Editor's note: These letters were all received in response to David Schultz's "A Second Bill of Particulars: Donald Trump and the assault on American Democracy," which appeared in the December, 2025 edition of Bench & Bar of Minnesota. Their text has not been edited.
This letter concerns the Bench + Bar of Minnesota publication. I am extremely disappointed to see that the MSBA and said publication are inserting itself into the political fray.
I think there is plenty of divisive political discussion already occurring in the media. It does not need to happen while being funded by my dues.
Please discontinue me from the mailing list of this publication. I will likely simply disassociate myself and all members of this firm from the Minnesota State Bar Association in the near future.
James W. Hess
Hess & Jendro Law Office, P.A.
Elk River, MN
**
No better example exists of the mental condition commonly known as “Trump Derangement Syndrome” than Prof. David Shultz’s angry screed that appeared in Bench & Bar, December 2025. From beginning to end, he engages in misrepresentation, gnashing of teeth, omission of critical facts, and regurgitation of tired arguments that failed miserably to convict the President in the U.S. Senate.
The very premise of Schultz’s essay – comparing President Trump, elected twice by the American people, to King George III, is ludicrous. King George III was elected by no one. Attacks on him would have been regarded as treason. The last I checked, no one from the Trump Administration has sought in any way to restrict Prof. Shultz’s right to criticize the President. But his right to criticize does not insulate him from proper criticism for his own misstatements of the facts and the record. Indeed, as President Reagan was fond of saying, facts are stubborn things.
Again and again in his long rant, Schulz misrepresents such facts. He cites Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes” as “abuse.” In doing so, he suggests, as did the Impeachment Managers, that the President was asking the Secretary to manufacture such votes. The United States Senate resoundingly rejected this contorted view of the call. In a State where Trump came within a few thousand votes of winning, and where there were charges of election irregularities, he was clearly within his right to ask that the count be examined in order that the results be fairly accounted for. That’s what election laws are for, after all. Indeed, Trump’s call was not at all to “subvert the duly certified choices of the American voters”; it was to ascertain what those choices were.
In his most blatant contortion of the facts, Schultz dredges up the President’s January 6 speech at the Capitol. Like so many other Trump haters, he quotes a few words from the speech, completely ignoring his core message. He cites Trump’s imploring his supporters to “fight like hell,” suggesting that this was a call to arms. “Never before had an American president encouraged an attack on the very seat of government.” Not so, Professor. He conveniently omits the key words Trump emphasized – that they should march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically.” That Schultz wrenches out of context the words “fight like hell,” knowing full well following years of close examination of the Trump speech the accompanying words urging non-violence, speaks volumes about rage trumping reason in this article.
Schultz makes much of Trump’s supposed “defiance” of court orders. Yet he later concedes that “the Supreme Court has sided with him over 90 percent of the time.” Indeed, the Professor ignores the fact that Trump has never defied the ultimate rulings of the courts. He has, as is his right under our system of government, appealed rulings he felt were wrongly decided, taking them to higher courts, then living by the results – abiding by the law.
Yes, abiding by the law – precisely contradicting Schultz’s central theme. And it is on this point where the Professor’s argument completely falls apart. Throughout his essay he talks about Trump’s consistent violation of the “norms” of our American system. But because Trump has in fact played by such norms, appealing unconstitutional lower court rulings and been confirmed by the highest court in the land “over 90% of the time,” Schultz himself has no choice but to reject his own norms himself! Suddenly, “the genius of the American Constitution,” as he earlier puts it, must be tossed aside – because it’s not working along the lines Mr. Schultz would have it. “The Court,” he laments, “has repeatedly insulated him from accountability.” Well, Professor, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say Trump is violating the norms, and then when he abides by the norms and is confirmed, there must be something wrong with the norms.
Schultz’s “Second Bill of Particulars” should be dismissed for failure to state a case.
Barry A. Kelner
Minnetonka, MN
**
It is long over due that myself and other attorneys stop funding the Mn Bar Association. Your political hit job, by David Schultz, with respect to President Donald Trump is pathetic. Your magazine said nothing about the issues of the Biden administration, nothing about Governor Walz, nothing about Keith Ellison, and nothing about the fraud on our medicaid system and Covid relief funds, or many of the democratic scandals that have gone on and continue to go on. Your magazine has become nothing but political garbage. More than half the Country voted for president Trump but your magazine has clearly deciding upon picking sides. Well, it is time we stand up, at least with our checkbooks, and stop funding this crap. Don’t worry, we won’t do like the democrat party and burn buildings, loot stores, or start riots. We will continue to work, as we have always done, but will not continue to fund your political garbage. We have a democracy but you don’t want to acknowledge that over half the Country voted to end the democrats ignoring the rule of law. You only want to destroy President Trump no matter the cost. Your magazine has never even acknowledged the 10 years of legal warfare that the democrats have unleashed on President Trump in an effort to destroy him, his presidency, and anyone who dared to support him. I hope that many more attorneys can stand up and say no more to the Minnesota Bar Association.
Paul A. Lindstrom
Waconia, MN
**
I was shocked by the partisan nature of the article: Second Bill of Particulars. Nothing like this was printed during the Obama administration when he quietly retired 230 conservative flag officers, gutting the military. Nor during the Biden administration when our borders were left open terrorists and assorted ne’er do wells. I might expect such a screed from assorted left-wing journals, but not a publication that at least purports to be a serious legal publication.
David L. Forman
Baudler, Maus, Forman & King, LLP
Austin, MN
**
I have been a member of the MN Bar since 1967. Over the years I have enjoyed reading the monthly magazine. For the last couple of years, in my opinion, the magazine has become a political rag. The most recent edition I just received is disgusting. Apparently, you have nothing to do with overseeing the content of the magazine. The articles by David Schultz are liberal political hit pieces. With all the significant other news in this state that raise issues of concern I believe that you can do much better. Apparently, living inside the “494-694 Ring of Knowledge” you have no idea what a large portion of the outstate bar members and public are concerned about.
Mitchel H. Costley
Costley & Morris, P.C.
Two Harbors, MN
**
I was very disappointed to see the cover and 6 page article dedicated to a one-sided political criticism of our President.
I have understood Bench & Bar to be an educational publication for practicing attorneys in our state (perhaps I am wrong, and if I am, please educate me about what its purpose is). While I’m sure there have been other political articles published in it, I do not readily recall them and certainly don’t recall an article that was as one-sided as Mr. Schultz’s. If Bench & Bar felt it necessary to publish a piece on whether certain actions taken by the President were appropriate or legal, it certainly could have done so by inquiring of people on both sides of the aisle, and without including such an inflammatory article. The first sentence of nearly every subsection contained the writer’s opinion on the politics of President Trump, which I would imagine many conservatives would counter. For example, Mr. Schultz notes the “alarming aspects of Trump’s tenure”, his “disregard for judicial authority”, that his immigration policies are “particularly corrosive to due process”, that “Trump’s hostility toward dissent doesn’t stop with the press”, that “underlying Trump’s abuses was a broader culture of impunity”, that the “gravest damage of Trump’s presidency has been cultural”, and those quotes are from only pages 2 and 3.
I would hope our state bar association is an association for every attorney, regardless of their political leaning. If I didn’t have a certified specialist designation I would stop being a member of the state bar association as I do not want my association dollars going to assert one political agenda over another.
In my opinion, a State-wide bar association publication has no business choosing a political side with which to align, as is now obvious by the publication of this article. When I open Bench & Bar I expect to read informational articles relative to our legal practice, not opinion based editorials looking to further divide people from one another in our current political landscape.
I am deeply disappointed with the Bar association. l am mature enough and educated enough to determine my own conclusions about what is happening in the world and the politics in our country; I certainly don’t need a supposed professional organization that I pay money to be a part of, telling me what to think.
Please note: I did not vote for President Trump, nor do I like what he has to say most of the time. It also always seems to be the case that liberals can blast conservatives, but not the reverse. I can’t imagine the fall out the Bar Association would have received if it published as one sided a piece against former President Biden and his mental instability and inabilities during the second half of his tenure, though if it was written in the same inflammatory tone as this article, I would be writing the same email.
Racheal M. Holland
Melchert Hubert Sjodin, PLLP
Chaska, MN
**
I hate, hate, hate the way you’ve turned B + B into a politically partisan rag, shilling for the Democratic Party. You’re supposed to work for the bar at large, not the left-wing supporting portion of it.
Neil Polstein
Polstein Law Offices, P.C.
Maplewood, MN
**
I write to alert you to a problem with my Bench and Bar subscription. I intended to join a non-partisan professional organization dedicated to improving the practice of law. Last month, I received the Minnesota DFL talking-points memo instead ("Second Bill of Particulars"). Please correct your records.
Nathan Bissonette
Fort Myers, FL
