Minnesota Supreme Court Violates 1st Amendment - Threatens Arrest

This is my last post in this discussion.

I sincerely hope you're as proud as I am to see the spirit of the students of Buffalo High School.

This is a skeptical bunch that obviously values accuracy, facts, honest reporting, and balanced perspective. They're having a hard time swallowing something they've read online as truth, because they know that truth is complex and can not ever come from a single source. They aren't quick to trust, and they demand openness and sincerity. However, they can be fiercely supportive of ideas they have come to value without becoming unreasonable. This had to be your first visit to our school, because your generalizations and mischaracterizations prove that you don't know the type of administration, staff, and students that call this school their home. Many adults never fully learn or demonstrate these values.

All of these qualities make me feel secure, without a semblance of a doubt, in knowing that this is the generation that is going forth to become leaders and reporters, parents and difference-makers. They're ready to be a part of a participatory democracy in a meaningful way. Some of their arguments could push a bit far, but they felt the presence of an intruder and someone they've felt has characterized an important experience and a school improperly. For many students, this visit by the court and the chance to ponder Freedom and Justice in America was one of the most powerful days of their high school careers. That speaks volumes to me. All 850 students were there by choice, and a great many more were watching on classroom televisions because we ran out of room in the auditorium.

You should not be silenced. I'll say it again. You should not be silenced. You have the right to pursue questions that matter to you, especially because you believe you're doing this for the benefit of society. You are not motivated by improper things and you want to see this country become a better place. People will always disagree on the best path to take in order to see that happen.

Just know that your audience has high expectations and demands that certain important qualities be met in your reporting before they'll believe what you say. This is a skeptical, mostly ethical, generation who is proud of their ability to hold data up to scrutiny and value what stands up to the test. The Plural of Anecdote is not data. Stories are important, they stir passion and emotion, but they're not everything. They can spot holes from further away than you can imagine. If you want to be taken seriously by this generation and gain an audience that respects the words you use, you've got to be ethical and open. You've got to be fair to the people you write for and the people you write about..

You've done a laudable job of keeping even dissenting opinions on this page, and I respect that. It's a good example. You obviously don't agree with much of what has been said and some barbs were less than kind. However, I believe you find hope in their voices and genuine passion in their words.

Once again, I'm proud of the people of BHS, and I'm even more thrilled to be a small part of this community.

I'd like to begin by saying that if you feel that names are the only thing that give people the "credentials" they need to trade text with you, you're not worth the time nor the effort that most of these people have thus far put into dismantling your every statement. Regardless, as I need to pass a few hours, I think I'll get in on this before it's too late. First point: By ignoring the valid points of certain posters before me based solely on the fact that they choose to remain anonymous on the internet, the only thing you've accomplished is branding yourself as one who takes pride in dodging questions like bullets. Now that I mention it, you've been dodging a lot of questions and statements, here, haven't you?

Next. You've asked a few "people" (they are real people, right?) if they knew what it meant to be a Sovereign Citizen. Somehow, I find myself with the desire to ask you the same thing. To those who can't be bothered to find it for yourself, read this quickly:

"The Sovereign Citizen Movement is a loosely organized collection of groups and individuals who have adopted an essentially-anarchist ideology. Its adherents believe that virtually all existing Federal government bodies in the United States are illegitimate. Those who subscribe to the movement seek to establish a minimalist government. "Sovereign citizens" often assert that they are not subject to any laws to which they have not specifically consented. Needless to say, such theories have met with no success in the courts."

-Taken from USLaw.com (http://www.uslaw.com/us_law_dictionary/s/Sovereign+Citizen)

Note the bold bit. How silly that you find yourself to be above certain aspects of the law, but still find time to accuse the members of the Minnesota Supreme Court of "being arrogant." Just thought that was a bit funny.

Moving along, then. As many others have pointed out before me, you definitely have a right to have your questions answered if the proper steps are taken. However, you again found yourself above other people who took the same steps you ignored to talk to the Court. But, hey. You're special, right? You can show up during proceedings and the law enforcement (who, by the way, deserve only the utmost respect for "hassling" you and actually doing their jobs) should just let you in, seat you wherever you'd like in a room that's already fit to burst with people who arrived both before you and in the proper manner, and after all this disruption that would have been not only disrespectful, but irresponsible as well, for anyone but a sovereign citizen like yourself (the concept of sovereign citizenship still makes me giggle to myself a little, I apologize), you deserve to have all your questions answered at an event designed for the benefit of students. Run-on sentences aside, even you should be able to comprehend that what I just wrote is complete and utter nonsense, and anyone who actually believes they can behave in such a manner is foolish at best, and downright embarrassing to the profession of journalism at worst.

As for your little spiel about fighting for my generation, I think I speak on behalf of everyone who's posted here so far when I say, "Please. Don't fight for us." We're going to have enough to deal with once your generation has withered away, and the backing of you and the 'blogs' you represent would only harm our cause.

Also, I know our hallways are outlandishly long; many people don't remember anything but struggling to find the other side. Wait - what's this? It doesn't say that in the story anywhere? Or, perhaps instead of anywhere, I should say anymore. I wonder what sort of implications this has?

Regardless, thanks for helping to ruin the atmosphere of an otherwise interesting court process with your disruptions. I know I appreciated the dual cell phone rings. I thought once was enough, but you certainly blew that idea out of the water. Kudos.

Oh, and before I forget: If you're going to assert yourself as a journalist, make sure you've a firm grasp of the English language. As it turns out, serious publications enjoy proper grammar and spelling. You were right about one thing, though: Words certianly do mean things.

Respectfully,

Unnecessary Signature

^ See what I did there?

P.S. - The spam filters on this site are pretty annoying for guest posters. If this happens to show up more than once, I apologize. (Edit: Scratch that, I just became a member instead.)

P.P.S - It's spelled "Minnesota." You ought to fix your headline.

Note: This is a reaction, and final post, regarding the series of replies to my previous posts

Salutations:

Yes, indeed perception = reality. A bit of poetic justice ending on such a tone from you. I ask you to explore your own humanistic idea. Frankly, while I have somewhat curbed my own frustration towards you since your last post, you obviously do not care to address (or admit) errors (as we've all seen you seem quite content on editing your own story to eliminate negatives we have pointed out). You are an intelligent man, no doubt. And while you may ask to tone down the rhetoric your skills at deflecting questions is almost unparalleled (I do not believe I have ever met a more skilled individual). So I wish you a happy career in blogging what you wish. I sincerely hope you get your questions answered.

I also hope what has been said here does not merely die with this thread. I'd like to believe you have learned something about my generation from your interaction with us here.

My empathy to you. I wish you a long and happy career. I do however intend to stop all posts regarding this topic here. Your skill of query deflection has left me frustrated to a point of no avail. Pursuing future arguments against you in this topic no longer interest me; I have neither the time or patience for any more.

Sincerely,

Brad Palmer

Editor-in-Chief

The Hoofprint

Buffalo High School

If you are going to enter a school without permission you need to understand the fact that there are students here and most of them are minors. The police have a job to protect them and ensure their safety. The police were just doing their job and had a right to remove you form the event if they felt it was a threat to the students and people attending the event.

As for No Name - No Credibility, I agree with Brad. Most of the comments you are recieving are from students and they have always been taught not to give their information to strangers, expecially on the internet. They don't know who you really are and can't trust you so they don't want to give you their name. If you can get into the school as easily as you did Wednesday they can't who says you can't do it again? They are using fake names for their own safety.

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.

I was invited by the press release.  I did not come uninvited.  I checked in with the adult female Hall Monitor.  I asked directions to the event.  I proceeded directly to the event. When I saw the officer, I walked directly to the officer.  When Requested I gave the officer my ID.  3 Times I calmly asserted my rights under the Constitution as a member of the Press. Each time I asked them to confirm that I had to leave or be arrested, they said they would check with their supervisors.  When I demanded the names of the persons suppressing the Press, instead of providing the names they finally let me in to the event, but with instructions that I could not ask any questions.  I have since found that the persons that repressed the press were Lissa Finne of the Supreme Court and District Judge Halsey. I remind you that I was instructed that if I asked any questions at any time i would be arrested. Taking off the blind fold but leaving the gag in place is not Free Press.

As I have told Brad I agree with the need for safety for underage persons.  However Anonymity makes it possible for persons to multiple post and gives no opportunity for accountability lending itself to exaggeration and lying because of no accountability. As a reasonable person, I suggested of Brad that underage persons create one alter Identity [Pseudonym] and use just that one.  That provides for an element of accountability, ease of mental association to their arguement, and allows me to CITE them more easlity if it is relevant in a different post.  Does that address your concern.

I would ask you You Young People to understand that before this, in this forum the persons here have been predominately adult. Please give me time to change my mind set to accomodate dealing with non-adults.  

Please confirm that you now concur with my postition that I was invited as a member of the press and no preregistration requirement except to be alloted space for cameras was included in the text of the original Press Notice.( included at the end of main article)

Thank you for your comments.

Respectfully yours,
Your Fellow Sovereign Citizen

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot

Credibility is not in a name. Credibility comes from knowledge. Which my fellow classmates and I can obviously see that you have very little of.

Also, you are wondering why the police officers were hovering over you? Let me explain this to you.

You, a man with a name tag probably made on your computer in the basement of your mother, walks into public high school wishing to get in a room with 850 school children without being invited. What would you like the officers to do? Thats their job, to protect the students and the justices. How would they have known that you wern't some crazy guy with a gun?

I am disturbed by the fact that they even let you in the room. But since you did, don't you think you could have turned your cell phone off? If not right away, at least after it rang the first time.

You act like you are above all of this. That event took along time and a lot of effort to coordinate it as well they did. That made me proud to be a BHS student. Now you are here making yourself look like an idiot. It's actually very entertaining, so please respond.

 Thanks

AGAIN, DO YOU FOLKS NOT READ THE OTHER POSTS.

1) This issue is resolved.  I was invited via the Press Notice.  All Media Welcome.

2) Per the 1st Amendment and several subsequent USA Supreme Court Rulings, the Press Cannot be requited to be licensed;

3) 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.

4) Where can I go for my punitive beating for the cell phone faux paux? Where are your priorities.  Does a cell phone etiquette breach trump Violation of the Constitutional Right to Free Press?

Respectfully
Your Fellow Sovereign Citizen

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot

I really think you're missing our point, so I'll try to lay it out there:

1. We agree that you had the right to listen in.

2. We agree in freedom of the press.

3. We understand the first amendment.

However, we DO think that it was unethical of you to use your rights at a function that was designed for high school students. Even though you may have had the right to be there, it wasn't meant for you.

There's no need for you to explain how you got in or any of that redundant information because we UNDERSTAND. All we're saying is that you were unethical in the fact that you decided to use this as an opportunity to get your questions answered. You could have held a higher standard.

Graham

Hello Graham.

Thank you for not rehashing the no invite, no preregistration, show up late issue.

I believe I have finally successfully made the point that I had a press invite, the press notice did not require preregistration, there was no requirement to attend the entire event.

Now you seem to be the most reasonable person thusfar.  I don't want to unintentionally cause a rift between us. And, I know you do not want a rehash of the facts but this is necessary for me to have you understand why my attendance of your event was not unethical. Please understand that it is a fair Quid pro Quo for me reading many, many negative comments directed at me and resisting the temptation to delete them.

If the police and the powers that be had not behaved badly and not tried to suppress the press, you would not have even know I was there.

Getting information is often a matter of being in the right place at the right time.  I have been to events where the host is left begging for someone to ask questions.  Had that occassion arisen, I would have asked a question. Otherwise, during the break or at lunch I hoped to informally and discretely ask a member of the court a question. I see nothing unethical in attending the event with the hope of the opportunity to respectfully and/or discreetly ask one or more questions. Had the opportunity not arisen, I would have left with no one knowing I was even there.

You would never have known I was there if the police and powers that be had not tried to suppress the press. If preregistration was required, the disruption was in part the fault of the person that crafted the press notice for leaving the preregistration notice out. I was invited as the press. I did not sneak into your school.  Despite all the times I have driven by your school, this was the first time I was in your parking lot, let alone in the school itself.

I respectfully went directly to the adult female hall montior and asked the way to the event. I stopped and was respectful to the law enforcement officer. I gave him a DL when he requested. I was calm and followed all there directions. Each time they told me to leave, "I asked, "So if I don't leave, I will be arrested, Is that Correct. And I reasserted my Right to Freedom of the Press" The last time I demanded the names of the persons suppressing the press for my article. Only then, instead of giving me the names, did they permit my entry but only with the stipulation that I could ask no questions. And I had wanted to hear the closing arguements in the oral arguements, but the scene the police created lasted 30 minutes or so. I had to withstand 3 unlawful threats of arrest before I was permitted to only observe.

I  Sincerely did not attend with the intent of of disrupting your event. I am sorry it happened. I do not like to be the center of attention in crowds of strangers. You have no ideas of the anxieties that I had to overcome once I gained admission but knew that now instead of entering in relative anonymity, I would be the center of attention.

My whole mindset was to enter without drawing attention to myself. I intended to respectfully ask 1 or more questions if the opportunity arose.

The police and the representatives of the Supreme Court caused the scene, not I. I had no power to control anything, they had all the power. They poorly drafted the Press notice. They are paid to know the law and my constituional rights? Why did I have to educate the Representatives of the Supreme Court on the Constitution and Freedom of the Press?

Again, I went with no intent to cause a scene.

I followed the instructions contained in the poorly drafted press notice.

The police and the Supreme court deliberately misled you students into believing the scene they created was my fault.

The Supreme Court owes me an apology.

The Police owe me an apology.

They both owe the students of Buffalo High School an apology for the scene they illegally and unconstituitionlly caused.

I sincerely regret your event was disrupted. It is very unfortunate that some of the very people I would hope the answers to my questions would help feel their experience was diminished. Please accept my deepest, heartfelt apologies on behlaf of your entire student body. I went with no intent, nor even an inkling that my presence would even be noticed unless the opportunity arose to publicly ask a question and then only if not in conflict with protocol and decorum.

It is my profound hope, knowing my intentions, that you no longer believe my attendance of your event was not unethical nor inconsiderate.

Thank you for sending me a post more consistent with the facts and more respectful in demeanor. I sincerely appreciate the more reasoned dialog.

Have a great day.

Respectfully yours,
Your Fellow Sovereign Citizen (as defined by our Founding Fathers not Anarchists)

Don Mashak
The Cyncial Patriot

PS. By the way, I happen to live in the area. It was happenstance that the court came to be meeting to within 10 miles of where I live.  You do not how many times I have driven the hour to the Capital in St. Paul only to be told Goverment officials were too busy or were unable to keep an appointment.

Yellow journalism is a type of journalism that downplays legitimate news in favor of eye-catching headlines (Minnestoa Supreme Court Violates 1st Amendment Threatens Arrest) that sell more newspapers. It may feature exaggerations of news events (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.) , scandal-mongering, sensationalism, or unprofessional practices (Not wanting sit through all the "fluff News", I arrived about a half hour before the scheduled "Question and Answer Period") by news media organizations or journalists.

WHAT COLOR IS THE TRUTH?

You have taken the time to label the facts, Yellow Journalism.  So, as I understand you logic, if the facts are true but sensation,  then the use of the sensational true facts in reporting on the event is wrong and should be labeled Yellow Journalism. Your Logic is non-sequitur.

What you are talking about is if you do not like the true facts used about in reporting a story, you try to discredit the story by labeling it Yellow Journalism. I would counter with the claim that labeling sensation but true facts Yellow Journalism is in fact, itself, Yellow Journalism - Dishonest on its face.

More importantly, why are you focused on calling the printed true facts  Yellow Journalism than you are in  holding the Supreme Court Accountable for Suppressing the Free Press?

It took me 2 days to overwhelm the mobs strategy and belief that yelling loudest and longest in the form of numerous posts, many anonymous, repeating positions based on previously debunked facts. In other words, to repress the truth that they did not like they tried to shout it down.

The whole basis for the negative comments about this article are based on now fully debunked premises.  The true facts are: 1) I came invited as a member of the press; 2) There was not requirement for preregistration unless you wanted to be alloted space for a video camera or access to an audio feed jack; 3) That the Media was invited to All Events; 4) There was no requirement that the Media attend all of the events. 5) There are Supreme Court Rulings making it illegal to require licensing of the Press; 6) That I was there as a bonafide member of the Press per the 1st Amendment and various Supreme Court Rulings; 7) The disruption that occurred was the fault of law enforcement and the Supreme Court in the form of their omission of the alleged intention that all Press Preregister and the poorly worded remainder of alleged requirements in the press notice and the subsequent threats of arrest in attempting to suppress the facts. 8) I had 3 choices, A) Allow the Press to Suppressed and Leave; B) Get Arrested; C) Calmly educate and reiterate the Constitutional Rights of the Press and various US Supreme Court Rulings demonstrating that the techniques they were using to Suprress the Press were Illegal and had already been adjudicated. 

The Minnesota Supreme Court decided to spin the facts and not inform the students of Buffalo High School of the true facts, with the intent to inflame the students and divert attention from the sensational and inflamatory true fact that the Minnesota Supreme Court knowingly suppressed Freedom of the Press.

They have yet to call and offer a correction, apology and a compensatory offer of a interview so that I may ask the questions I have been denied the opportunity to ask?

Your failure to admit that the facts which you cite are "Yellow" are "True" shows your duplicitous intentions.  I reported the facts. You don't like the facts so you tried the persuasive technique of attempting to discredit a story by labeling it "Yellow Journalism".

You have failed. To be Yellow Journalism the statements alleged to sensational must either not be true, or at least have the possibility of not being true.  The facts I have listed are irrefutably true.

Respectfully,
Your Fellow Sovereign Citizen(as defined by the Founding Fathers, not the Anarchists)

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot

idiot

I have not come on here since I have first put my opinion down, but it has not changed, only strengthened. You seem to be shouting for attention and are making a fool of yourself. It doesn't matter if you are an "amateur journalist"--so am I.

If you are going to attend an event as a journalist, you have to bend to the rules of the place you are going to. The sign, it seemed, was confusing to you. You should have contacted the lady with your questions and to know exactly what was going to happen and what kind of permission was needed if you were going to come late and without a camera, or whatever your special needs were. You should have "double-checked" what was going to happen to make sure that everything was going to work out.

Again, you should have thought, recognized and responded and then you would not be in the situation you are, fighting with high-schoolers and adults who are---dare I even say it? You may throw a hissy fit...oh well--more educated and have well-formed opinions compared to your immature whining.

Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it. This will all be water under the bridge if you let this go, but instead you continue on your tirade like a petulant four year-old, drowning in the water of your own doing. I hope you realize how ridiculous and idiotic people think you are by continuing your harangue about something you could have easily prevented.

I wish you luck on your journey of ataining the gifts real journalist have--the ability to grow thick skin and move on.

This will be the last time I will respond to your "debate." Like a toddler throwing a tantrum, you need to ignore them and if you give them time to cry and whine and throw things, they will stop and grow up. Goodbye.

Sincerely,

K

After WWII Germain many German Citizens would not believe what happened at the death camps.  They refused to believe what they read, so they had to be forced to got to the concentration camps to make them accept the reality that their government had been trying to exterminate the Jews.

Childish is refusing to believe the facts even when they are in print.  Go ask your parents how tolerant other adults would be with your tantrums that I have tolerated.

As adults, when the government, in this case the MN Supreme Court, puts out a press notice, were expect the overpaid Government Bureaucrat Wordsmiths to emphasize critical points. If it is not in the document, it must not be important, and in fact how do I even know it exists if it is not in the document.

Your suggestion that it is my resp;onsibilty to ask questions about things that are not even in the press notice is preposterous.  The responsiblity for the content of the document falls to the writer. If the writer omitted then you should hold the writer responsible, not have some ridiculous belief that I should call the writer to ask them if they left anything important out of the document.

When you do a term paper and leave something important out, Do you tell the teacher that you do not deserve the lower grade abecause the teacher could have called you and asked or researched it themselves...  No the writer is responsible for the communication errors, not the reader. 

You are frustrated because your sheer numbers of posts could not defeat the factual truth contained in the original press notice and the US Supreme Court Rulings.  I cannot believe you folks spend all the time for me allegedly misunderstanding the press notice when I have pointed out repeatedly that the responsibility for the errors in communication rightly are placed on the writer of the document.

IF you don't care about the written, undebatable facts, then I do not care to speak with you any longer.  Please take a course in logic or deductive reasoning and get back to me.

Sincerely,

Your Fellow Sovereign Citizen(Founding Father Definition, not Anarchist)]

Don Mashak

The Cynical Patariot

I think that by refusing to answer our questions because we are not putting our names on our responses represents an example of YOU violating OUR First Amendment rights. Sir, I’m sorry, but you need to take a look through your so-called “journalistic entries” and see the lack of real substance in your articles. I believe you had an authentic question for the Justices, but you did not go about that in the correct way. First off, please shut off your phone in public, it’s a common courtesy. Second, do not come to the school over an hour late, and expect to be treated like a VIP. There were Middle School children there that displayed more common courtesy than you did. I just think that before you start to crucify our school, you should take a look at what you are doing that is making everyone upset about your presence.

Who screams the loudest?

You.

Plain and simple.