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".