Assistant Attorney General Matt Mason

The rare constant in a shifting record - the only actor in this narrative who follows the rules even when nobody else will.

Key Context

Assistant Attorney General representing judicial defendants.
Entered appearance August 14, 2025, after procedural irregularities by others.
Consistently professional tone in filings and email communications.
Has not escalated, misrepresented, or contributed to altered-record disputes.
Only government attorney in the case whose conduct has been uniformly lawful and predictable.

Why It Matters

Mason entered Strickland v. Ramsey County et al. at a moment when the case had already spiraled into a maze of altered orders, misrouted filings, missing signatures, and procedural brinksmanship. Unlike other actors in this saga, he did not add chaos, escalate hostility, or exploit the County's broken processes.

Instead, he did something almost unsettling in its simplicity: he followed the law.

In a litigation environment defined by glitches - technological, procedural, and human - Mason is the only official whose conduct has remained steady, professional, and grounded in the obligations of the Minnesota Attorney General's Office.

Entry Into the Case

On August 14, 2025, Mason entered the federal civil-rights action on behalf of Referees Clysdale, Larmouth, Rossow, Elsmore, and Court Administrator Nicole Rueger. His appearance came immediately after a series of irregular actions by other counsel, including unauthorized notices, collateral-estoppel theories floated outside procedural context, and filings that contradicted the record.

Mason did not attempt to amplify or defend these irregularities. He did not mirror the County's evasiveness or BGS's gamesmanship. He simply acknowledged receipt, filed correctly, and proceeded as counsel of record.

A Professional Outlier

Mason is notable in this litigation because he is the only party acting like the litigation is real, the rules apply, and the court deserves candor. He responds to filings. He acknowledges service. He does not misrepresent facts. He does not exploit ambiguity. He does not participate in evidence laundering.

'In a case full of procedural ghosts, Mason is the only person who shows up in the room with the lights on.'

Even when Plaintiff flagged potential ADA issues or irregularities in the record, Mason's tone remained neutral and respectful. Unlike others, he did not attempt to provoke, mislead, or escalate. His professionalism stands out precisely because every other actor's filings draw attention to themselves through their instability.

What His Conduct Signals

Mason's reliability serves as a quiet counter-narrative to Ramsey County's larger dysfunction. He demonstrates that the government is capable of responding lawfully and transparently - it simply chooses not to in other contexts.

His work provides a baseline: this is what it looks like when an attorney does not rely on altered documents, does not deny service, does not block clarification, and does not treat a disabled pro se litigant as a procedural inconvenience.

The contrast is instructive. It shows that the misconduct at issue is not structural necessity - it is discretionary behavior by particular individuals.

In a sea of broken systems, Mason is the control variable.