EMAILS SENT TO SHERIFF SCHMALING

THIS WEEKEND

 

Case # 22CF1223. Criminal acts of the court.

Harry Waite <harry.wait922@gmail.com>	8:57 AM (9 hours ago)
to Chris.Schmaling, Patricia, eric.schneider, HOT

Sheriff Schmaling,

 Last week I recieved a telephone call regarding the Pro Se opt in codes that Judge Repishchak's court sent me via U.S. mail.  The callers Telephone # (262-676-8054).  I am not sure which letter the caller was referring to.

The letter sent July 24th, 2024 from the court was a forged court document #1 that had an added invalid pro se code. (66abc7). The second letter the court sent was dated August 5th, 2024 court document #123 with a valid Pro se opt in code. 

 As you may be aware, I frequently order public records where information is regularly redacted with the information being blackened out. 

 Never in my years have I experienced a "redacted record" to include added information.  The court spins the truth, first telling investigator Schneider I allegedly ordered the "original" document.  Then court is caught lying to Investigator Schneider being I only communicated to the court via email. No where in my email correspondence  was the term "original" used.

 The story then changes to court document # 1 was a "redacted" record. 

 Does your office redact records by adding information ?

 Your office has a duty to investigate who and when court document # 1 was changed, and bring forth charges against the perpetrator of the crime.

 

Thank you

 

Harry Wait

 

 

Case # 22CF1223 Criminal Complaint # 24-38339

Harry Waite <harry.wait922@gmail.com>	2:03 PM (4 hours ago)
to Chris.Schmaling, eric.schneider, Patricia, HOT

Sheriff Schmaling, 

 

To further my argument that court records have been criminally forged, please take notice that WCCA online court document # 1 now publishes my invalid pro se code # 66abc7 for all the world to see, without the unredacted watermark.  Why would the court knowingly send me an invalid code and publish that code ?  Court document #123 dated 8-5-2024 now has an unredacted watermark on the WCCA online court records, yet my paper copy has no such watermark.  To have consistency & transparency, court document # 1 dated 9-1-2022, sent on July 24th, 2024 should have the unredacted watermark on my notice, which it doesn't.  Fraud is evident. Can't have it both ways.  The WCCA online record is being manipulated by unknown actor(s).  It is your duty to investigate and Patricia Hanson’s office duty to prosecute. 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Harry Wait  

 

 

Sheriff Schmaling’s department has copies of the court records which are not consistent in the handling and identifying of court records. These inconsistencies are a hallmark of court manipulation and fraud.  The court of Robert Repischak has been caught forging court documents and has dug themselves into a deeper grave.  KARMA !     Also the court of Robert Repischak did not attend his own scheduled hearing of 8-16-2024  at 1:30 pm,  Robert Repischak was nowhere to be found. The courtroom door was locked and lights turned off.

Robert Repischak’s court failed to notify me of the cancelled hearing, what a disingenuous POS. The below email thread illuminates the court’s prejudice towards pro se-Sui Juris litigants.

 

 case # 22CF1223

Harry Waite <harry.wait922@gmail.com>	Jul 19, 2024, 8:24 PM
to Ann, bcc: James

 Ms Klecha,

 I am referring to the opt-in code for eFiling, I have not been provided it and have not personally e-filed any documents in this case. I have had people file documents non-party, but that is not the same as me having access to the eFiling system. Please provide the opt-in code so that I can manage my filings electronically.

This court at the time it sent invitations regarding the new hearing Judge Repischak has requested, not me, knowing full well that attorneys Barrett and Hartman no longer represent me in this matter in any manner, contacts them with the assumption that their agreement is binding upon me when they in no way represent me in this matter with complete disregard and respect for me as a party to this litigation. Neither attorney Barrett or Hartman has the ability or authorization to speak to this court on my behalf. Consequently, it is encumbent upon this court to communicate with me directly, like it or not. This court needs to show me the same consideration and courtesy it has shown to both the prosecution and to my former counsel in this matter. It is not proper to out of the blue demand that I appear for a hearing prior to the August 16, 2024 hearing that is and was already on the court's calendar since March 1, 2024. I remind this court that the 14th amendment provides for "EQUAL" protections under the law, and this is certainly not equal treatment towards me as a party to this litigation and a violation of my 14th amendment rights.

 As previously advised to this court I am not available to appear on before this court on August 1, 2024, nor at any of the other times proposed by this court for the court's last minute ordered hearing. I am available on August 16, 2024 at 1:30 PM CST for the hearing scheduled by this court on March 1, 2024.

 I further remind this court and Judge Repischal of Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules 62.02(1) with specifity towards subsections "(a) Maintain a cordial and respectful demeanor and be guided by a fundamental sense of integrity and fair play [Emphasis Added] in all their professional activities." and "(g) In scheduling all hearings, meetings and conferences, be considerate of the time schedules of the participants [Emphasis Added] and grant reasonable extensions of time when they will not adversely affect the court calendar or clients' interests."

 

Respectfully,

 

Harry Wait