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 2nd. 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 2nd
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 2nd.
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.
