MILWAUKEE CIRCUIT COURT SENDS UNTIMELY RECORD TO APPEALS COURT

December 16, 2013, four additional copies of petitioner's appeal of circuit court judge's decision on discharge certificate was delivered to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and an additional copy to the Wisconsin Attorney General's Office via first class U.S. Mail.

DECEMBER 5, 2013, U.S. DISTRICT COURT GRANTED MOTION IN PART DENIED IN PART

Plaintiff objections mailed on November 6, 2013... due November 12, 2013... were not filed by clerk until November 25, 2013... and thus, were untimely.

This court is not prohibited from considering plaintiff's untimely objections.  Therefore, to the extent that plaintiff requests this court consider his objections to Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation, his motion is GRANTED in part.

Having considered the objections...the court finds no reason to disturb its previous order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation in its entirety.  The court, therefore, will not alter or amend its final judgment dismissing this cause.  To the extent plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment is construed as a challenge to this court's final judgment, his motion is DENIED in part.

The beat goes on...is there cause to appeal?  Maybe yes in part maybe no in part.  Time will tell.

U.S. Mail No Longer Reliable?

On November 18, 2013, a federal district court judge for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division issued an ORDER and JUDGMENT adopting magistrate judge's Memorandum and Recommendation in Civil Action No. H-13-1226, "there were no objections from the plaintiff."

However, the plaintiff mailed his objections November 6, 2013, first class by the most dependable mail service in the world, the U.S. Mail.  The clerk of courts office claim is that the mail was never delivered.

The plaintiff submitted his receipt of mailing provided by the U.S. Postal service this time by certified mail November 22, 2013, along with his Motion to Alter or Amend the Order and Judgment adopted and entered on November 18, 2013 with a copy of his letter to the clerk, original Objections to the "M&R", appendix and certification of mailing to the Wisconsin Attorney general's Office. This certainly was an unnecessary expense.

November 06, 2013 Plaintiff Filed Objections To Memorandum and Recommendation Of Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff objects for the following reasons:

1.  The Wisconsin Tax Appeal Commission's decision is a mistake, accident, deception or fraud.  "There are exceptions to Rooker-Feldman doctrine where a state court judgment was procured through fraud, deception, accident or mistake" (quoting In Re Sun Valley Food Co., 801 F. 2d et 189).

(A)   Wisconsin Tax Appeal Commission is not a court.  It has no authority to grant summary judgment under Wis. Stat. 802.08 in a contested tax case.  This is a mistake.  It is the trial court's function to determine whether there are issues of fact to be tried.  Review of administrative decisions by the tax commission is under Administrative Procedure Act, Wis. Stat. 227.  This mistake also conflicts with "fair play" provisions of Wis. Stat. 227.44-47 (1997-98).  Further, there is also relief under Rule 60 (b), 60 (b) (3) and 60 (b) (6).

2.  The circuit court decision is a mistake.

(A)  "The jurisdiction of the circuit court to review an order of the tax commission is not invoked unless that tribunal which rendered the decision has been served".

(B)  The tax commission was served December 17, 2009.  The commission has 30 days to transfer the record to the circuit court.  "It was the service of this petition that initiated the authority of the tax commission to transfer its record to the reviewing court, a prerequisite for orderly judicial administrative". "The court held that the service upon the tax commission performed a significant and indispensable role in triggering the process of judicial review" and not the plaintiff mailing a notice to Wisconsin Department of Revenue to establish jurisdiction of the circuit court.  This is a mistake.

(C)  As of February 23, 2010 the record shows the clerk for the tax commission had not sent the certified record as required by law to the circuit court to establish the court's jurisdiction to proceed.

(D)  The tax commission, circuit court, appeals court and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin mistakenly, accidentally, deceptively or fraudulently placed the burden on the taxpayer for the circuit court's lack of jurisdiction to proceed.  When "prerequisites exist" the state creates an expectation of the "record transfer" that rises to the level of a liberty interest within the meaning of the due process clause if its administrative procedure requires the tax commission to transfer the record to invoke jurisdiction.

October 28, 2013 Magistrate Judge Issues Memorandum and Recommendation

For reasons below, it is Recommended that motion to dismiss be Granted:

     Lee's challenges to the rulings of the Wisconsin Circuit Court, the Wisconsin Appellate Court and the Wisconsin Supreme Court fall squarely within the ambit of Rooker-Feldman as those are state court judgments over which only the United States Supreme Court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction.

     The tax appeals commission's decision is inextricably intertwined with the court decisions and also falls within Rooker-Feldman prohibition on the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.

     The fact that Lee missed statutory filing deadlines and lost his ability to appeal the tax commission's decision on the merits does not alter the fact that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not permit this court to reopen the state court process and review the merits of Lee's complaints.

July 12, 2013 Wisconsin Attorney General's Office files Motion To Dismiss civil action no. H:13 - 1226 United States District Court

The Assistant Attorney General moves to dismiss plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari upon the following grounds:

1.  The Tax Injunction Act.
2.  The Rooker - Feldman doctrine.
3.  Claim preclusion.
4.  Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

July 11, 2013, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division Issues Order to Appear

Plaintiff will appear before the magistrate judge on August 13, 2013 and present federal statutes and case law in support of his position that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over his suit.

The magistrate judge at the hearing determined that her recommendation would be to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  A written recommendation would follow and the plaintiff has 14 days to object.

October 25, 2013, Wisconsin Court of Appeals Issues Order

Appeal No. 2013AP002029, Circuit Court Case No.2013CV006447...The Record in the above matter has not been filed as required by Rule 809.15.  It is ORDERED that the court official prepare the Record
in accordance with Rule 809.15 (2) and (4) and file with this court within fifteen days of the date of this order.

Assistant Attorney General files Notice of Appearance" At Wisconsin Court of Appeals October 23, 2013

An official notification of counsel for the Respondent...how grand.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals NOTICE OCTOBER 21, 2013

I received this notice from the Court of Appeals:

The appellant submitted one copy of his appellant brief and appendix.  An indigent appellant must file five copies of the brief and appendix.  Cleveland must mail four additional copies.  We will not accept the brief for filing until we receive the additional copies.  The brief is not due until forty days from the date the record is transmitted to this court.

The record has not yet been transmitted, so the due date for the brief has not been established.  The four additional copies must be filed no later than the date the brief is due.

It is ordered that Cleveland Lee shall file four additional copies of the brief and appendix no later than forty days after the date the record is transmitted to this court.

Appeal of Discharge Certificate at Wisconsin Court of Appeals

An appeal was filed in the final decision and order from the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County regarding a discharge certificate issued by the Secretary of Wisconsin Prisons dated July 27, 2012.  Appeal No. 2013AP002029, Circuit Court Case No. 2013CV006447.  The Notice of Appeal and Circuit Court Record was dated September 12, 2013. The Appeal was mailed October 17, 2013.

The argument is:  (1) "Whether the legislative intent regarding concurrent indeterminate sentence, determinate sentence, and discharge certificate created a cause of action?"  (2) "Does the complaint (Administrative Exhaustion) reference the statutes which entitle the petitioner to relief and liberty interest protection provided by the Fifth, Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution?"

State Bar proposes Supreme Court term limits to cool clashes between justices : Wsj

State Bar proposes Supreme Court term limits to cool clashes between justices : Wsj               

Wisconsin has no independent judicial system.  The legal system as a whole is unethical, corrupt, bias and downright racist.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals District 1

I filed my notice of appeal challenging the decision and order denying my discharge certificate for case #05CF63, violations of Wis. Stats. 943.20 (1) (b) and 943.38 (2).  The discharge certificate states that "you (talking about me) have satisfied said judgment"  An inferior non legal mind would understand this to mean that the person who received this discharge certificate has completed the sentences that make up his judgment of conviction, right?  That's not all; this legal document further states that "it is ordered that effective July 27, 2012, you are discharged from said judgment only".  Signed by the Secretary of Wisconsin Department of Corrections, who is responsible for the care and safety of the person until his civil rights are restored by the department.  The department has not amended, corrected, withdrawn or issued a different discharge certificate.

September 12, 2013, Wisconsin Court of Appeals District 1, assigned Appeal No. 2013AP002029, Circuit Court Case No. 2013CV006447, three judge appeal.

The briefing schedule should be sent soon.  This has been a legalized screwing mastered by legal magicians who excel at the art of misdirection.  They promote deprivation of liberty without the mandated legal procedures and safeguards, fail to observe the laws of the State of Wisconsin and practice a blatant bias disregard of the charter of its existence.  God Bless America!!

Life and Death Challenge Appeal of Civil Case 2013CV006447

This is not a physical death, however, metaphorically it can be a death if I allow the Milwaukee Circuit Court to kill my case. As the psalm of David states; "though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil:  for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me".  I choose life because there is victory in life.  I mailed my appeal on September 03, 2013, to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District I in this life choice moment case 2013CV006447 decided July 24, 2013 is not dead.

This issue of law; "the restoration of a person's civil rights after the issuance of a Discharge Certificate" from the prison was decided by a judge and a party who disagrees with those rulings can appeal them to a higher court.

The court of appeals decides if the rules were followed, like referees in a game of sport.  The court of appeals usually answers the following questions:

1.  Did the circuit court comment a foul?
2.  Did the circuit court properly apply source evidence in this case?
3.  Did the judge use accurate factual information and give adequate reasons for the decision?
4.  The court of appeals decides only legal issues.

How Blacks Became A Consumer Nation, What We Must Do to Change and Why

How Blacks Became A Consumer Nation, What We Must Do to Change and Why

The Office of the Chief Judge First Judicial District

On yesterday, August 21, I received confirmation from State Court dated August 16, 2013, that case number 2013CV006447 has been dismissed and my summons returned because the petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.

Now, I have to decide whether to appeal the court's decision on the DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE issued by the Secretary of Wisconsin Prisons in accordance with Wis. Statutes, Chapter 304 and 973,dated 09/04/2012, ordered effective July 27, 2012 for Court Case #05CF63, sentenced November 9, 2005.  It is a legal document without any legal restraint of liberty, matter of fact, it restores the persons civil rights because he is discharged from his judgment of conviction, that's what the document states.

February 4, 2010, case no 05CF000063, the court stated " The defendant also asks the court to order the Department of Corrections to adhere to the mandatory release date on his pre-truth-in-sentencing sentences because he only has to serve two-thirds of those sentences...(in prison or confinement). That is not an issue for this court (sentencing court).  The Department of Correction has sole jurisdiction with regard to the calculation of release dates and the interplay between old law, new law, and truth-in-sentencing sentences.  The court has no authority to interfere in the computation of the defendants's sentence structure, and it cannot order the Department how to calculate his release  date."

Wis. Adm. Code DOC 302.22; Ambiguity in sentence; if a registrar is uncertain as to the terms of a sentence imposed on a resident, the register shall notify the court of the uncertainty in writing.  The register shall inform the resident of the legal services available at the institution to assist the resident.

The record shows a letter was dated December 28, 2005, to Judge Hansher and a letter was sent February 7, 2006.  There is no record of the court's response.

The Secretary of Wisconsin Prisons said the judgment in case 05CF63 is satisfied. The Wisconsin Parole agents and the Administrator for the division of parole said that's not true.  The court has sided with the parole division stating there is no cause of action dismissing the writ.  I must really give this some serious thought before proceeding.

Federal Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Why does this court have subject matter jurisdiction?

Wisconsin Income Tax Form 1 (1) is the federal adjusted gross income taken from a taxpayer's federal required form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.  The state taxing agency increased this amount for 1999, 2000 and 2001 without notice and hearing violating the taxpayer's right to be heard before conviction of tax evasion.

1.  The enabling statute for federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1331, provides that the district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction in all civil action arising under the Constitution, laws of treaties of the United States Constitution.  Also see Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution.
2.  Article III Section 2, provides that the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, or arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority...to controversies between a state and citizens of another state.
3.  Federal law includes an Act of Congress or a regulation issued under Act of Congress.
4.  The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TBOR I), II, and III are Acts of Congress.
5.  Procedural due process rules are shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding process as applied to generality of cases.  Procedural due process imposes constraints on government decisions which deprive individuals of "liberty or property" interest within the meaning of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.  The required elements of due process are those that "minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations" by enabling persons to contest basis upon a state that proposes to deprive them of protected interest.  In this case income or money alleged to be unreported for tax purposes with the intent to evade.

Federal Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction

August 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge determined that the State of Wisconsin can adjust a taxpayer's reported income on Wisconsin Income Tax Form 1 (1); the federal adjusted gross income taken from Federal Income Tax Form 1040 without giving the taxpayer notice or an opportunity to be heard on the adjustment made by the state taxing agency.

The reasoning is that the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is federal law and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitutional do not apply in state tax cases, therefore the federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction.

Arithmetic Vs. Law

In Wisconsin Civil Case 13CV006447, the court concluded "as a matter of law the petitioner has not stated a valid claim for relief".

What is Failure to State a Claim?

The law states that failure to state a claim is "the failure to present sufficient facts, which if taken as true, would indicate that any violation of law accrued or that the claimant is entitle to a legal remedy".

"The court finds this to be an accurate computation of the petitioner's discharge date (provided revocation does not occur)".

The arithmetic used to compute the projected release date is not the issue, rather, the issue is whether the facts presented in the petition, if true, violated Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 304 & 973 and entitles the petitioner to a legal remedy...a discharge certificate.

In a civil case, preponderance of the evidence, the greater weight of the evidence required for the trier of fact to decide in favor of one side or the other.  This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence (number of persons applying projected arithmetic).  Thus, a clearly stated discharge certificate signed by the Secretary of Wisconsin Prisons with definite dates and statutes may out weigh opinions or speculations about what the certificate intended.

Court's July 24, 2013 Decision and Order

Let's have a look at the courts reasoning:

"Because there was no hearing on the complaint, only an exchange of correspondence, and because the court has the entire record, there is no need to issue a writ to obtain the record".

This was more than an "exchange of correspondence". This was an action pursuant to DOC 328.11 (6) Supervisor's Investigation and Decision, more than a mere letter writing exercise. It is a required procedure of "Administrative Exhaustion" when a client such as citizen Lee challenges an administrative decision effecting his civil rights, his liberty, his right to be free.

The court concluded that the "discharge certificate is ambiguous because it does not set forth the specific counts in 05CF63 for which sentences have been completed".

The discharge certificate does set forth the Wisconsin Statutes that citizen Lee was found guilty of violating.  The discharge certificate set forth the following:  "you were sentenced to Wisconsin State Prison on November 9, 2005,...court case #05CF63, after being found guilty of violating Wisconsin Statute (s) 943.20 (1) (B), 943.38 (2).  The department having determined that you satisfied said judgment, it is ordered that effective July 27, 2012, you are discharged from said judgment only".  Signed by the Secretary of Wisconsin Prisons.

The court concluded that "the judgments of convicton for case 05CF63 clearly reflect that the sentences for courts 4 through 12 are still running".  "Thirteen year sentences were imposed on those counts, bifurcated into seven years of initial confinement and six years of extended supervision".  "The discharge certificate applies only to counts 1 and 3, and arguably counts 13, 14, and 15, although those sentences expired in November of 2008 for which he should have received a discharge certificate previously".

Now, let's look at the judgments of conviction for case 05CF63.  This case structure consist of indeterminate sentences and determinate sentences.  When there are indeterminate sentences the parole board determines how much time will be confinement and how much will be parole.  When there are determinate sentences the court determines how much time is confinement and how much is extended supervision.  the judgment of conviction states that; "count 1 indeterminate sentence...10/27/2010 total of 102 days credit on all concurrent counts, count one through fifteen; case no. 2005CF000063; count 2 determinate sentence concurrent to count 1 indeterminate sentence.  As to counts 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12; each count concurrent to each other and counts 1,2, and 3.

The court further states "It would have been better if the department had designated the specific counts which the discharge certificate applied.  Suffice it to say that petitioner's civil rights will not be reinstated until all of sentences in case 05CF63 have expired and a discharge certificate issues for the remaining counts (4-12).  Because the petitioner has not set forth a valid claim for relief, his petition is denied".

Discharge Certificate Update

June 27, 2013, citizen Lee mailed his writ of certiorari to Milwaukee State Court.

July 5, 2013, citizen Lee telephoned the clerk of court's office to verify that his petition for a writ had been received and filed.  The clerk's office stated that "no writ had been received".

July 6, 2013, the Milwaukee Courthouse on fire.

July 8, 2013, citizen Lee mailed his petition for a writ again by certified mail and tracking.

July 23, 2013, citizen Lee received a letter from Carol B., DCC/Chief Judge Jeffrey A. Kremers confirming that his petition for writ of certiorari had been received, assigning case number 13-cv-006447, the Hon. William s. Pocan, Br. 26 as the judge.  The petition was filed and authenticated July 2, 2013.  Three days before citizen Lee called the clerk's office to verify receipt of the petition and returned one of the $133 dollar cost of filing payments.

Now, we have to serve Denise Symdom, Administrator for State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections who made the final decision to not honor the discharge certificate issued by Secretary for Wisconsin Prisons, July 27, 2012.

Well, the court issued it's decision, that will save some money and time, no need to serve the regional chief who is also the administrator.  Let's discuss the court's July 24, 2013 decision.

Opposition To Motion To Dismiss

August 01, 2013, plaintiff's response in opposition to motion to dismiss are as follows:

1.  Taxpayers Bill of Rights I, II, and III.
2.  28 U.S.C. 1331.
3.  81 Cong. Rec. 1416 (1937).
4.  Administrative Procedure Act.
5.  Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
6.  Eighth Amendment.

And the beat goes on...

Federal District Court Order To Show Cause

July 30, 2013, my response to order to show cause was mailed to the court and a copy to Wisconsin AG's Office.  "The enabling statute for federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. subjection 1331, provides that the district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction in all civil actions arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States".  In summary this suit relies upon the following:

     1.  Acts of Congress.
     2.  Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
     3.  Administrative Regulations.
     4.  Eighth Amendment.
    
   
And the beat goes on...

Federal Writ of Certiorari

May 7, 2013, The Wisconsin Attorney General Department of Justice was asked to waive service of a summons in accordance with rule 4 of the Federal Rules on civil procedure that "requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving summons and complaint".  The attorney general office refused, therefore, taxpayers... "will be required to pay the expense of service, unless the defendant shows cause for the failure".

June 25, 2013, the writ and summons was served by Dane County Sheriff's Office on Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

July 11, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division issued its Order To Show Cause and to appear before the court on August 13, 2013, at 3 p.m. and present federal statutes and case law in support of his position that the court has "subject matter jurisdiction" over the case.

July 15, 2013, plaintiff received Wisconsin Department of Revenue attorney's brief.  The Attorney General Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the suit.  The argument is based on the following legal claims:

     1.  The Tax Injunction Act.
     2.  The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.
     3.  Claim Preclusion.
     4.  Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

...and the beat goes on.

Milwaukee Courthouse Fire

Saturday July 6, 2013, more than a thousand people off work. Fire damage to building estimated at $368,000 and property damage at $150,000.

July 16, 2013, an electrical fire that closed Milwaukee Courthouse for a week could cost about $2 million to clean up.

July 24, 2013, courthouse reopens after two-and-a-half weeks.  Fire destroyed the main electrical infrastructure.

No Justice No Peace.

State Court Certiorari Review

What happens after a person has exhausted his administrative proceedings?

A certiorari review by a court is available to people who want to challenge a decision that affects them, made by an administrative agency.

The court's authority is limited to determining:

1.  Whether the administrative agency kept within its jurisdiction.
2.  Whether the division of parole and probation acted according to law in
      making the decision.  This includes whether the State or Federal
      Constitutions, State Statutes, or the Wisconsin Administrative Code
      rules were violated.
3.  Whether the administrative decision was arbitrary, oppressive or
      unreasonable and represented the agency's will rather than its judgment.
     The administrator is supposed to reach a reasonable decision based
      on the evidence presented.
4.  Whether, based on the evidence, the administrator would reasonable
      have decided as she did.

Administrator of Adult Field Supervision Decision on Discharge Certificate, dated May 30, 2013, and received June 08, 2013.

"It is my findings that you are still subject to the Department of Corrections's authority under extended supervision component of your sentence in Milwaukee County Court Case #05CF63".

"Your aggregate extended supervision term, as ordered by the court...will not expire until July 27, 2018".  "While  you may have received a discharge certificate...of Milwaukee County Case #05CF63, this does not translate to an absolute discharge from the other components of the sentence".  "You will receive a separate discharge certificate after you reach the termination date for extended supervision".

Here is the problem:  The legal purpose of the "discharge certificate is the evidence that a convicted person has served his sentence or otherwise satisfied the judgment against him and that that person is restored to his civil rights".  Wis. Stat. 304.078.

Wisconsin Department of Revenue - Wisconsin Department of Prisons and the IRS

The IRS, State Taxing Agencies and State Prisons are partners.  When the IRS targets..."political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement", what is the role of their partners in crime?

Wisconsin Division of Parole and Extended Supervision Accurate Information vs.The Law

Accurate information verses the legality of the Discharge Certificate issued by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.  There is no mistake that extended supervision in case 05CF63 was projected to begin July 27, 2012 and end six years later in 2018, that's accurate information.

However, the discharge certificate from the Secretary of Wisconsin Department of Corrections establishes law and order.  It is enforceable by its legislated authority.  It is supported by Wisconsin Statute.

The department of corrections does not permit acts that violate federal or state laws, or department administrative rules, policies and procedures.

This case is a classical sense of law lost to discretionary enforcement and discretionary compliance.  This ambiguous, nebulous legal system is not an accident, but intentional.  State officials ducking their sworn duties and responsibilities to protect the innocent and seek the guilty.  If the power to decide law is in every court then it really is blind justice.

Accuracy of information is one thing.  However, official misconduct and civil right violations is quite another.

Regional Chief-Region 3 Decision May 16, 2013

After review, the decision is:

1.  The information provided by the supervisor's investigation is accurate.
2.  The discharge date is accurate.
3.  The sentence structure investigation as determined by the supervisor is correct.

The final decision must come from the administrator of probation and parole.

Discharge Certificate Complaint

A decision by Milwaukee Parole Agent Supervisor regarding the discharge certificate in case 05CF63 effective July 27, 2012, determined 9/4/2012 and received 10/1/2012 by the client was issued May 7, 2013.

In that decision, the supervisor applied Wis. Stats. 973.01 (2) and 302.113.  Wis. Stat. 973.01 (2) defines a bifurcated sentence (determinate) under Wisconsin Truth In Sentencing Laws.  302.113 is the extended supervision portion of that sentence.  The supervisor also included a "What if" under 302.113 (a) (am), "the extended supervision person (parolee) is revoked".  At this point re-incarceration is not the issue.

What issues we agree on:

1.  Case number 05CF63 was sentenced under New Law and Truth In Sentencing .
2.  We agree that all counts were ordered by the court to run concurrent.
3. We agree that the Discharge Certificate is from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.

What issues we do not agree on:

1.  Whether Wis. Stat. 304.078 is Restoration of Civil Rights of Convicted Persons?
2.  Whether there are two sentence structures in one case rather than two criminal cases?
3.  Whether 304.078 (2) is satisfaction of the judgment?
4.  Whether 973.01 (2) is total length of bifurcated sentence as specified in s. 939.50 (3)?
5.  Whether 973.01 (4m) (a) is discharge from parole?
6. Whether 973.01 (7) is discharge under sub (4m) or 304.06?
7.  Whether 973.15 (2m) (c) is what determines how New Law (indeterminate sentence) and Truth In Sentence (determinate sentence) imposed to run current are decided.

Therefore, an appeal has been filed with the Region 3 Chief of Parole and Extended Supervision, dated May 8, 2013.

Writ of certiorari

I mailed a writ of cert on April 23, 2013 to the United States District Court For The Southern District Of Texas Houston Division.  May 1, 2013, the court issued case number 4:13-cv-01226; Cleveland Lee v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

A writ of certiorari in federal court for review is govern by:

1.  A state court of last resort has decided an important question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States Court of Appeals.

2.  A state court has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this court or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this court.

A certiorari court is limited to determining whether:

1.  The agency kept within its jurisdiction.
2.  It acted according to law.
3.  Its action was arbitrary or unreasonable and represented its will and not judgment.
4.  The evidence was such that it might reasonably make the determination in question.

"The court is the only thing in the system of law that separates the prosecution, the state, from framing people.  People turn to the court to keep government inline".

Response From DOC Supervisor On Appeal

After having contacted the DOC Parole and Probation Division Supervisor several times about the appeal of the decision of the parole agent regarding a complaint filed November of 2012, the new supervisor on April 5, 2013 sent an email stating that..."I have someone in the regional office looking into your case again".  Our government putting it's right foot forward.  There is joy in the morning!!

Discharge Certificate Complaint

The complaint was filed 11/27/2012, in case 05CF63 with the Milwaukee parole agent assigned to this case.  She and I disagree on the number of cases.  There is one case with two sentencing structures, New Law and Truth-in-Sentencing running currently to each other according to the judgment of conviction.  Her claim is there are two cases and the discharge certificate is for one of those cases, the imprisonment portion and not extended supervision (parole).

The agent's supervisor did contact me on March 20, 2013, informing me that I have a new Milwaukee parole agent and there is another supervisor along with a new region chief.  The chief starts on Monday.  My complaint will be addressed by the new supervisor,  however the previous supervisor stated that she agrees with the parole agent; that's fine, just put it in writing so I can move to the next stage in the proceedings.

Our beloved President has stated time and time again; "that we are a nation of laws"; a civilized God fearing people governed by law and order as it is written.  I will saddle up my horse early next week and head out to Wisconsin to see if we can work this out.

Department of Correction 328.11 Client Complaint Process

Discharge Certificate:  The client filed a complaint with the DOC agent who has refused to restore his civil rights.

(5) Filing A Complaint

     (a)  A client may initiate a review of a decision by filing a complaint with the agent.

The Client Complaint was dated 11/27/2012
The agent reply was dated 1/02/3013

     (c)  If the complaint is not resolved as provided under par. (b), the client may file a written request for review directed to the agent's supervisor.

The client had not received a reply by 1/04/2013.  The client filed a Request For Review dated 1/04/2013.  On January 05, 2013, the client received a reply from the agent.  January 08, 2013, the client filed a response to the agent's reply dated 1/04/2013.

(6) Supervisor's Investigation and Decision.  (a) Upon receipt of a written request for review, the supervisor shall notify the agent of its receipt.  The agent shall be given an opportunity to respond to the complaint in writing within 5 working days of notice to the agent.  (b)  The supervisor shall review the complaint and agent's response and may interview the client and others to investigate the complaint within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint.  (c)  Within 5 working days after the supervisor's investigation is completed, the supervisor shall issue a written decision, stating the reasons for it.  Copies of the decision shall be sent to the client and the agent.

The supervisor has refused to reply to the clients request for a decision or provide a status report regarding the complaint.

(7)  Appeal of Supervisor's Decision.  (a) The client or agent may appeal the supervisor's decision in writing within 5 working days to the regional chief, stating the reasons for the appeal and requesting further review.

The client posted a letter March 07, 2013, to the acting regional chief; there has been no reply.

(8)  Appeal Of The Regional Chief's Decision.  (a)  If the client, agent, or supervision disagrees with the decision of the regional chief, he may within 5 working days of receipt of the decision, appeal in writing to the administrator of probation and parole.

     (c)  The administrator's decision regarding the complaint shall be final.

(9)  Effect of Appeal on Disputed Decision.  During the period required under this section to investigate any complaint or review any decision, the affected parties shall comply with the decision under dispute.

(10)  Expedited Appeal.  If resolution of a complaint under the periods of time provided for under this section would moot the complaint, the complaint process shall be expedited.

(11)  PENALTIES.  No penalties to a client shall result from the mere filing of a complaint by the client.

The client has to exhaust his administrative procedures before filing a claim in circuit court.

Discharge Certificate

The Discharge Certificate states:  "You were sentenced to Wisconsin State Prisons on November 9, 2005 by the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Court Case # 05CF63, after being found guilty of violating the Wisconsin Statutes Section (s):
943.20 (1) (B), 943.38 (2).

The department having determined that you have satisfied said judgment, it is ordered that effective July 27, 2012, you are discharged from said judgment only.

Persons committing crimes after April 9, 1990 may have a civil judgment issued for any unpaid restitution.

This legal document was signed by Gary H. Hamblin, Secretary, Department of Corrections, Wis. Statutes, Chapter 304 & 973, 09/04/2012.  I received the certificate of freedom on October 1, 2012.

What do I do with this?  Frame it?  Or take action?  Take Action!!

On October 4, 2012, at the regular meeting with the Texas Parole Agent, I provide him a copy of the Discharge Certificate.  He contacts the Wisconsin Parole Agent.  She states that there is a second case and the prisoner is aware that he is serving a second case "extended supervision" (parole).  The record shows one case, 15 counts, two sentence structures; New Law and Truth-in-Sentencing (TIS).

The first thing you needed to do is examine Wis. Statutes, Chapter 304 & 973 that governs a Discharge Certificate when there is confusion.  We also have to take a look at Chapter 302 that governs indeterminate sentences (New Law) and Chapter 973 that governs determinate sentences (TIS).  Court Case #05CF63 consist of indeterminate sentences and determinate sentences.  The Judgment of Conviction states:  "IT IS ADJUDGED that the defendant is guilty as convicted and sentenced as follows:  Count 2 (determinate sentence) 13 YR Concurrent to Count 1 (indeterminate sentence).  As to counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.  Each count concurrent to each other and counts 1, 2, and 3.

This is what I found:

Wis. Stat. 302.11 (1); A person is subject to 302.11 if he is serving a bifurcated sentence under Wis. Stat. 973.01.

Wis. Stat. 302.11 (1);  Mandatory Release:  The warden or superintendent shall keep a record of the conduct of each inmate, specifying each infraction of the rules.  Mandatory release date is established at two-thirds of the sentence.

Wis. Stat. 304.01 mandates the parole commission to conduct interviews to consider parole eligibility of inmates created a generally protected liberty interest in parole.  The statutory parole eligibility date entitlement is when an inmate has served 25%, a quarter of the sentence imposed for the offense, or 6 months whichever is greater.

Wis. Stat. 304.06; New Law Inmates (indeterminate sentences) are eligible for discretionary parole.

Person's liberty interest is protected by Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Wis. Stat. 304.078; Restoration of Civil Rights of Convicted Persons.
Wis. Stat. 304.078 (1) (a); "Imprisonment" includes parole and extended supervision.
Wis. Stat. 304.078 (2); Except as provided in sub (3), every person who is convicted of a crime obtains a restoration of his civil rights by serving out his term of imprisonment or otherwise satisfying his sentence.  The certificate of the department...that a convicted person has served his sentence or otherwise satisfied the judgment against him is evidence of that fact and that person is restored to his civil rights. The department shall list in the person's certificate rights which have been restored and which have not been restored.  persons who served out their terms of imprisonment or otherwise satisfied their sentence prior to August 14, 1947, are likewise restored to their civil rights from and after September 25, 1959.

Wis. Stat. 973.01 (2) (a); Total length of bifurcated sentence.  Except as provided in par. (c), the total length of the bifurcated sentence may not exceed the maximum period of imprisonment specified in 939.50 (3).

Felony G - Imprisonment not to exceed 10 years.  5 yrs confinement and 5 yrs extended supervision.
Felony H - Imprisonment not to exceed 6 years.  3 yrs confinement and 3 yrs extended supervision.
Felony I - Imprisonment not to exceed 3 years 6 mos.

Wis. Stat. 973.01 (4m) (a); The department may discharge a person from extended supervision after he has served 2 years of extended supervision if the person has met the conditions of extended supervision and the reduction is in the interest of justice.

Wis. Stat. 973.01 (7) Discharge.  The department of corrections shall discharge a person who is serving a bifurcated sentence from custody, control and supervision when the person has served the entire bifurcated sentence, as modified under sub. (4m) or s. 302.113 (2) (b) or (h), 302.1135 or 304.06 (1), if applicable.

What Do We Do Next

There are two legal matters that must be addressed:

(1)  Tax evasion issues
(2)  Discharge Certificate

The tax evasion case consist of three questions that shall be presented to a federal district court or the fifth or seventh federal circuit court.  My attorneys and I are researching which is the appropriate court to file a writ of certiorari when challenging a state court decision.  The questions under consideration at this point are:

(1)  WHETHER THE UNITED STATES BILL OF RIGHTS, TAX PAYER BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 1988 AND 1998 BAR WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TAX INVESTIGATION AND ASSESSMENT WITHOUT NOTICE AND HEARING, AND IF THERE IS NO SUCH FEDERAL REMEDY, LEAVES THE PETITIONERS WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO A MEANINGFUL HEARING AT A MEANINGFUL TIME?

(2)  WHETHER PETITIONERS, AGGRIEVED TAXPAYER'S CONTESTED CASE UNDER WISCONSIN CHAPTER 71 AND 227 PROCEEDINGS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW PRECLUDE THE ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY WISCONSIN TAX APPEAL COMMISSION?

(3)  WHETHER THE WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DECISION TO DISMISS AFTER THE 90 DAY REQUIREMENT, THE ACTIONS OF CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT, CLERK OF THE TAX APPEALS COMMISSION AND THE CLERK TO CHIEF JUDGE IMPEDED PETITIONERS ACCESS TO THE COURT AFFECTED THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS?

The Wisconsin Appeals Court decision was contrary to the United States Constitution, Federal Taxpayer Bill of Rights I (TBOR I) 1988, TBOR II, TBOR III, 1998, Wisconsin Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Wisconsin Chapters 71 and 227 to start with.

The question is whether the Circuit Court of Milwaukee had competency to proceed in a tax assessment case under Wis. Chapter 227?  The Circuit Court ruled that Citizen Lee did not comply with the service requirements of Wis. Stat.§ 227.53 (1).  That statute required Citizen Lee to serve the petition for judicial review on both the Tax Appeals Commission and the Department of Revenue personally or by certified mail within thirty days of the commission's decision.  The undisputed evidence in the record shows Citizen Lee "properly served the petition for judicial review on the commission by certified mail on December 17, 2009, but he did not properly serve the Department of Revenue because he sent the petition by regular mail, rather than personally or by certified mail as required by § 227.53 (1) (c) in order for the circuit court to have competency to proceed".

The taxpayer raised other issues..."but we do not address them because the service issue is dispositive.  (If a decision on one point dispose of an appeal, we will not usually decide the other issues raised)".  There are several concerns that I have with this.  Wis. Stat. § 227.53 (b) 1 (c)..."A court may not dismiss the proceeding for review solely because of a failure to serve a copy of the petition upon a party or the party's attorney of record".  Wis. Stat. § 227.44 (1), "In a contested case, all parties shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice".

Miscarriage of Justice

What happens when a state government declares war against a citizen and his family?  He gets a legalized screwing. That's exactly what happened in the case Lee v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue. February 11, 2013 the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the petition for a review No. 2011AP2086, L.C. #2010CV16326.

The question today is what are we going to do next.