Wisconsin Attorney General Office January 2010

As to the merits of Lee's claims, it is true that his judgment of conviction contains sentences for crimes committed prior to December 31, 1999 (counts 1 and 3), which implicate Wisconsin's old, indeterminate sentencing scheme.  Under that old scheme, absent extenuating circumstances, offenders were released on parole after serving two-thirds of their court imposed sentence.  Wis. Stat. 302.11.

However, Lee's judgment of conviction also contains sentences for crimes committed after December 31, 1999 (counts 2, 4-15), which implicate Wisconsin current determinate sentencing scheme know as truth-in-sentencing.  Under the current scheme, there is no parole, and offenders must spend the entire term of their initial confinement in prison.  Wis. Stat. 973.01.

Because the circuit court in Lee's case ordered all his sentences to run concurrent with one another, Lee is required to serve the period of confinement in prison under the indeterminate sentences (up to two-thirds of seven years) concurrent with the period of confinement under the determinate sentence (the full seven years).  Thus, in order to satisfy all of his sentences, Lee is required to serve seven years in prison beginning the day of his sentencing, which was November 9, 2005, less any sentence credit.

Under the indeterminate sentences the confinement portion is two-thirds of seven years...what happened to the other required one-third of those sentences?  I am currently serving extended supervision (parole) under counts 2, 4-12, according to the courts.  The required parole portion of counts 1 and 3 was served in prison and the required extended supervision portion (parole) for counts 13, 14, and 15 was also served in prison according to the Discharge Certificate issued by the Secretary of Prisons July 27, 2012.  All the sentences were current to count 1, it has expired, completed, done with, no longer in existence. This is the United States of America where all are treated fairly and equal.

Section 1983 - 1871 to 2014 The Justice Game Is The Same

Section 1983 was originally known as Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871.  It was supposed to help Black people enforce the new constitutional rights they won after the civil war.  The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution had prohibited slavery, established the right to "due process" of law and Equal Protection of the laws and guaranteed every male citizen the right to vote.

However, white racist judges in the state courts refused to enforce these rights, especially when the rights were violated by officials of state and local government.  The open-minded members who then controlled the U.S. Congress passed Section 1983 to allow citizens to sue in Federal Court when a state or local officials violates their Federal Rights.

Liberty

It doesn't matter if it's a short sentence or a long sentence - especially when you are in expectation of statutory entitlements - all that really matters at the end of the prison day is liberty.

Dr. Ben Carson on Government Intimidation

Dr. Ben Carson stood by his comparison of the United States to Nazi Germany.  He noted that the third Reich was "using its tools to intimidate the population", and said that "we now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe."  he further stated that "government is using instruments of government, like the IRS, to punish its opponents."  "The point of what I'm saying . . . is a major fundamental shift of power has occurred," from the people to the government.

The record demonstrates that "states" that make up the United States of America like Wisconsin are leading the way and have been for sometime.  Wisconsin has attacked the weakest link, it's Black and Brown community with the "school to prison" project; truth-in-sentencing - the worst thing "since slavery".  I have first hand experience with instruments of government used by Wisconsin particularly in Milwaukee, like the DA's Office, Department of Revenue, Department of Corrections and the courts.

President Obama on American Law

"When anybody in this country is not being treated equally under the law, that is a problem, and it's my job as president to help solve it".  President Obama said while addressing American Indian leaders in Washington.

Criminal Justice System

A criminal justice system doing exactly what it was designed to do. . .

The Appeals Court 11/4/2014 Decision

It is clear that the Discharge Certificate issued July 27, 2012 was for my indeterminate sentences counts 1 and 3 that expired on July 27, 2014.  The tax counts 13-15 determinate sentences expired July 27, 2008, however the Department of Corrections did not issue a Discharge Certificate for those counts.

The court stated that "Lee was not eligible for parole under determinate sentences", State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42.  That is not a fact, currently I am serving parole on counts 4-12 determinate sentences.  It means that I do not have the right to visit the parole board and there is no mandatory release under determinate sentences.  Wisconsin uses the term extended supervision instead of parole, both have the same meaning, custody outside of the prison.  "It is in the nature of concurrent time that service of one sentence may render service of another sentence, for some purposes, superfluous", State v. Yanick, 2007.

The court concluded that a discharge certificate is "legally invalid" if it is "not issued' at the expiration of the term noted on the court order"', State ex rel. Greer v. Wiedenhoeft, 2014 WI 19.  We know that the discharge certificate was legal because the expiration of the term for indeterminate sentences 1 and 3 was 7 years noted on the court order, 2005 until 2014.

November 04, 2014 Wisconsin Court of Appeals Issued Decision

The court of appeals concluded that "Where all sentences are concurrent, the overall sentence structure is controlled by the longest sentence".  State v. Sherman, 2008 WI App 57.  "Because Lee's longest sentence controlled the date of his release from prison, he did not receive a grant of parole during service of his shorter, indeterminate sentences".

The granting of visits to the parole commission, mandatory release from confinement and required extended supervision from confinement has no effect at all on the overall sentence structure.  Here, as in Sherman, all the sentences were concurrent, and the overall sentence structure was controlled by the longest sentence or the longest "time".  Statutory visits to the parole commission does not mean an inmate will be given a parole grant before he reaches his mandatory release date established at sentencing and confirmed by the Department of Corrections under indeterminate sentences.  Mandatory release means an inmate is no longer behind bars, he serves his remaining sentences outside of the prison as required by statute.  Under determinate sentences there is a required extended supervision (parole) portion of each sentence by statute.  When an inmate is released from the confinement portion of his sentences he remains in the custody of the state.  Therefore, the controlling sentence remains undisturbed, "time", the overall sentence structure remains intact.

Orders to modify a sentence or modify court - imposed conditions of Extended Supervision are not uncommon in Wisconsin, except in my case.  Decision that affect an inmates substantial rights are not harmless error.

EIGHTH AMENDMENT

It is not unreasonable to expect state officials and the courts to adhere to the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution as we celebrate yet another "Juneteenth Day" in America:  "No state may deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law and no citizen shall be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment and the need for protection by state officials."

COURT OF APPEALS ISSUE NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF BRIEFS

May 6, 2014, in the case Lee v. Symdom, the Court of Appeals District I a three judge panel will decide whether the Discharge Certificate issued July 2012 is the legal document required to release the prisoner from parole and restore his civil rights "on the briefs"; meaning the court will make its decision on the arguments raised in the briefs.  This may take two weeks to six months.  Come on FREEDOM!

REPLY BRIEF ON APPEAL OF DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE AT WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS

A reply brief was filed on February 3, 2014, Appeal NO. 2013AP002029.  The reply argument is "Under Concurrent Sentences All Confinement Run Together And All Parole And Extended Supervision (TIS Parole) Run Together It Is The Law.

1.  Common law certiorari is the appropriate method for reviewing refusal to grant discretionary parole.
2.  The judgment of conviction does not regulate confinement and parole its authority can be found in Wis. Stat. 972.13 (3).
3.  The judgment of conviction does not regulate confinement under indeterminate sentences because those sentences have discretionary parole that is determined by the parole commission and mandatory release an entitlement granted by the legislature.
4.  Determinate sentences under Truth-in-Sentencing are not regulated by the judgment of conviction because the legislature determined that an inmate's term of confinement in prison and term of extended supervision (parole) shall be adjusted pursuant to subsection 973.195 (1r) (g) (85% for class C to E felony and 75% for a class F to I felony).

TRICKS AND TRAPS

Case 05CF63 is one of the most sophisticated legal schemes that I have had an opportunity to witness first hand by government officials in my entire professional career as an educator, administrator, artist, entrepreneur and Black Nationalist.  The power of government, unprofessional accountants, lawyers and judges that have abdicated their constitutional responsibility of enforcing meanful limits on government power, create a magnificent unimaginable deception of protecting the innocent while conspiring to violate individual civil liberties by manipulating the law unbridled.  That's why the Bible tell us that; "we war not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers and the rulers of darkness of this world and spiritual wickedness in high places".  Ancient Rome, Sodom and Gomorrah, Persia and Babylon are nothing compared to modern Wisconsin.

ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONSE BRIEF TO APPEAL OF DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE

January 16, 2014, the State respondent argument is:  "THE AGENCY PROPERLY DETERMINED THAT LEE REMAINS ON EXTENDED SUPERVISION" for the following reasons:

     1. Lee September 4, 2012 discharge certificate only applies to counts 1 and 3 of his case, and Lee
         remains on extended supervision.
     2.  Certiorari review exists to allow review of the agency decision, based on the record before
          the agency.
     3.  Lee cannot use certiorari review of a discrete agency decision to challenge his original sentence,
          or other decisions made by individuals other than the respondent (like decisions on parole
          eligibility).
     4.  The discharge certificate is somewhat ambiguous because it does not identify the counts to
          which it relates.
     5.  The judgment of conviction for case 05CF63 clearly reflect that the sentence for counts 4
           through 12 are still running.
     6.  These sentences were imposed under Truth-in-Sentencing, so Lee is not eligible for parole.
     7.   Extended supervision will not terminate until July 2018.
     8.  The agency's decision is proper and supported by the judgment of conviction.

$505 TO APPEAL U.S. DISTRICT COURT DECISION

Civil Action No. H-13-1226 will not be appealed.  Cost is a factor, however, after further research I have concluded that the federal district court may not be the best or proper court.

The best or proper court is most likely the U.S. Tax Court or U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  The U.S. District Court has refused to exercise it's subject matter jurisdictional powers in this tax matter.  The reasoning is Wisconsin Department of Revenue adjusted the taxpayers state and federal income tax returns and not the Internal Revenue Service, a federal agency.

The taxpayers were not charged with tax evasion by the federal government and the federal government has made no attempt to collect on the state's conviction of $650,000 dollars of unreported income.  Although federal law does require that a taxpayer be given notice and hearing before conviction the state has the right in it's legal system to ignore federal laws.