JIM CROW: SUMMARY OF REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Jim Crow; laws and customs that robbed Blacks of their freedoms and keep us at a disadvantage.

SUMMARY OF WISCONSIN DOJ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

In the case Lee v. Secretary Wisconsin Department of Correction summary of Brief in Opposition to Writ of Habeas:

I.  Lee states no ex post facto claim related to the repeal of the extended supervision 
     discharge law, and as a result, his petition may be denied.

     1. Enacting and then repealing a law while someone is incarcerated does not relate to the

         Ex Post Facto Clause, which only bars increasing punishment relative to its severity at

         the time of the crime

     2.  Because there is nothing retroactive about 2011 repeal of a 2009 law vis-à-vis Lee's
          crime predating 2005.

     3.  Because retroactive is a threshold ex post facto requirement a law that simply come
          and went while he was in custody cannot state ex post facto claim.

II.  Lee's petition does not state any other habeas claim.

      1.  No ex post facto claim related to "sentence structure".

      2.  Criminal conduct predated the effective date of bifurcated sentencing law (with set

           incarceration and release terms), Wis. Stat., 973.01, and instead fell under the
           previous sentencing law (with parole determinations), Wis. Stat. 302.11.

      3.  The many counts and convictions for crimes post dating truth-in-sentencing law,
           scheme which was effective for crimes on or after December 31, 1999, Lee was
           sentenced under truth-in-sentencing scheme, which provided terms of confinement
           of seven years, followed by extended supervision of six years, to run concurrently
           for various convictions - total of 13 years of imprisonment.

      4.  His assertion that the "Wisconsin Department of Corrections violates the prohibition
           of ex post facto laws" makes no sense.

      5.  Lee is no longer incarcerated, so a complaint about bifurcation could go no where
           under habeas:  "habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality
           of that custody".  Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, (1973).

      6.  A party seeking habeas relief must "show that there was no other adequate remedy
           available in the law."  State ex rel. Hass v. Reynolds, 2002 WI 43.

The above are summarized version of the Wisconsin Department of Justice opposition to
my writ of habeas corpus.  I will file my reply. 

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE GREAT AND BEAUTIFUL

Chapter One "The battle for quality education for Black children in Milwaukee has been framed by institutional racism and financial inequities since the first African "American" established a home there in 1835".  A white collar crime.

THE DUTY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE (DOJ) AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE (DA)

The Wisconsin Attorney General and District Attorney are "in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffers".  They "may prosecute with earnestness and vigor . . . indeed", they . . ."should do so".  But, while they "may strike hard blows", they are "not at liberty to strike foul ones".  It is as much their "duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring a just one".  Berger v. United States, 295 U.S.78.

WHAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS OF HIRING A DEFENSE ATTORNEY WHO HAS EXPERIENCE AS A PROSECUTOR AND SERVES AS A COURT COMMISSIONER?

A defense attorney must be creative and a friend for the client.  It is you, the client that requires a loyal advocate and not the persons striving to convict and sentence you to a cage.

A prosecutor charges a suspect with a crime and attempt to convict them and are employed by the government.  Never use the term "I am innocent".

A former Prosecutor most likely will think like a prosecutor who seeks plea bargains and guilty pleas.  They are protectors of victim rights and the "black wall" of law and order that looks down on criminal defendants as well as advocates of change in the legal system as bad guys who are guilty.  A former Prosecutor now defense attorney experiences can translate to seeing the defendant/bad guy as dollars signs without much in the way of compassion or a defense.

In Wisconsin, a Court Commissioner may:  (a) Direct a case to the proper court if the defendant wishes to enter a plea after intelligent waiver of rights.  (b) In criminal matters issue summonses, arrest warrants or search warrants, determine probable cause to support a warrantless arrest, conduct initial appearances of persons arrested, set bail . . . Wis. Stats. 757.69.

Effective defense attorneys have no friends in the DA's Office and no judge will help them "get the best deal".  The "best deal" is not asking for favors from the DA's Office or Judges it is attainable if at all by through preparing a case for trial, doing an independent investigation, finding the reasons a case should be dismissed if they exist or by trying the case.  It is the client that needs a loyal advocate and not the person who is trying to convict you and lock you in a cage.  When the defense attorney thinks, or appears to be a broker between you and the government fire him immediately.

The traits to look for in your defense attorney that is not learned at law school or the DA's Office is compassion, caring, genuineness, perseverance, trial experience and life experience.  Most of all a fighter that comes from within and cannot be taught.

PRISONER FILES PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Prisoner Cleveland Lee filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus on October 24, 2016 at Milwaukee County Circuit Court.  The Petitioner alleges that the Wisconsin Department of Corrections violated both Wisconsin and United States Constitutions Ex Post Facto Laws.

Wisconsin Statute 973.01(4m) Discharge From Extended Supervision (parole)

This is another look at Wisconsin prohibition against ex post facto laws.  Wisconsin Stats. 973.01(4m)(a) "The department may discharge a person (that's me) 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."

The state of Wisconsin created a form to be used to activate the Release of prisoners, Wis. Stat. 302.113 (7m); Petition to Modify Court-Imposed Conditions of Extended Supervision.  The form provides three (3) options; Release from confinement portion of your sentence to an earlier extended supervision (parole) or Release from extended supervision to discharge and restoring of all civil rights or Department of Corrections can discharge after serving 2 years of extended supervision.  I filed the form August 2, 2016 at the Clerk of Court Office.  The form is to be distributed to:  Court-original, sentenced person, sentenced person's attorney, Department of Corrections, and District attorney.

August 5, 2016, June Simeth, Staff Attorney Criminal Division, stated that my petition to modify court-imposed extended supervision; "You have not filled in that portion of the form which specifies particular relief you are seeking".  "You may set forth . . .on a separate piece of paper and submit . . ."

August 13, 2016, I submitted Wis. Stat. 973.01 (4m) (a).  August 16, 2016, M. A. Grossman, Staff Attorney responded; "Please be advised Section 973.01 (4m), Stats., was repealed on August 3, 2011 under 2011 Wis. Act 38."  "The court has no statutory authority to order an early discharge . . ."  August 24, 2016.  I replied; "It appears that the repeal of 973.01 (4m) delays my release from imprisonment by almost 2 years, thereby violating the ex post facto clauses of Wisconsin and United States Constitutions."

October 7, 2016, the court issued Decision and Order; "The defendant is proceeding in the wrong forum because the court had no authority under the former statute 973.01(4m) to discharge a person from extended supervision.  That authority was vested upon the Department and therefore, the defendant is obliged to address his petition to that agency.  The court has no jurisdiction to consider the defendant's petition for early discharge or to entertain his ex post facto challenge to the repeal of Section 973.01 (4m), Stats."