DOES THE APPEAL COURT HAVE JURISDICTION?

Lee has set forth the following legal points in his appeal:

LEE v. LITSCHER; My Enemies Are At Peace With Me

AUGUST 4, 2017 WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS:

APPEAL COURTS REASONING LEE V. JON LITSCHER JULY 18, 2017

LEE v. JON LITSCHER COURT OF APPEALS ORDER JULY 18, 2017

• IT IS ORDERED that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the February 21, 2017 order.
• IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties should address; "Whether this court has jurisdiction to review the reconsideration order?"

This court has reasoned that the forty-five day time limited to file a Notice of Appeal has caused lost of jurisdiction to review the circuit courts orders.

Lee vs. Litscher Appeal Number 17AP0980

The record will be forwarded to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals on July 3, 2017 per 809.15 (2) and (4).  I have to wait for further instructions from the Wisconsin Supreme Court establishing the dates for briefings to be filed.

IS IT A MANIFEST ERROR OF LAW?

Manifest error of law is an indisputable error of judgment incomplete disregard of the facts of the case, the applicable rule or law and credible evidence.

RESPONSE FROM WISCONSIN ATTORNEY GENERAL/DOJ MOTION TO RECONSIDER WRIT OF HABEAS

The Wisconsin Attorney General/DOJ Response and Opposition Brief:  Summary.

• "The retroactive benefit of 2009 Wis. Stat. §973.01 (4m) Act 28 §9311 applied to Lee."
• "However, that retroactive benefit, and its subsequent repeal, poses no ex post facto issue."
• "A law that did not exist until 2009 did not impact "fair warning" when Lee "committed his felony", which is what an ex post facto claim addresses."
• "The Ex Post Facto Clause bars only a particular type of retroactivity: It addresses whether an offender had notice of the consequences when committing the crime."
• "There is no ex post facto issue with repealing a benefit created after a crime already was committed.  The scenario, presented here, has no bearing on "fair warning" at the relevant time."
• Lee's claim fails under established ex post facto principles because repealing a law enacted after a crime has no impact on the offender's expectations when committing that crime."
• "A sentence could pose an ex post facto problem if the law provided a retroactive benefit and later was repealed - it does not matter because no other Justice joined that view."

Now, we wait for the Milwaukee Circuit Courts decision as to the State's position regarding the Ex Post Facto Laws.  There is a difference on the constitutional prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws enacted by legislation and fair warning embodied in the Due Process Clause.