in because I successfully resisted their ladder of escalation.
I got in after being threatened with arrest 3 times. I got in by quoting Case Law. I got in by demanding the names of the Supreme Court Representative and the Judge that were repressing the Free Press. The Powers that be knew I was aware of my Constitution rights. Only because the two persons who made the decision knew they were violating my constitutional rights and did not want their names disclosed did they acquiesce and let me in. And then it was strict demands that I ask know questions. This is another opportunity for you to form your own opinion of the Free Press Process. Tell the Supreme Court you want to know the names of the Staff Person and the Judge that insisted on turning me away until I demanded to know their names. Let me know if you get a straight forward answer or an evasive answer. Again, I want your to form your own opinion rather than tell you how to think. If they give you the names, please provide them to me. They won't give them to me. Having said all of that, how many reporters do you think they successfully turn away because they are not aware of their rights or are afraid of being arrested? This technique is a tactic that is taught with the intent of intimidation, it is not a happenstance occurance.
Item Next... You are right, I am an amateur reporter. I got tired of the main stream media not asking the tough questions. I own my own business but I thought this was important enough to take time out of my busy day to make the effort to get the answers. You see I care about my fellow Citizens and you the youth who will suffer the consequences of my generations lack of vigilance in defending our libeties. I think it sucks that my generation is saddling your generation with 35000 dollars each in Federal Debt before you are 18 years old. I think it sucks that instead of suffering the consequences of the poor decisions of the politicians that we elected, we are postponing them for your generation to suffer. I think it sucks that us adults are spending money we don't have to avoid us suffering now and leaving your generation to pay our debts. I guess it would be nice if you rdealized that I was fighting for your generations liberties and a future not settled with the debt created by my generation. But it is not necessary that you like me, my ethics and morality are absolute and not conditional upon your generations likeing me. Please take this paragraph home to your parents and ask them what this means.
I apologize for disrupting your event. I am a simple man not used to large crowds in recent years. I went with the intent of just blending into the crowd, not standing out from the crowd. Blaming me for the poor behavior of the police and the Supreme Court is a little like pulling the wings off a fly and then ridiculing it for not being able to fly. I went for the chance opportunity to ask questions the main stream press avoids. I was already nervous and taken out of my comfort zone when threatened 3 times with arrest. I guess you must be a better man than I am in indicating you would have been unaffected by these threats by the police. Would you consider it sufficient penance if I come back and let the police beat me in the ribs with a police baton until they broke a rib? Though I had successfully asserted my constitutional rights, the police were irritated that I prevailed. They are just people with feelings too. In their eyes I had challenged their authority, humiliated them and they were itching for revenge.
The first time my cell phone rang, I had forgot to shut it off because of the stress of the police confrontation. Next, my phone is my camera. While taking pictures, another officer startled me by telling me the shutter noise my camera made was too loud. He was not pleasant about it. I was again rattled and for fear of giving him an excuse to inflict retaliation I opted to immediately sit down. I just put my phone/camera in my pocket while concentrating on not giving the officer any excuse to use force against me. At the same time I was trying keep my composure in the face of overwhelming intimidation.
About this point, I gave up all thoughts of trying to ask a question after the Q and A fearing any approach by myself towards any judge to ask a question would result in my be wrestled to the ground and arrested. The various scenarios how I might sucessfully ask my questions and of what could happened to me if I tried to ask any questions raced through my mind as I sat there. In this state of mind, I forgot that I did not shut my phone/camera off. And at some point my mind raced with terror of what I had just endured and I just wanted to get out of there. I waited until the Q&A was over and headed straight to the door overwhelmed with fear and panic. I am sorry I did not live up to your expectations of manhood. I apologize.
Though I desperately want to tell you how to think by telling you that you are wrong on various points, I am not going to address any other points raised until after you have an opportunity ask the Supreme Court the Questions I was not able to ask and the questions no one will answer pertaining to the itendity of the 2 people to repress the free press. After you receive the Supreme Court Response and have formed your own opinion, we can have further dialogue without me influencing your opinion.
You see it is more important to me that you develop your own impressions and opinions, than it is that I imprint on you my beliefs. I am confident that the Supremes Courts Response to you regarding the questions I wanted to ask will cause you develop impressions and opinions compatable with my own.
I am concerned that the USA is on the brink of Collapse. I am concerned that young people are being indoctrinated in a manner not consistent in supporting heatlhy competive political idscourse.
I am willing to risk losing the argument and losing face on the chance that this little exercise will render you better future Sovereign Citizens.
I look forward to hearing your acceptance of my challange. If you seek the truth, you will not let other adults talk you out of this.
Thank you for your assertive dialogue thusfar.
It is time for you to step through the Looking Glass Now Alice...
Best Regards,
You Fellow Citizen
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
PS I challege your teacher with the "Dumb Ass" comment to a debate.
Please relate to said teacher to put up or shut up.
at 04:39 on May 8th, 2009
You seem to be rattled quite easily. Please plan an out of country vacation for the Fourth of July. I would suggest a one-way ticket to China. Enjoy your freedom there.
Are you sure you aren't the Senile Patriot?
at 06:41 on May 8th, 2009
Thank you for showing either you immaturity or intolerance to other view points.
Again, no name ergo, no credibility.
Therefore, no need of further response.
The Cyncial Patriot
at 09:12 on May 8th, 2009
What we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding.
Everyone who has posted on your story is in fact a person; there is no doubt about that. The fact you persist to include them in your “real person” debate is immature. The fact someone does not wish to be personally harassed like you insisted upon with you, “get a pair” comment does not show a lack of credibility, rather a distrust of you. Likewise, do you feel it would be safe for a 15 year-old girl to post their full name on an internet blog after the author of said blog knows when she is at school and where the school is and has already shown the ability to enter said school without an invitation? I think no. Also, I don’t know about you, but I don’t have an “auto-pilot” function on my computer. Everything I write is in fact from me, something I would assume is fairly similar to everyone else you’ve denied response to because they’re “not real”. Get over your image of self-importance and acknowledge the credibility of these students: yes, kids, teenagers, people who lack a degree from the University of Minnesota in Economics. I take pride in the fact my fellow students can so easily and so gracefully craft factual and witty responses to your tirades. Now onto your direct reply to my previous comment. First off, thank you for not censoring me or my fellow students; such an act would have completely pushed my opinion of you off the edge and any further responses from me would have stopped, I promise that. But as for your comment, “I don’t want to tell you what to think” I again thank you. In all my years in school and otherwise living I have never been told “what to think.” Of the 800 students in attendance each one chose to be there. They were not forced, or threatened. Each one could have gone to another of there classes and missed the entire event; that is not indoctrination. The very word implies a lack of the ability to choose your own actions. If you seriously believe our educational system is indoctrinating children, sir, you are mistaken. I form my own opinions, I argue my own points, and I enjoy hearing other sides of an argument. I am not a robot; I am unique individual who has unique ideals. Please do not belittle me or any other student by implying we can’t think for ourselves. Why do you insist on confrontation? What do you wish on accomplishing in a one-on-one debate in person that you can not here in this form? I ask of you only questions you have repeatedly failed to address:- In an ideal world, how would your visit have played out?
- What journalists should be granted credentials in situations like that? What ones should be denied?
- How can bloggers be change agents and be taken seriously while lacking an established code of ethics and professional standards? Under what circumstances do you envision alternative media gaining that type of credibility, respect, and legitimacy?
- Do bloggers need to attempt to tell both sides of stories or should they expect readers to anticipate bias?
In no way lead yourself to believe I don’t think you have a right to get your questions answered. You have that right, and I support it. You however forgot to address a flaw with your “adaptable” plan. You purposely missed the actual deliberation; when they ended any legal justification you had for being there ended (though you could have again, called ahead, set up an interview, and actually done your job). What you attended was a student event, designed for students, by students, at a school. You were our guest. If you insist on getting your questions answered I recommend you do it in the correct manner. That means going through the correct channels, contacting the right people, and showing up at the right events.You only do yourself and other journalists an injustice with actions like those of last Wednesday. There are plenty of opportunities for you to use your first amendment rights. But by showing up at a school, unannounced and ill-prepared you did not do you job.
P.S. The teacher in question would not have the patience to debate, and you the same to him. Such an event would be undesirable for the both of you.
Brad Palmer
Editor-in-Chief The Hoofprint Buffalo High Schoolat 18:09 on May 7th, 2009
I was there as well, and I was even closer to you than the man speaking before me. The first time your cell phone rang, it was forgiven--everyone wrote it off as some old man not being able to handle technology. The second time around, people realized how unprofessional you were. Even if you were shaken up from the alleged three arrest threats, you are a human being. I assume that you are able to learn from the situation and turn your cell phone off. After all, your plan was to adapt your own schedule and enter late, after everyone else.
Even as a high school student, I know that when I'm in such a formal setting I shouldn't rely on chance and "skip the PR crap". The reason that you were shunted off to the side of the entrance, sitting in one of our plastic, paper thin, and crappy chairs was because you came late. Missing the "PR crap" means you miss a good spot. If you didn't realize, the entire auditorium was packed until the court broke for a five minute recess.
How professional of you to slap your business card on all our teachers' vehicles at the end of the day as well. You prove your immaturity by then telling perhaps one of the most tolerant and accepting individuals in our school to grow a pair. With your attitude, I'm frankly surprised that the officers didn't taze you. At least the electric charge would have killed your cell phone for you.
at 18:14 on May 7th, 2009
I was there as well, and I was even closer to you than the man speaking before me. The first time your cell phone rang, it was forgiven--everyone wrote it off as some old man not being able to handle technology. The second time around, people realized how unprofessional you were. Even if you were shaken up from the alleged three arrest threats, you are a human being. I assume that you are able to learn from the situation and turn your cell phone off. After all, your plan was to adapt your own schedule and enter late, after everyone else.
Even as a high school student, I know that when I'm in such a formal setting I shouldn't rely on chance and "skip the PR crap". The reason that you were shunted off to the side of the entrance, sitting in one of our plastic, paper thin, and crappy chairs was because you came late. Missing the "PR crap" means you miss a good spot. If you didn't realize, the entire auditorium was packed until the court broke for a five minute recess.
How professional of you to slap your business card on all our teachers' vehicles at the end of the day as well. You prove your immaturity by then telling perhaps one of the most tolerant and accepting individuals in our school to grow a pair. With your attitude, I'm frankly surprised that the officers didn't taze you. At least the electric charge would have killed your cell phone for you.
at 06:51 on May 8th, 2009
The weak willed and the Weak minded make anonymous accusations and Judgements. How do I know you are even a real person?
As for the first individual to post, He parrotted the comments of a representative of the Supreme Court that I had spoken to earlier in the day.... I am sorry, but his argument was so similar that I believed that it was that person.
Had I realized it was a student, Decorum would have prevented me from using the "Pair" reference. I apologize.
I do note that I have posted the actual text of the of the Supreme Court Press Release. It makes no note of a requirement for press not having a large video camera having to make contact in advance. It specifically says the advance requirement is to be allotted space for a large camera. Some over paid Government Wordsmith does not know how to communicate properly if the intent was for all press to check in in advance.I note that this well liked/respected person has failed to retract their misstatement. So much for an interest in the truth or actual facts.
I encourage you to participate in the exercise that I proposed to Brad.
Thank you for your input.
Don MashakRespectfully
Your Fellow Sovereign Citizen
The Cynical Patriot
at 18:45 on May 7th, 2009
I'd like to formally congratulate you on not only degrading an experience for high school students but making a mockery of yourself. The negative label the media can garner is synonymous with the decision-making that you put forth this past Wednesday.
As a student host of the event, I personally interacted with the various members of the highest court in Minnesota throughout the day. Why was I allowed to do so? Because I'm a student who was fortunate enough to be chosen to participate. There's a word in there that's important for you to understand Mr. Mashak: student. Last time I checked, you already graduated from the University of Minnesota.
See, unlike you, I was one of those individuals who this hearing was meant to address. I'm rather upset to see a fellow 'journalist' (if that's what we've decided to call you) stoop to level of invading upon the next generations time with the current leaders of today. Was it really necessary for you to badger the justices with your 'pertinent' questions? No. At least not at this function.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the media and free speech. But as my fellow students have said before me, you decided to handle yourself in a highly unethical manner. I do hope that when you retreat to your mother's basement tonight you remember one thing: this wasn't your time or your place.
Perhaps the next time you decide to invade upon others opportunities you can do so with a little more dignity, for all of us. However, I really do understand that it may be difficult for you judging by the lack of your 'pair'. Let's all try to remain professional, please.
By the way, here's a shout out for all those who like to blog with improper syntax and grammar: we've found another one.
at 19:09 on May 7th, 2009
So I'm not the only one who was disgusted by his gross misunderstanding of English -- great.
at 06:48 on May 8th, 2009
Again Brad:
I do not want to tell you how to think.
Please read my reply to your previous post and provide a reasoned response.
I point out again that I could easily "Block User" and not have to have all these negative comments appear. In deference to your youth and in the interest of not suppressing the dialog I do not block any responses.
Please accept my excercise in journalism stated in response to your first post.
Are you interested in Journalism or Mob Rule?
Thank you for your comments and the courage to include your name.
Respectfully
Your Fellow Sovereign Citizen
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
at 19:29 on May 7th, 2009
I do think we should remain respectful Mr. Palmer. In Mr. Mashak's own words, he 'survived public education'.
It's rather interesting, he actually received a Bachelor of Science in Economics from the University of Minnesota. Let's give him some credit here, a portion of his schooling must have consisted of learning proper grammar and punctuation.
at 19:31 on May 7th, 2009
Then again, maybe his professor skipped over the application portion.
at 19:33 on May 7th, 2009
Then again, maybe his professor skipped over the application portion.
at 19:40 on May 7th, 2009
Or maybe he entered his classes after the Grammar PR.
at 20:12 on May 7th, 2009
Quoted for rhetorical effect. Nice one.
at 06:56 on May 8th, 2009
IF I HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANY OF THE FORGOING AT ALL OR ONLY IN PART, IT IS IN DEFERENCE TO TO THE EXERCISE I SUGGESTED TO BRAD.
I encourage you all to participate.
Please also ask you teachers about the meaning of :
Sovereign Citizens
Servant Politicians
In Propia Persona
Artificial Entities
The Great American Experiment
Civil Disobedience
I hope that somewhere someone along the line someone realizes that I am just a simple business man who is tired of the main stream media not asking the tough questions. Unlike others who are paralyzed with fear and awstruck by the mess the country is in, I am trying to hold the politicians accountable. And make no mistake, Supreme Court Judges are Politicians.
You heard the justices say themselves that they were not going to answer any question that they did not want to? What kind of arrogance is that?
Maybe some of you will come to appreciate that I am so concerned about my fellow citizens, the future generation and the future of my country, that I took the time out of my busy day to come down and fight for your liberties and to hold the Supreme Court accountable as any Sovereign Citizen is obligated to do. I guess I could just stay home like most adults and make excuses to myself why there is nothing I can do. Maybe I should just shutup like the rest of the adults did while the politicians strapped 35000 dollars in debt on each of your backs. Should I just sit idly by and let them strap another 35000 dollars on each of your backs? I guess I would rather look the fool to trying stop them from making your debt burden unbearable, than sit in my recliner watching TV and ignoring your inescapable fate. THIS IS NOT FANTASY, YOU WILL ALL BE PAYING MUCH HIGHER TAXES THAN I EVER HAVE IN MY LIFE. I can't stop it because not enough other adults care enough to stand up for you. YOU ARE BEING TAXED WITHOUT REPRESENTATION AND YOU DONT EVEN REALIZE IT.
Others of less fortitude would be disheartened. Instead of recognizing me for taking the time to try to do something about the mess we find the nation in, you pillory me on your perception that I do not adhere to protocol. While I am there to confront the Supreme Court for allowing Judges to take tips(aka bribes), writing rules that say they do not have to follow the rules and attempting to take away your right to vote for them you want ridicule me over items of Decorum caused almost entirely by the poor behavior of the police and the Supreme Court and a poorly written press notice.
Most other Adults are more than happy to let you inherit the mess.....
RespectfullyYour Fellow Citizent
Don Mashak
The Cyncial Patriot
at 05:21 on May 8th, 2009
ok so you think that you weren't treated right great, but you need to get a life. when you make fun of how cops do their job you make yourself look bad and man shut off your phone what is wrong with you think twice before come to a school and try to start something.
at 05:32 on May 8th, 2009
After reading the comments that my classmates left you, and reading your response to their comments, I don't know how you are a "professional Journalist". Why should you get specal treatment when you can in late, with your cell phone on loud, and were more then likely disrespctful to the officers who where simply following the rules that they were giving by not letting you in. I think that you shouldn't have been let in. And I'm sorry that you feel that we have long hallways, but guess what it's called excercise. As far as adults telling us what to think, you are way out of line. There is no teacher at Buffalo High School that tries to tell us what to think. They actually encourage us to have free, creative minds, and to express ourselves as individuals. If you think that your standing up for our schoolm your so far off its unbelievable. You have no right to say the things that you have, like telling a teacher to "grow a pair". You are extremly unprofessional, and should have never been allowed to come into the PAC. Everyone else had permission to come and take pictures and be there. If you were not notified of that, then obviously they didn't want you there at all. And if you wanted to ask them questions that the students didn't, well just rememeber you were at a High school, and you were surrounded by students. No other Journalists were able to ask questions, so again why should they have given you special attention? What makes you so much better then everyone else who was there, and there on time? And how can you say that they took "tips" or "bribes"? Do you know this for a fact? Because our journalism teacher has always taught us to print the truth and only the truth. But I'm sure that you don't understand what truth in journalism is.
at 07:13 on May 8th, 2009
Hello
Again, no name - no credibility.
Again the Pesky Facts - Read the Press Notice, no requirement to attend the entire day. No requirement to notify them I am coming unless I want space for a large camera reserved.
Again, i believed the first anonymous cowardly poster was someone else. Someone else led me to believe that person was a student and i stated I would not use that term if I had known that. Now you tell me it is a teacher. If this is indeed a teacher, I withdraw my apology for using the pair term. I challenge that teacher to a debate. Put up or shut up.
As for evidence of the various allegations, please see the video tape and minutes of the Adhoc Committee Hearings on HR 1632. But for the record, Judges are allowed to take "tips" of up to 150 dollars each but there is no limit to the number of tips they can take in a day. Do you see any reason that judges should be taking tips? If you find a good reason, then should there not be a limit of how many tips per day they can take? Do you think accepting tips increases or decreases the appearance of neautrality.
As for you comments about what was and was not expected, I again refer you to the apparently poorly worded Press Notice attached to the end of the article.
As for special privileges, I think i have none. I am just another insect on the windsheild of life. However, just because the rest of the mainstream press allows themselves to be muzzled, does not mean I have to.
And as i have mentioned elsewhere, I could use the "block user" function anytime to remove any negative post. I choose not to so has not to stifle the debate. Maybe I should block all of the anonymous users.
None are more hopeslessly enslaved than those that falsely believe they are free -
Enough, I have already paid an anonymous poster more time than I should have.
The Cynical Patriot.
at 07:54 on May 8th, 2009
What type of debate format are you implying?
How is the discussion you are having with adults here different from a debate? It seems like you live in a world of confrontation instead of discourse. A straight debate serves no purpose but running in circles.
A few questions for you:
In an ideal world, how would your visit have played out?
What journalists should be granted credentials in situations like that? What ones should be denied?
How can bloggers be change agents and be taken seriously while lacking an established code of ethics and professional standards? Under what circumstances do you envision alternative media gaining that type of credibility, respect, and legitimacy?
Do bloggers need to attempt to tell both sides of stories or should they expect readers to anticipate bias?
Feel free to ask questions of me as well.
Also, please stop disparaging students for not using their full names in their arguments. It's not wise for students to reveal not only their location during the day but also their exact identity.
at 07:57 on May 8th, 2009
No Name - No Credibility - No Need For Response
The Cynical Patriot
at 09:09 on May 8th, 2009
Your name means as much to me as any other name or a complete lack of a name. You don't get credibility for simply having a name. You get credibility for the ideas you present.