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.