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.