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
2192 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.
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 05:59 on May 8th, 2009
First: I have read and decided we are more different than alike. You are a fool and not a patriot. I do fight reform and you are a tyrant.
Two: Please learn how to quote properly. Allen Ginsberg, Ward Chruchchill, Henry David Thoreau and Harretz would be ashamed of you.
Thirdly: Your lack of caring is appalling. 'No cap plz, they blind my eyezs.' Make a point without all caps. We are able to read.
Having sat directly in front of you; I reject your logic.
You have forgotten you were in a school building. As such you must not only abide by the laws set by the conference but also the school. You did not have an official pass. If you were turned away; you obviously had not notified Buffalo High School prior to your coming. If so you would have gotten an official pass. If the Star Tribune could do it; so could you. If reporters from other school could do it; so could you.
I just Googled "Minnesota 10th Judicial District Free Press." Only you pop up. I Googled; 10th Judicial District Free Free, Judicial District Free Press. There’s something fishy about you.
Also, why not just turn the sound off on your phone? If you are unable to read through a manual I cannot respect you nor any of your reporting. There is such a thing called vibrate. You can even find specific ring tones that a limited number of individuals can hear. The program is available online.
Although your cause may be noble you’ve gone about it the wrong way. You’ve insult all of those who have practiced civil disobedience in the past. You were rude. You went into a high school in which you knew nothing about. Your expectations were let down. However what could you expect from teens and children? You could have easily contacted and spoken to the Supreme Court without coming here. There was no press in the beginning. You had no right to interrupt the proceedings. You were irresponsible. The cop was doing their job and you insult them. They are there for protection.
Dear Cynical Patriot, you got a well deserved time out. The press was less than 10 feet away from you. Did you even notice the white rope not far from you?
PS – The brown/beige suit really doesn’t suit you. Black is better, so are toupees.
at 07:26 on May 8th, 2009
Hello Roddy:
Just one point, Why doesn't the main stream media ask these questions?
Do you not think others have tried to ask the Supreme Court these questions.
The Press Release with the verbage above said nothing about providing notice of attendance unless you wanted space allotted for a large video camera. I am sorry to bother you with these facts. If you want to be upset with someone, be upset with the person that failed to address the points of protocol you raise in hindsight. It did not say give advance notice to the School or anything to that affect. i am sorry to trouble you with the facts but if it was not included in the press notice, I have no crystal ball to devine another persons thoughts.
And your ending personal attacks on appearance reveal your immaturity and discredit everything you attempted to say... You had some good points until that point.
Lastly, this site has a "block user" function. Have you noticed I let all the negative comments stay. I do that in the interest of not stifling the dialog.
Please now, understand I would prefer to educate you. Please join with Brad in the excercise I proposed so you can have first hand knowledge and develop your own opinion on the realities of the alleged free press.
Peace
RespectfullyYour Fellow Sovereign Citizen
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
at 08:20 on May 8th, 2009
You may say whatever you wish about me. It is obvious you do not take into regard teens or children’s maturity level. (Referencing to your comment on the questions asked by students) And your self as press, have you not? As such you need to represent your self well. That includes appearance and dressing appropriately.
If you are entering into a building in which protocol is required, why would you not check? Is a building in which there is an educational value not worth your time to research? If entering into an official government I would like to assume you would go through the length of checking what is and is not considered acceptable behavior. Also you cannot assume I do not condemn main stream media. I do. However, M.S.M (Mainstream Media) is large enough to have people checking with protocol. You are singular person and so it is up to you to research.at 06:28 on May 8th, 2009
Listen to the Sountrack of a Cynical Patriot:
http://is.gd/xMgk
at 06:49 on May 8th, 2009
Have you ever been in a court room? And if so, was it an inconvience to show up on time? Things like cell phones, cameras and recording devices are not allowed. The oral arguments were real, about a case that is open now in the state of Minnesota.
I am proud that our security "hasseled" you. This puts my anxiety about school security at rest. Were you invited to our school? And if you were, why not show up on time, like a professional? Maybe because being a journalist isn't something that you excel at. Every person in the Performing Arts Center at B.H.S. had more manners and respect than you. And they were all younger and probably less experienced than you as well. But at least our journalism instructor taught us manners, ethics, respect and class.
This was a great experience for every student and faculty member at B.H.S. It wasn't a day for you to be cynical towards the Supreme Court of Minnesota. You as a journalist have every right to be skeptical of what goes on with the three branches. You do not have the right to be cynical. You were completly selfish that day, and continue to be ignorant. To make an accusation that students at B.H.S. are told what to think, is wrong and untrue. Students who have read this know you're a phony, we don't have to be told.
at 07:47 on May 8th, 2009
Hello Grace:
First at the risk of being redundant, Words mean things.
The press notice provided by the Supreme court is appended to the end of the original article. That is the extent of their notice. It does not say I have to be there the whole day. It does not say I have to provide advance notice of atendance unless I want space alotted for a big camera. I do not see where it spells out I have to attend the entire event. I do not have a crystal ball to devine anything that is not stated in the press notice. I am sorry to confront you with the facts.
Please read the reply to Brad's first post. Please participate in that excercise so you can realize exactly what free press means.
The Supreme court does not like to answer certain questions. You heard them say themselves that they are only going to answer the questions they want to answer. What arrogance. Do you know what it means to be a Sovereign Citizen? Do they teach you that there?
You realize that this site has a block user function. You realize that I could block all the negative users. I dont because I dont want to stifle debate and I appreciate the feed back. I hope that speaks to my tolerance of other positions. How tolerant and forgiving are you? It appears that your teachers have encouraged the theory of mob rule in your generation. You cannot be bother with facts. It appears that it so important to demean a person that you miss the point of the issue.
Do you not think if I could simply ask the court these questions, I would have done so? We have spent 2 or more years trying to get HR 1632 heard in the Judiciary Committe and they refuse to even debate the matter. Have you read HR 1632? Do you even know what the real issues are? Please educate yourself and get back to me.
Respectfully,Your Fellow Sovereign Citizen
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
at 07:29 on May 8th, 2009
????
Cynical Patriot
at 06:55 on May 8th, 2009
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.
at 12:56 on May 9th, 2009
Again, the yelling loudest and longest strategy in the form of reposting refuted facts over and over will not change the ink on the page. Go back and read the Press Notice. I was not required to preregister unless i wanted space allotted for a video camera or an audio jack spot. Though I am not a formally trained Journalist, one of the principals of Journalism is that you place critical information in a postion and in a font that makes it clear and noticable. If preregistration was a critical requirment, then this phrase or similar should appeared underlined and in bold print all caps.
ALL PRESS MUST PREREGISTER!
That phrase does not appear anywhere in the original Press Notice. While you are warming up the tar and feathers, find the Overpaid Government Beaurocrat Wordsmith that did not use this fundmental journalism concept of highlighting critical information in the article in a clear and concise manner. The requirment for preregistration only applies for allocation of space for video cameras and access to audio jack feeds. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU FOLKS INSIST ON SAYING I WAS REQUIRED TO PREREGISTER, IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE INK ON THE PAGE. I am not a mindreader nor do I have a crystal ball. Words mean things. It is not my fault that the wordsmith did not include the requirement for preregistration no matter how badly you wish they had.
"Media are welcome to attend all events. Please refer to the schedule below.
Also attached is the "Cameras in the Courtroom" policy,...."
YOU CONVENIENTLY missed this verbage and dug up the stuff that this verbage referred you to. If all media were required to preregister dont you think this should have said:
"Media are welcome to attend all events, BUT MUST PREREGISTER." ? Again, I am just an amateur journalist and have no right to question some over-paid Government Bureaucrat Wordsmith, but it seems to me that the principles of Journalism require you emphasise and highlight critical information in an obvious place.
PLEASE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU REPEATED THE FALSE ALLEGATION THAT I WAS NOT INVITED AND I WAS REQUIRED TO PREREGISTER THE INK ON THE PAGE WILL NOT CHANGE. THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS.
also see "Cameras are free to move around the auditorium during the question & answer portion of the program."
The Cynical Patriot
at 06:55 on May 8th, 2009
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.
at 12:59 on May 9th, 2009
Again, the yelling loudest and longest strategy in the form of reposting refuted facts over and over will not change the ink on the page. Go back and read the Press Notice. I was not required to preregister unless i wanted space allotted for a video camera or an audio jack spot. Though I am not a formally trained Journalist, one of the principals of Journalism is that you place critical information in a postion and in a font that makes it clear and noticable. If preregistration was a critical requirment, then this phrase or similar should appeared underlined and in bold print all caps.
ALL PRESS MUST PREREGISTER!
That phrase does not appear anywhere in the original Press Notice. While you are warming up the tar and feathers, find the Overpaid Government Beaurocrat Wordsmith that did not use this fundmental journalism concept of highlighting critical information in the article in a clear and concise manner. The requirment for preregistration only applies for allocation of space for video cameras and access to audio jack feeds. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU FOLKS INSIST ON SAYING I WAS REQUIRED TO PREREGISTER, IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE INK ON THE PAGE. I am not a mindreader nor do I have a crystal ball. Words mean things. It is not my fault that the wordsmith did not include the requirement for preregistration no matter how badly you wish they had.
"Media are welcome to attend all events. Please refer to the schedule below.
Also attached is the "Cameras in the Courtroom" policy,...."
YOU CONVENIENTLY missed this verbage and dug up the stuff that this verbage referred you to. If all media were required to preregister dont you think this should have said:
"Media are welcome to attend all events, BUT MUST PREREGISTER." ? Again, I am just an amateur journalist and have no right to question some over-paid Government Bureaucrat Wordsmith, but it seems to me that the principles of Journalism require you emphasise and highlight critical information in an obvious place.
PLEASE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU REPEATED THE FALSE ALLEGATION THAT I WAS NOT INVITED AND I WAS REQUIRED TO PREREGISTER THE INK ON THE PAGE WILL NOT CHANGE. THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS.
also see "Cameras are free to move around the auditorium during the question & answer portion of the program."
The Cynical Patriot
at 07:58 on May 8th, 2009
I can't believe you have the nerve to complain about this. This is a high school, even if a supreme court oral argument is happening. The top priority of a high school is to keep the people inside it safe. By having a stranger with no prior permission to be allowed into the school with a fake "press" nametag, that put us all in danger.
You showed up late. Your cell phone went off. You were rude, disrespectful and lied about who you were, and now you criticize our police force for keeping our fellow students safe?
Rethink the next time you want to visit our HS, because judging by past performance, you will not be let in.
at 08:02 on May 8th, 2009
are you serious right now?
how are you gonna complain about all these things when there is an easy way you could have avoided all of it.
at 08:16 on May 8th, 2009
[edited by staff]
at 12:36 on May 8th, 2009
Hello Everyone:
Please do not let what I am about to say intimidate the rest of you from commenting, but somethings cross the line. You all know I have not deleted even the harshest of criticisms.
To the original maker of this post thread: Please state your source your source and reveal your identity.
Such Anonymous Statements are offenses under the Cyber Stalking/Harassment Law of January 2006.
Either remove the comment or post your source/facts and identity to avoid further liabilty under said law and any other applicable laws.
You have been warned.
I believe everyone will agree that this attack is beyond the bounds of reasonalable political discourse.
RegardsDon Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
at 18:33 on May 8th, 2009
on NP you are not in a position to delete any comments even if you wanted to!
at 09:12 on May 9th, 2009
Would you like to see me do it?
Cynical Patriot
at 11:48 on May 9th, 2009
Yes!
at 08:58 on May 8th, 2009
I hope that this was not a person involved with BHS in anyway. This disgusting comment does not represent our student body.
at 10:21 on May 8th, 2009
Thank you for your considerate response.
It is much appreciated.
Don Mashak
The Cyncial Patriot.
at 05:45 on May 10th, 2009
you may not realize it but both this post and the comments are not some exclusive right of BHS even if the majority of comments are coming from there. NP is a public site and I merely pointed out to the author of the post that he isn't in a position to delete a comment, that can only be done by a NP staff editor and isn't usually done unless the comment is offensive or spam. What's disgusting about that?
You don't have to be a student of BHS to make a comment!
at 09:09 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 <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />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. Brad Palmer Editor-in-Chief The Hoofprint Buffalo High Schoolat 16:29 on May 9th, 2009
Let us try to ratchet down the rhetoric.
Let me try to share with you a different perspective:
First i am not self-important. I tell everyone that "I am a insect on the windshield of life" on a regular basis. If I was self centered i would not pursue these political issues. My business has been retaliated against severely. Free Speech is not free in America. In Russia and Cuba they literally send armed militia to the houses of political dissenters. Political Dissent Suppression here in the USA is more subtle and often economic. Take the example of a Newspaper, if they run news that advertisers do not like, they lose ad revenue. Therefore they self-censor themselves. This same concept applies to all businesses, jobs and all of us as individuals. You Probably know it as political correctness. Remember Ms. California losing the chance to be Ms. America when she answered the question on gay marriage in other than the politically correct way? Was that fair? This is the way of America Political dissent Suppression for business, jobs, Citizens and Beauty Pageant Contestest, conform or suffer the consequences. Take on the Political Establishment and expose their corruption and they will retaliate.
Let me start by asking you to please look at The Fraternity - Lawyers and Judges in Collusion by John Molloy who was a Lawyer, Judge and Appellate Judge for more than 50 years. If you want more current examples of Judicial wrongdoing try Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Discussing Aid for AIPAC Defendants. (Is it Treason to Cover up Treason?)For the past 2 or 3 years a group of Minnesota Citizens have tried to get MN HR 1632 - Judicial Reform and Accountability Bill passed. We have been met with resistance. We have been unable to get the bill heard before either legislative Judicial Committee. Some people are becoming frustrated.For the past 2 or 3 years a group of Minnesota Citizens have tried to get MN HR 1632 - Judicial Reform and Accountability Bill passed. We have been met with resistance. We have been unable to get the bill heard before either legislative Judicial Committee. Some people are becoming frustrated.
Senators and Representatives are not open and honest. They make up excuses not to meet with various groups. They avoid passing legislation that will reduce their power or upset the balance of power.
As part of the strategy of avoiding the press, the Supreme court did not release its Press Notice until Monday. This was less than 48 hours before the event and left fewer than 24 hours for the press to find the notice and register if they wanted space allotted for a camera.
By the time i asked my camera person, the 24 hour deadline had passed.
We read the flyer and agreed it did not require the preregistration if we were not bringing a camera. Without a video camera all I wanted to attend was the Q&A. I hoped to be able to ask one or two questions, if not during the Q&A, informally after. Many a time has occurred where the host of an event is left begging for people to ask questions. Part of getting questions answered is being at the right place at the right time. I went hoping for the opportunity to present itself.
I arrived at least a half hour before the Q and A was to begin. I was harassed, harangued and threatened with arrest for a half hour before the show. Please note that i had to risk imprisonment to be permitted to view the event and was forbidden from asking questions.
That is how I came to be at that event.
Now with regard to preregistration, invitations and showing up late. Forgive me but you folks seem to subscribe to the whoever yells loudest and longest wins. That won't change the ink on the paper. I was invited, go back and review the Press Notice Language attached at the end of the original Article. That is my invite as a member of the press. There was not requirement for all press to preregister. You needed to register if you wanted space for your video camera or a jack to plug in for audio. I required neither. There was not requirement that the Press attend the entire event. If it was required that the press preregister there would a large, underlined single sentence that said:
ALL PRESS MUST PREREGISTER!
No such language is in the document. While you folks are warming up the tar and feathers, make sure you are in front of the right house. The the overpaid Government Wordsmith failed to communicate all the requirements and conditions you allege to have existed. The fault lays in their poor communication skills. I have no crystal ball and i am not a mind reader. If it is not stated in the Press Notice, how can i be responsible for knowing it. No amount of Louder and Longer Yelling in the form of repeating the allegations of No invitation, preregistration required and showed up late is going to change the fact that I was invited, registration was required only if you wanted to be allotted space for your video camera or a jack for audio. Many have read the Press Notice and agree with my assessment.
With regards to anonymity, get a pair, the safety of 15 year girls, and the anonymity credit gap my take as is follows. The lack of accountability in being anonymous tends to cause people to exaggerate and lie, because there is little chance of being held accountable. That is the simple fact. Also, anonymous postings provide a single person the ability to repost over and over. Further, the technology exists to change and spoof IP addresses so your assurances that every anonymous person is real rings hollow. Maybe you are sincere but people are people. Please note that if the first poster had not posted anonymously I would not have confused them as someone i had a verbal argument earlier on the phone. Given the exchange i had with them on the phone, I felt comfortable using the therm "get a pair" when i thought it was him putting on the weasel suit of anonymity. Names allow easier memory recall, reduce confusion and makes it possible to reference another post by name as i did yours. Now, i agree with you on the 15 year old safety issue.(even though i have established i had an invitation as a member of the press) You are right, perhaps they could select a single alter identity pseudonym and use it consistently. Accountability, no double posting and easy reference without disclosing any info. Does that work?
With regards to "I don't want to tell you what to think?" How do i get pilloried for telling you I am not trying to tell you what to think and pointing out that some adults tell you what to think. It seems you folks are working extra hard to find things to fault me on. Even this overture to show respect by not foisting my view of the world onto you is turned into something to be criticized. Now for the record, I understand that you folks believe that no one tells you what to think and that you are free thinkers. Point noted. Perception is reality. May I suggest you look into Chaos Theory and Freewill if you care to?
I again challenge you to the exercise of sending my questions to the supreme court and asking them to respond. And then discussing or debating with me or a panel of persons whereever you want if and how what happens has shaped your thinking of the free press process.
I got a chuckle out of you questions: Why do i seek confrontation.? You folks came to my blog and chose to be confrontation over relatively irrelevant stuff like cell phones, baldness and brown suits. ( the choice of the words "relatively irrelevant" presumes you have read The Fraternity and Wiretap)
I am not looking for a one on one debate with you. (I sure will with whatever teacher who so articulately referred to me as "Dumb Ass" under the cover of anonymity.) The exercise of having you, or you and your staff or you and a group of students send my questions to the Supreme Court and ask for answer was a sincere suggestion of a learning opportunity for you to learn from. I think the response would be a eye opener for you. And I just want the answers. I don't care who gets credit for getting the Supreme Court to answer them. I cannot say more on this topic with out tainting the exercise. Are you interested in knowing the truth? I think it would be a great opportunity for the group of persons working on MN HR 1632 to have a discussion or debate with you, your staff, your faculty and staff or any combination of you, your staff, your faculty or any other mix of staff and students you would like. We could do it informal, formal but not recorded, or on camera. The exchange of ideas is the overriding consideration.
While noting that you say I repeatedly missed these questions, i will note that you have said yes or nor to my proposed exercise. i did not ignore your post, I just needed to alot time to respond as i think this answer will attest.
Please let me know if the foregoing answers are not satisfactory.
With regard to your statement I should do my job properly.
This is not my job. I am doing this because other adult citizens are not fulfilling their Civic Responsibility to be involved and engaged in the Political Process. Some because of the fear of retaliation that i discussed in the first portion of this reply, some because they are not educated as to their civic duty and the majority by sheer apathy and/or laziness. I own a business. This is my effort to fulfil my requirements to be engaged in the political process. As noted earlier, we have done the respectful requests without success. If you folks insist of placing blame on someone for me being there, place it upon the Legistlators that refused to give HR 1632 a hearing for at least 2 years.
Which brings us to my proposal for the exercise of you asking the Supreme Court my questions and us later discussing or debating you opinion of the American Free Press Process in America based on the reply that the Supreme Court Provides? This is a watershed event in your life. It is here and now that you decide if you stand with the Censors of the Press vis a vie Corrupt Politicians and Political Correctness or with the true Citizen Patriots that demand retention and restoration of our libeties guaranteed by the US Constitution. What will it be sir? Respectfully yours,
Your Fellow Sovereign Citizen (as defined by our Founding Fathers not Anarchists)
Don Mashak
The Cyncial Patriot
at 19:45 on May 9th, 2009
I am sorry if the pesky facts frighten you or irritate you. I thought Journalist sought the truth?
I have challenged you to accept the excercise of sending my questions that i wanted to ask to the Supreme Court and ask them to answer in any format or forum they so choose.
I have said that we should then sit down and discuss or debate your opinion of the American Free Press Process as a result of an response you recieve from the Supreme Court.
I think this would be a very effective learning excercise.
I am not interested in telling you what to think. I want you to experience it for yourself.
You have said that you are a free thinker, that you are not brain washed.
What better demonstration of your free thinking than to send these questions, that I was denied the opportunity to ask, to the Supreme and request an answer.
What better way for you to discredit me than for the Supreme Court to promptly send complete, non-evasive responses to my questions ? What better way for them to discredit me than to give you answers that not demonstrate no duplicity, no breach of the Public Trust and no compromise of the Federal and State constitutional rights and guaranteed Liberties of all American?
Or are you afraid to step through the looking glass, Alice?
Respectfully yours,
Your Fellow Sovereign Citizen (as defined by our Founding Fathers not Anarchists)
Don Mashak
The Cyncial Patriot
at 11:00 on May 8th, 2009
I'm not a member at BHS, or any school. I would like to apologize to you about my last comments. There where immature and unreasonable. I'm not a member at BHS, I'm from a local school at Deleno, and your phone had disrupted the Q&A section. I was angry.
Please accept my apologize.
at 16:57 on May 9th, 2009
Think no more of it.
We all do foolish things when we are younger.
Sometime when you are over 25 someone much younger than you is going to do something that really upsets, either emotionall or financially.
Your debt to me is to forgive them as I have you and pass the debt onto them.
I leave you with a quote from the movie - The Outlaw Josie Wales
It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life... or death. It shall be life.
You can watch the clip here
Respectfully yours,
Your Fellow Sovereign Citizen (as defined by our Founding Fathers not Anarchists)
Don Mashak
The Cyncial Patriot
at 11:11 on May 8th, 2009
"No requirement to call in advance was required" > you say this, yet:
ORIGINAL PRESS RELEASE VERBIAGE
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.
While this paragraph mixes topics with cameras and media, you should have called 24 hours in advance to reserve a seat...with or without a camera. And you should have been on time.
Be professional, grow up.
at 19:09 on May 9th, 2009
Again, the yelling loudest and longest strategy in the form of reposting refuted facts over and over will not change the ink on the page. Go back and read the Press Notice. I was not required to preregister unless i wanted space allotted for a video camera or an audio jack spot. Though I am not a formally trained Journalist, one of the principals of Journalism is that you place critical information in a postion and in a font that makes it clear and noticable. If preregistration was a critical requirment, then this phrase or similar should appeared underlined and in bold print all caps.
ALL PRESS MUST PREREGISTER!
That phrase does not appear anywhere in the original Press Notice. While you are warming up the tar and feathers, find the Overpaid Government Beaurocrat Wordsmith that did not use this fundmental journalism concept of highlighting critical information in the article in a clear and concise manner. The requirment for preregistration only applies for allocation of space for video cameras and access to audio jack feeds. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU FOLKS INSIST ON SAYING I WAS REQUIRED TO PREREGISTER, IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE INK ON THE PAGE. I am not a mindreader nor do I have a crystal ball. Words mean things. It is not my fault that the wordsmith did not include the requirement for preregistration no matter how badly you wish they had.
"Media are welcome to attend all events. Please refer to the schedule below.
Also attached is the "Cameras in the Courtroom" policy,...."
YOU CONVENIENTLY missed this verbage and dug up the stuff that this verbage referred you to. If all media were required to preregister dont you think this should have said:
"Media are welcome to attend all events, BUT MUST PREREGISTER." ? Again, I am just an amateur journalist and have no right to question some over-paid Government Bureaucrat Wordsmith, but it seems to me that the principles of Journalism require you emphasise and highlight critical information in an obvious place.
PLEASE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU REPEATED THE FALSE ALLEGATION THAT I WAS NOT INVITED AND I WAS REQUIRED TO PREREGISTER THE INK ON THE PAGE WILL NOT CHANGE. THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS.
also see "Cameras are free to move around the auditorium during the question & answer portion of the program."
The Cynical Patriot
at 12:39 on May 8th, 2009
That does not say what you state it says. Under the headings "Media Cameras; it says call 24 hours in advance to reserve a place for a camera. ===big dot=== an area will be reserved for the media. .
Words and dots mean things. Even you admit the message is "mixed up" IF you want to be mad at someone, be made at the highly paid Government Bureaucrat Wordsmith that could not craft the simple sentence,
"ALL MEDIA MUST PRE-REGISTER."
Your whoever yells longer and louder strategy will not change the ink on the page, the facts are the facts.
But while we are on the topic. Why did they release the press post less than 48 hours before the event and then require 24 hour notice. I wanted a video camera person but the 24 hour deadline had already passed. My camera person said it was too late. Subtle ways your government excludes political dissent.
As for being on time. I only wanted to attend the Q and A. I showed up a half hour early and was harrased and threatened for 30 minutes.
"Cameras are free to move around the auditorium during the question and answer portion of the program."
And it appears you missed this preceding verbage. With no requirement to attend the full event, no requirement to preregister except to reserve video camara space, and the ability to move freely for the Q&A with a camera, Your argument is factually incorrect.
Thank you for your comment. Happy to help you develop your cognitive debate skills
Respectfully
The Cynical Patriot
at 15:14 on May 8th, 2009
Dear Mr. Kind Sir;
The fight between you and these students are hard to distinguish, first I see a rant (your story) of how you wish to see your governments officials tell you information. I am guessing that they are required to tell you everything, seeing as that you have been weeping like little girl about such issue. Then the students standing up against the brown suited villain that was wanting every one of his tough questions answered... Mr.Kind Patriot are you ready for a tough answer... pound sand. Stop whining about these small issues that bother you, are you a journalist or a blossoming 13 year old girl that received a new laptop? You tell one sided stories about feelings getting hurt. I am sorry if offense was received but I stand for people that are open minded and can deal with a little bit of life...
Aiylchieva Aida Jusupbekovna
"From Stumbleupon"