Klobuchar's Corrupt Hennepin Mob

Bottom Line: Three Initial Specific Solutions (pertain to lawyer-monopoly mob generally, including Hennepin)

On Feb 10, 2020 I read Kevin Burke's (simpleton-fraud judge in Hennepin Co) 10-page decision. 

Burke's obviously-corrupt "time machine" decision was the canary in the Hennepin coal mine.  The decision started out bizarre and became more and more bizarre until the final page hit max-bizarre:

“The issues of abuse of process and extortion (amongst others) have already been
decided by a court in the first [2013] lawsuit Mr. Berman filed against XXXXXXXX. Mr. Berman is self-represented and arguably disadvantaged in litigation against an experienced trial lawyer when the germane issue is civil procedure. [HUH??] Having said that, Mr. Berman is a very thorough writer – indeed, more thorough than some lawyers who have appeared before this Court. However, it is clear Mr. Berman has not had the advantage of legal training and has not been advised on the rules of civil procedure. As byzantine as civil procedure can be, Mr. Berman’s claim against XXXXXXXXXXX has been litigated sufficiently in other courts. This case is dismissed.”

(This wholesale bullshit is on page 115 of Document 8-1 of this case 0:20-cv-01199 Berman v. Segal et al . Again, you can download, with a free PACER account, the 278 pages of Document 8-1, which have the Hennepin (and other involved Minnesota State courts) records, and there you'll have the root cause of all of Minnesota's major problems.

More on this, below, but: #1) THE FACTS of my lawsuit DID NOT EXIST in 2013; they occurred in 2018, so the 2013 judge (in another State) would have needed a "time machine" to have decided extortion and abuse of process from those 2018 facts; and #2) this Burke's moronic "time machine" invention began my research into Minnesota's court system, soon yielding the following conclusion:

A despot—a king—doesn't need to give a reason. Despots proclaim a "conclusion" without a premise (p⇒q without the p). All proclamations are logically equivalent, ⇒q. The penalty (or harm) can be different from one despot to another, but the Boolean expressions are the same, ⇒q. The Rule of Law is a Boolean expression. The Rule of Law doesn't care what a judge "believes." (And neither should you.) The rule of law is: "plug the facts into the 10th-grade-math Boolean function machine, and out pops the legal conclusion." Here's the rule of law for federal (Hobbs Act) extortion; variation fear .

On April 7, I read the MN appeals court's (chief judge Cleary) decision, and I immediately emailed Garry Jenkins, the dean of UMN law school.

You can see that I wrote, among other things: "Some All of my best friends are black," and you can read the rest. (I'm not putting this here to "get blacks' votes" or for any other cheap, nauseating political reason: vote for whomever you want to; this is information about the corrupt MN court system in the months leading up to Mr. Floyd.) My email to Dean Jenkins is part of that chronology and how I got into this anti-corruption project. Otis and I go back to kindergarten; we're lifetime buddies with our birthdays one day apart (BDB, birthday bros). We went to each other's bday parties during grade school, and we slept over at each other's homes:

I have unique gifts of many other fantastic friends who go way back, but Otis and I have been solid, uncompromised friends the longest. The above email from him was after some emails about race and different experiences. I'm not sure it was in this email exchange, but at one point, I told Otis that I hear declarations of war (against white guys) in rap, and I don't like having a war against me when I've personally done nothing wrong, other than "being white;" but I know many blacks don't see it that way. Otis once wrote (on 6/18/21): "The sooner '45' ( I can't say or type his name) goes to jail, the sooner more elected officials will begin to tell the truth! " Neither of us pushes things into any argument; we've been buddies for too long to do that. I explained to Otis my view: that DJT—by verbally attacking judges and their corrupt courts (and getting rises out of them)—is attacking the root cause of out-of-control, bad cops; and therefore the source of many problems blacks have. This is true regardless of DJT's reasons for attacking judges. This is an engineering test approach: you apply a test signal (a DJT attack), and you watch for the response.

In the case of the Federal Judges Assn, their response to DJT proved that the judge-president of that association was liar. This is another of the many examples—notably San Francisco federal judge Pussy-Alsup about whom I've written to Klobuchar and Smith repeatedly over the last four years—that show that "judicial-GAG-ethics" codes are a crock: "A judge...should act AT ALL TIMES in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

In my subsequent letters to Sens. Klobuchar and Smith, I've written: "Why is this guy (Pussy Alsup) still a judge?" I encourage Minnesotans and everyone to write to Klobuchar, Smith, and Congresspersons to impeach and remove Pussy Alsup.

I know Otis understands what I'm saying, and he knows I understand him. We much prefer talking about how our kindergarten teacher, Mrs. K, read Uncle Wiggly to us, as we went off to sleep at nap time.

A week later (after my April 7 email to Dean Garry Jenkins), on April 15, I petitioned the MN sup ct and identified the corrupt "military regime" operating in Hennepin, quoting dictator Burke's personal-opinion ("I believe" ⇒q) proclamation that was "law" in Hennepin:

(Page 223, Document 8-1 of this case 0:20-cv-01199 Berman v. Segal et al .)

On May 20 (5 days before Floyd), I put Burke's decision and the rest of the bizarre Minnesota State-court record on the federal docket, case 0:20-cv-01199 Berman v. Segal et al — because every news reporter has easy access to federal cases, and anyone can easily get a free account to access federal cases. 

I'm not particularly exaggerating about all of a State's major problems (or all of the US's major domestic problems) having their root cause in courts. Courts control the laws when they get their hands on them after Congress writes laws (even though Congress can and should override the many awful court decisions, mainly in appeals courts). And courts settle disputes between Congress and the Executive; and courts decide all challenges to (crackpot) laws. So, incompetent/corrupt judges screw-up an entire govt.

Congress and legislatures are typically too spineless to even read—let alone override—obviously-botched court decisions (the 1983 Feldman BOTCH, the chief example, is still wreaking its havoc after 41 years, including Mr. Floyd's death). Congress and legislatures are loath to (as in never) even impeach a judge, never mind any removal. The initial solution-key is that all a senator or House-person needs to do is read into the Congressional Record an impeachment riot act about one or more federal judges, by reciting and showing with diagrams a laundry list of objectively-corrupt decisions, which are easy to find (especially because I have quite a list). That will get the attention of, at a minimum, the legal publications; and then the judges themselves. They are welcome to debate me if they dare.

This is the first thing to do: get the attention of judges with a public calling-out of their corrupt/incompetent decisions. At least a few of them will see what's going on and maybe start changing under the light of their public exposure. Even if Congress doesn't develop the stones to pass some articles of impeachment, the primary purpose is to steer govt (judges) away from their incompetence and corruption (maybe the former isn't possible, but the latter should be). If the US (our former country now owned by the lawyer-mob) is to have a chance of rising from the ruins the courts have left it in, you need to use every peaceful tool you can. Give the judge-mob some opportunity to change its ways before Congress (one can hope) gets into impeachment-gear.

Judges are where the concentrated power is. If you can get even a few judges to start shaping up—even though they should be removed and have their full-salary pensions busted down according to the number of their corrupt decisions—you implement that fix. That's the practical "duct tape and vise-grips" engineering solution; fix as much as you can with the tools you have available—even though impeachment-removal revenge would be great, but that can come later.

In Minneapolis, federal judges Doty and Donovan Frank are full-on patsies to their crony lawyers. (And magistrate Sgt. David "I know nothing" Schultz is a case unto himself; he was the magistrate in case 0:20-cv-01199 Berman v. Segal et al.) Calling out (and diagramming out) their specific decisions is a piece of cake. Whether they are capable of changing is a crapshoot (more on the crap side than the success side), but it costs a Congress-person nothing to read a diagrammed-out riot act on judge incompetence-corruption. He or she just needs the spine to do it. Again, here are the Feldman BOTCH diagrams.
• The facts of my case (that Burke dismissed) DID NOT EXIST in 2013.  The facts came into existence in 2018.  Ask a kindergarten class if a judge in 2013 could have made a decision about things that happened in 2018.  This moron Burke came up with his crackpot "time machine" notion all by himself and expected me to swallow it and run with my tail between my legs.  If a real judge has an idea that neither side in a lawsuit has mentioned, he writes a "show me" order: "Show me why this idea I have is wrong.  The parties have two weeks to file their papers."  Response: "the 2013 case could not have decided anything about the facts of this case because those facts did not exist until 2018."  A real judge would have said: "my bad; we'll keep going."

But Burke had to bail out his Hennepin lawyer-pals and their Hennepin client.  So he concocted this crap on his own (or was clued-in by a Hennepin lawyer at a party).  And then Burke closed this case for good. Any "procedural" reason for a case's dismissal (such as failure to serve the defendant) happens relatively early-on—not after all that was filed in my case, with Burke sitting on the case for 3 months after all the papers had been filed.

It turned out, after I did a little research on Minnesota courts, that judges in Minnesota seem to think that people who hear the phrase "civil procedure" will cower in fear. The Minnesota Sup Ct did this, basically, in 1996 in an incredibly bizarre case involving Burke. I'll be back here, later, to describe that case.

Civil procedure has ZERO to do with a case where the specific facts of the case have been considered: facts are the substance of the case.  "Procedure" addresses only how a generic "blackbox" of a case "proceeds" step by step through a court.  Once a single specific fact ("Joe's dog pooped on my lawn") is considered, the case is in to its substance.  Again, Burke sat on my case for 3 months after all the papers had been filed before his came out with his bizarre decision.  For those prior 3 months, both sides filed plenty of papers. The other side filed a ream of irrelevant papers, including ones about the 2013 case; they were feeding Burke information for his time machine, which was, quite likely, mentioned at a party.  No one—not me, not the other side, not Burke—had mentioned the 2013 case's having "decided" anything about the current case because the idea was preposterous. But all of a sudden, Burke belched this garbage out in his decision. This was an obvious fraud by a simpleton judge who thinks everyone's an idiot and is intimidated and bamboozled by judge-blab generally, and, in his simpleton "mind," about some "civil-procedure" boogeyman. It was astonishing to me that a judge could get away with such bilge; I had never seen anything like it. (Recently I've seen, in Iowa, some stuff out of judges, which beats Minnesota's absurdities on the down side—something I didn't think possible.)

* Finally, a "claim" having been "litigated sufficiently" is an absurd statement.  A claim has either been litigated to its conclusion in a previous court, or it hasn't.  Burke's writing "litigated sufficiently" (and not even citing the legal components—legal standard—for when a prior case has litigated a claim) was another giveaway that Burke was a know-nothing who tosses out what he believes are "intimidating legal words" he thinks will impress/scare people. This lawyer "intimidation act" is actually quite prevalent. It's part of the consolation prize of their JD degree: they don't have any marketable skills from their undergrad degrees—outside of govt paper-pushing—so they pick up intimidating (Latin) words and phrases in law school, which are nifty tools for keeping people's attention away from the nonsense they crank out. But to see this degree of jargon-bilge from a judge bailing out his pals was over the top. Normally, judges will just copy and paste what their lawyer-pals write. Burke's laying on his "legal training" and "experienced trial lawyer" stuff made him sound like some kid dreaming of law school and trying to imitate a judge. BTW, there had been no trial, only filing motion papers ("motion practice"), which was another small (but significant) indicator of Burke's ignorance. No actual judge—especially with 30+ years experience—would confuse the "law and motion" pretrial phase of a case with the trial phase. His 10-pages had plenty of other bizarreness, too.  

I had already seen various brands of court corruption, but I'd never seen anything like this.  And it got worse, if you can believe that.  (Subsequently, I've seen things from lawyers and judges, in Iowa, which are even more corruptly bizarre—such as referring to non-existent filings by me in the court record; naturally, they didn't say what was the docket-number for the non-existent filing.) 

I did a little searching on Burke after that Feb 10, 2020 decision, because this guy had been a so-called "judge" in Hennepin for over 30 years, and I figured I couldn't have been the first recipient of his garbage over that time.  Further, I figured that someone during that time had called him out to Star Tribune reporters.  So I was pretty sure that the Star Tribune was part of the Hennepin judge-lawyer gang, and wasn't going to report on Burke.  And I was right.  Truth be told, there's court corruption, to one degree or another, nearly everywhere in the US.  The media don't expose it because they're too intimidated by lawyers and judges—their fellow travelers in the wordpushing business—and because, if they were to report it, people would ask why the media have been silent on it for decades: "either you don't know what's going on or you're part of the gang."  I think the media know, basically.  The same people (e.g. Bezos) who have media control, also have armies of lawyers to get cases handed to them.  They aren't going to blow the whistle.

One other note: as I was doing research on Burke, I came across this:

First, if you read Burke's juvenile, name-dropping, social-climbing posts—now and before he retired—for more than a couple of minutes (and I couldn't and can't take the queasy feeling; and I haven't looked at his X account in a long time, until just now), you'll see that he shoots off political comments all the time—about the Sup Ct, prez and other candidates, and everything. So his disclaimer (like everything he writes) is crap.

Next, it's not surprising—especially given the judge-lawyer club-mob that runs the antiquated court system—that a judge would know a former-prosecutor (Klobuchar) and talk at parties and be friendly or friends. Even though this party talk is one of the many doors open for court corruption, it isn't my focus here. What is my focus is that lawyer-prosecutor Klobuchar knows the deal in Hennepin courts. She has to. Any lawyer knows the deal on the local judges. She knows Burke is the Hennepin kingpin (I'll discuss his 1995-1996 cases, in a minute), and she knows Minneapolis lawyers. She must have seen or heard about, over her 8 years as a prosecutor, Burke "making it come out right" for various Minneapolis lawyers (or for her), as he obviously did with my case. I'm sure that all the former prosecutors in Congress knew which judges were more "on their side" than other judges. This is par for the course in any US county or federal district. And the basic—and nearly-comprehensive—solution is a Boolean rule of law, together with enforcement by impeachment/recall. Congress can start the ball rolling by codifying the Correct Feldman rule (eliminating the BOTCH); and also the civil RICO statute (I'll address that another time).

So, Klobuchar knew kingpin Burke and the workings in Hennepin, which include its corrupt workings. Corrupt judges who invent time machines and such to hand cases to their lawyer-pals, give the Anything Goes signal to bad cops with their antennae up to receive it. As noted, I was falsely arrested in 2016, and I had seen the lame Sacramento federal judges at work in 2013 on their "due process." Bad cops watch the judges; they know what they can get away with.

The judge-lawyer club is the pinnacle of white collar crime. It's foolproof, given the lawyers and their lackeys in Congress and legislatures. The inflated garbage that judges churn out about "judicial integrity" and "holding the balance straight and true" should be seen in light of Scalia's "make it come out right" confession. You're being had if you put one penny of stock in the sanctimonious bilge judges crank out.

Burke got whatever he wanted from Minnesota judges, including the 1996 MN sup ct, and that case was a doozie (read below). Burke could probably, as a private citizen, file anything at all in Hennepin and still get what he wants. That's one of the things that make Minnesota a very dangerous place. As I've mentioned, though, there's still a ray of hope for Minnesota courts: Cleary, the now-retired head judge of the MN appeals court, wrote nearly two pages on my emergency appeal. That is virtually unheard-of generally, and especially for a person without a lawyer. ("Petition DENIED" is the near-universal standard response.) That little thing—Cleary's actual opinion—probably seems inconsequential to you. But engineers—especially with decades designing and testing real-world things—get pretty good at noticing tiny clues that eventually lead to big things. Cleary's two pages were a ray of hope for Minnesota in taking on the root cause of its problems—the corrupt courts.

As I've mentioned (I've mentioned everything previously; I have to hash and rehash this stuff to drive the points home to as many people as I can), I got Cleary's decision on April 7, 2020. I immediately wrote to Garry Jenkins, (former) dean of UMN law school, and told him that his law school is a Superfund site whose effluent is a major contributor to Hennepin social pollution. (Actually, I didn't put it in those exact terms, as you might guess, but that was the gist.) And apparently, I recently read, Mr. Jenkins has gotten out of the law-dean biz and become a university prez, which is what Elizabeth MaGill did after I wrote her at Stanford law; so I'm batting 2 for 2 on law deans.

Then, one week later I petitioned the MN sup ct about Cleary and Burke, which was when I wrote that Burke's "military regime" was operating in Hennepin. Then, I filed in federal court on May 18, and I put Document 8-1 on the federal court record on May 20. Then Mr. Floyd on May 25. So that's how I got here, writing this.

* Burke's 1995-96 case in the Minnesota appeals court (and sup ct.) was, I believe, uniquely bizarre.  In 1995, Burke, as a judge, argued his own case, Matter of Burns, in the Minn appeals court. Burke lost. Burke, arguing his own case as a judge, was opposing a woman, Barbara Burns, who also argued her own case. I'll bet that a trial judge has never argued his own case on appeal in any other State. A trial judge is supposed to make a record that allows an appeals court to understand what happened without the trial judge arguing his "side."

In this case, Hennepin Court clerks had complained to Burke (the chief judge) that Burns was an obnoxious troublemaker. Burns was appealing a ruling by Burke: "Barbara R. Burns appeals from a district court order that prohibits her for 365 days from making any telephone calls or facsimile transmissions to, or in-person filings with, Hennepin County District Court personnel. The order requires Burns's communications with court personnel to be made in writing. We reverse and remand."

"No witnesses appeared and no evidence was presented to the court to prove the allegations made in the order to show cause. The findings of fact in the January 5, 1995, order appear to be based only on complaints made by court personnel to Chief Judge Burke outside the hearing. Appellant was denied an opportunity to confront, cross-examine, or even know the names of the personnel who complained about her." (These are unconscionable Joe-McCarthy-style violations of Burns' rights.)

"Because the court's findings of fact must be supported by evidence presented to the court [gosh, really?], on remand, the county attorney or other counsel should be relied upon to present evidence to prove the allegations made in the order to show cause. Appellant must also have an opportunity to review evidence submitted at the hearing, cross-examine witnesses, and present evidence and witnesses." What novel idea: that evidence must be presented to prove allegations.

Burke ran a Joe McCarthy style hearing with hidden evidence that he used to infringe this Burns woman's 1st Amendment right to petition the govt in court. Here's the US Sup Ct's statement on that: "The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition." (California Motor Transport .)

Now, I'm a bit attuned to court situations where evidence—and caselaw citations, too—are kept hidden from me; and other things were kept hidden from me in a case in front of a San Jose magistrate judge, Paul Grewal, who later went to work for Zuckerberg; but that's another story. My Uncle Ed Posniak (who was Steve Posniak's dad—"My cousin Steve killed himself after he was charged for the 2008 Ham Lake fire") was confronted by Joe McCarthy in Senate hearings. This was in 1950, before my time. McCarthy accused Uncle Ed (Ed married my mom's sister) of being a commie embedded in the State Dept, and there are archives on the web about McCarthy's hearings on this, which you can find. (I don't know if McCarthy showed Ed the evidence.) According to my dad, Uncle Ed was hounded out of his job. Dad said, "Ed was no more of a communist than you or I." Of course my dad described himself as a "dyed-in-the-wool New Dealer," so there are open questions there.

I learned (whether it was true or not), in US History & Govt II, that McCarthy held up closed folders of supposed evidence, which he never showed the accused. According to the record stated by the MN appeals court, that's very much like what Burke did to Burns. So, regardless of whether that was true of McCarthy, Burke did effectively the same thing to Burns: "Appellant was denied an opportunity to confront, cross-examine, or even know the names of the personnel who complained about her."

The idea of McCarthy's hidden evidence particularly rankled me when I first heard about it (from Mr. Bryson, my 10th grade Hist & Gov teacher, whose class was actually fun and interesting to me, the science nerd). I was a science-engineering nerd from the time I was a little kid, and I'd watch Mr. Wizard show us the evidence that supported scientific theories. This made total sense to me, even before Mr. Wright—my 7th grade General Science teacher, the greatest—taught us about the scientific method.

I encountered hidden evidence (and a lying cop who contradicted the bodycam; and there were other Constitutional violations) in my false arrest (and a couple of lawsuits I later filed) in the Gulag Vacavillago (Vacaville, CA). In a related case, I encountered a lawyer who kept a critical caselaw citation hidden until he sprang it after my opposition paper (and no, lawyers, you can't rebut it with the same effectiveness as you can in an opposition, especially when the judge is law-school friends with the opposing lawyer, from Berkeley—one of the biggest law school Superfund sites releasing poisonous effluent into society). Other hidden things have also popped out in various courts.

So I was interested when I first read that Burke had used hidden evidence to infringe Burns' 1st Amendment right to petition, and the MN appeals court decision was fully-supported with legal authority; it was rock solid.

The MN sup ct reversed it with total bullshit. Burke somehow got "Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., John S. Garry, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul," to help him. Burke is well-connected and can apparently get whatever he wants from Minnesota courts.

The first thing to note was that the MN sup ct stated something that wasn't in the lower court record (apparently making it up): "Burns was directed to show cause why she should not be required, as are other litigants, to communicate with the court in writing and in the manner specified by the Rules of Civil Procedure." The appeals court decision did not say "as are other litigants." The MN sup ct made that up and added it. The MN sup ct did not cite the supposed section in "civil procedure" that requires this. It's important TO REPEAT AND EMPHASIZE THESE ACTIONS BY THE MN SUP CT, as they are quite unbelievable and say a LOT about Minnesota courts:

1) the MN sup ct fabricated this statement ("as are other litigants") that was not in the lower-court record. The MN sup ct made that up.

2) the MN sup ct's statement ("and in the manner specified by the Rules of Civil Procedure") does not cite (or quote) a code section stating what "manner" that is (communicate in writing?).

A court of supposed "law" does not make up facts. But the MN sup ct made up things that were not in the record of the lower court. And they stated that the code of Civil Procedure has some "requirement" (presumably written communication with the clerk's office). A court fabricating a record and making vague references to code sections (with no numbers for the supposed sections) are the workings of Mickey Mouse (or banana republic, if you like that better) courts. This was going on in the Minnesota sup ct in 1996 in a full-scale effort (with the Humphrey name) to bail out Burke from a rock-solid, damning appeals court decision. And the MN sup ct used flimflam to do it. What was going on here? What did Burke have on these judges and Humphrey? This was a wacked-out decision.

I'm extremely skeptical that Minnesota court rules (especially of civil procedure) require people to communicate with the clerk's office in writing. When my case was in Hennepin courts, I spoke by phone a number of times with the clerks—including Burke's "chambers clerk" (his secretary; I think she telephoned me, actually; she was super nice), who were very pleasant and helpful. I doubt there's a court anywhere that requires litigants to communicate in writing (or only in writing) with the clerks. This crap was a set up for the MN sup ct's ridiculous decision: "Instead [of Burke's abridging Burns' right that every other person has, to call the court and speak with the clerk] it may best be characterized as an exercise of the district court's authority to enforce the Rules of Civil Procedure and to maintain order and decorum in the operation of the court system." Again, the MN sup ct didn't cite where there is such a rule, requiring written communication with the clerk's office. And civil procedure is how a generic case "proceeds" through a court. I doubt "civil procedure" rules anywhere address how a litigant communicates with the clerk's office. If there are such rules, they are not in civil procedure rules, but some other rules. Regardless, the MN sup ct did NOT CITE any such rule. It appears they made it up. I'm certain they made it up.

According to the clerks' letters to Burke (described in the MN app ct decision but kept from Burns, McCarthy style), Burns was an obnoxious problem: 'threatening," "abusive," and "waving" things in clerks' faces. It might have been entirely reasonable to make her communicate only in writing with the clerks, while regular litigants telephone clerks all the time and come into the courthouse to file papers. But Burns was entitled to see the evidence and cross-examine witnesses before she had her right of access to petition abridged compared with other people. The MN sup ct got around this 1st Amendment block to Burke's doing whatever he wanted to, by making up a "written communication rule" that supposedly required everyone to communicate in writing with the clerk's office. Bulloney.

And what I mentioned previously—about "civil procedure"—Burke tried to bulldoze me with "the byzantine" rules of civil procedure. What childish nonsense, except for the fact that MN judges pull "civil procedure" out of their butts when they want to cover up corruption or the fact that they toss out the 1st Amendment when it suits them.

So, Minneosta courts, including its supreme court, had banana-republic goings-on in 1996. This was very interesting info to me in those months prior to Floyd, when I was encountering Kafka courts in Minneapolis.

But here's some good news (after a fashion) for Minnesota: it appears that Iowa courts have some major corruption problems, the scale of which is now surprising to me. I'll get to that another time.