The following questions have been 

forwarded to the 

Racine County Circuit Court

 judicial candidates of branch 6 and 9.

To:

Judge Torhorst- incumbent

Judge Paulson

Attorney Patricia Hanson

Attorney Joseph Seifert

Greetings from RCC;

We are currently vetting the judicial candidates for the Racine County Circuit Court System.

Your responses may help us determine who is best qualified to serve before the public.

In consideration of your pursuit to become a Racine County Circuit Court Judge, please review and address our presented concerns of existing agency/regulatory law, and other issues and questions.

Most of you know of me and understand that I consider the lack of veracity epidemic in the Racine County Circuit Court System.  Today I present concerns and questions that involve constitutional issues that are neglected by numerous governmental agencies and members of our government.

“Rights neglected are rights lost”

History;

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Substantive Due Process concerns.

Extensively Protected Federal Liberty and Property Interests–

  “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding.  “U.S. Constitution, Art. VI.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution... [.]" U.S. Constitution, Art. VI.

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24 (1923). "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 (1966).

At Wis. Const. Art. I, Section 1, the liberty interest of citizens is recognized in the Wisconsin Constitution. See also State v. Hazen, 198 Wis. 2d 554, 559, 543 N.W.2d 503 (Ct. App. 1995) ("The due process clause protects interests in life, liberty, and property, and state laws can create additional interests protected by the due process clause."), citing Ky. Dept. of Corrs. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989).

Background;

Due to legislative immunity, laziness and ineptness of our legislative branches of government, administrative and regulatory law has become our fourth headless branch of government.

Our elected legislators have delegated to various governmental agencies the ability to create rules and laws to govern its citizens. This delegation of responsibility has systematically eroded our checks and balances provided by the United States Constitution.

When citizen’s rights are violated by these agencies, citizens must exhaust all administrative remedies before entering the judicial process.  The cost and burden to affirm citizen right’s then unfairly shifts to the citizen to prove the law violates U.S constitutional guarantees.

As a Racine County Circuit Court judge, you will have a compelling interest to protect the rights of the citizen, and recognize the higher law is the constitution.

Agency/Regulatory Law:

“Driving privileges once issued by the state become tangible property of that of the person” - SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court has time and time again recognized that driver’s privileges once issued by the state qualify as tangible property interests protected by due process.

ISSUE: (reflective of all governmental agencies)

The DMV illegally and regularly suspends driving privileges without due process for such benign offenses as a single parking ticket.

Question;

As a Racine County Circuit Court Judge, how will you administer agency/regulatory laws when existing laws not only ignore, but also violates the citizens federally protected rights?

Answer;

-------------------------------------------------------------

Issue;

Because a law exists does not insure that the law is constitutional, ethically or morally just.  Nor does a mere existence of a law comport that the law will be free of irrational, arbitrary or capricious elements.

Background:

The Doctrine of the Lessor Magistrate;

When the superior or higher civil authority makes an unjust/immoral law or decree, the lesser or lower ranking  civil authority has both the right and duty to refuse obedience to that superior authority. If necessary, the lower authority may even actively resist the superior authority.

Question; If a law presents itself in your court which fails to abide by the United States Constitution, or is ethically or morally unjust, how will you proceed with the case?

Answer;

Issue; (Real Case In Racine County)

Abuse of power;

The County of Racine County recently attempted to extort money from a Racine County citizen for violating ordinance 20-11, Racine County Circuit Court case # 2014FO000446. The case involved a citizen keeping bees on her property. The summons and complaint was unsigned and there was no scriveners affidavit filed into court records. Despite the existence of the defective complaint, Racine County Corporation Counsel Michael Landzorf  continued to prosecute the case.  The case went to trial in front of Judge Wayne Marik on 2-04-2015.

Racine County ordinance 20-11 reads as follows;

It shall be unlawful to construct, develop or use any structure, or develop or use any land, water or air in violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance or order of the planning and development committee or board of adjustment. In case of any violation, the board of supervisors, the corporation counsel, the director of planning and development, the manager of code administration, the planning and development committee, any municipality, or any owner of real estate within the district affected who would be specifically damaged by such violation may institute appropriate legal action or proceedings to enjoin a violation of this chapter, or seek abatement or removal. In addition, those actions commenced on behalf of the county may seek a forfeiture or penalty as outlined herein.

Every structure, fill or development placed or maintained on floodlands in violation of this chapter is a public nuisance; and this creation thereof may be enjoined and maintenance thereof may be abated by an action instituted by the county or any citizen who lives in or within five hundred (500) feet of the floodland.

Unless there is clear evidence that a parcel is being rented or used by someone other than the owner, said owner remains responsible for compliance with this chapter.

Question;

After reviewing this case, list all that is wrong with this case and how you would properly administer cases like this as a Racine County Circuit Court judge?

Answer;

----------------------------------------------------------

Victimless crime and the 2^nd. amendment;

Issue;

The ATF makes no accommodations for a citizen to file an application, register or make payment of a silencer tax AFTER the purchase of a silencer.

18 USC § 922(k), (o) & (v); 26 USC § 5861

Background;

Possession of a silencer is legal, as owning a car. However, the registration,  licensing  and application processes greatly differ between the two products. RCC believes that the ATF has infringed upon the citizens rights of the 2^nd Amendment.

With the purchase or possession of a car, governmental agencies provide a window of opportunity to properly register and pay taxes after the purchase. With the purchase or possession of a silencer, the ATF requires an application, registration and tax paid to the government prior to a citizen taking legal possession of a silencer.

Under ATF agency law, after the purchase of a silencer, no window of opportunity exists for a citizen to become compliant for the legal possession of a silencer, even though the silencer is legal to possess.

The ATF written law regarding silencers is arbitrary, irrational and capricious based on unfounded fears of the illegal use of a silencer.

The mere possession of a silencer whether on or off a firearm without registration is a felony. Yet you can possibly kill someone with the possession/use of a car, whether registered or unregistered and receive no summons or complaint.

In the year of 2013, there were no attributed deaths in the United States by the possession or use of registered and unregistered silencers on firearms.

In the same year of 2013, there were 32,719 deaths incurred in the United States by the possession/use of registered and unregistered motor vehicles- source, Fatality Facts - Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Statistics leads you to the conclusion that the stigma the government has placed on a silencer is unwarranted.

Questions; What does the 2^nd. Amendment mean to you?

Do you support the current ATF law as currently written for silencers? If so, why? or If not, Why?

How will you protect the citizen’s 2nd amendment rights as a Racine County Circuit Court Judge?

Answer;

Thank you for your consideration.