email at

Thursday, September 27, 2018


Racine County Circuit Court 
case #2017CV001644
Sandy Weidner Vs. City of Racine

A very troubling court case is currently working its way through the Racine County Circuit Court system involving our right to open records, free speech and the ability to seek redress with 
public discourse. We will get more into the case details shortly.

Judge Gasiorkiewicz was elected to office in 2010 and since has garnered many critics and detractors of his controversial decisions.
According to several attorney surveys, Judge Gasiorkiewicz was lowly rated by his legal peers.

Perhaps his most controversial case before him involved the token sentencing of a 4 month slap on the back in jail to scion billionaire Sam Curtis Johnson 3rd,  for sexual assault of a child.

Despite his controversy as judge for the last 8 years, it appeared nobody knew how to pronounce Gasiorkiewicz's name.

Problem solved with this open records court case.

This ugly legal case has revealed 
his appropriate phonic name.


A name that will live for infamy.
This legal case is another low for the Racine County Circuit courts and is an inside attack on all Americans.  

For real journalism about this very dangerous court precedent, and to gain background information, click on the two hyperlinks provided below

Back to the case.
 An active ongoing open records case has been sealed in the Racine County Circus Court System and has been appealed to the higher circus court where an apparent complicit Racine native, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals Lisa Neubauer also determined to maintain a closed court to the public. We say complicit because even the names of the parties involved in this court case is sealed.

Sealing of public records is contrary to 
Wisconsin Statutes 19.31-39, 757.14 and the First Amendment of our U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing our following rights.    
1. Public assembly in a public courthouse and courtroom
2.      Right to free speech - including the right to listen to what is spoken.
3.      Right to petition government and seek redress with public discourse or argument in support of as such.

RCC asserts the circus courts are 
suppressing free and open debate 
by the arbitrary sealing of the records and as such is 
oppressing others in free speech issues.

Racine County Circus Court case # 2017CV001644
Sandy Weidner Vs. City of Racine
Sealed party Vs. Sealed party

 Racine County Circus Court 

The honorable Judge Gasiorkiewicz 
AKA Judge Gag-the-bitch

We at RCC award Judge Gag-the-bitch the coveted 3 "C" plus "C" prize.

This case brings to mind the lyrics from the Tremeloes

Silence is golden
But my eyes still see
Silence is golden golden
But my eyes still see
Talking  is cheap people follow like sheep 
Even though there is no where to go
How could she tell he deceived her so well
Pity she'll be the last one to know

Enjoy the music while you 
continue to read

We at RCC did a quick forensic analysis of the following court transcripts and found things are not as they say.

Here are a few excerpts.

During the hearing did Attorney Cohen object 
to adjourn the hearing?
NO!   Judge Gag-the-bitch spoke for the defense attorney.
"I know that Mr. Cohen objects to that and has
cited that there has been additional dissemination of
information, which is at least theoretically subject to
the seal order in this matter made by Ms. Weidner."
During oral arguments of the hearing,
Judge Gag-the-bitch states that defense attorney Cohen objects to the adjournment without Mr. Cohen making 
such a verbal court record. 
But how did the judge know?
ex parte conversations?
Hand signals?
sign language?
 googly eyes?

Googly eyes really do make everything better

Now for the court transcripts

Branch 2
Plaintiff, MOTION
vs. Case No. 17-CV-1644
Judge Presiding
Date of Hearing:
September 25, 2018
Leslie M. Johnson, RMR, CRR, CPE
Official Court Reporter, Branch 2
appearing for the Plaintiff.
Michael Cohen and Dieter Juedes, appearing
for the Defendant.
Asst. City Attorney, Nicole Larsen, present.
Plaintiff present in person.

THE COURT: Good morning. This is the case of
Sandy Weidner versus the City of Racine, case number
The action is brought here on a motion for
contempt. There have been several motions that have been
filed today.
I'm not sure if counsel are privy to them or
not, but I received -- Actually, my clerk received from
Mr. Wait -- Mr. Wait, would you identify yourself, raising
your hand -- a pro-se motion to intervene under 803.09
(1). I will have that file stamped now, sir.
There also was a motion to intervene by Mr.
Spahn on behalf of Freedom of Information Council. Mr.
Spahn, you're here, correct?
MR. SPAHN: Correct, your Honor. Just to be
clear, the letter that was submitted was on behalf of the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and five different entities.
THE COURT: Thank you for that, so a request to
intervene. I am not sure if I understand the import of
both of the interventions.
I don't suppose, and this question goes to Mr.
Spahn as well as Mr. Wait. Mr. Spahn, I know, is a
lawyer. Mr. Wait, I don't believe that you are. Is that
MR. WAIT: That's correct.
THE COURT: Open participation in a contempt
hearing. Is that accurate?
MR. WAIT: I am sorry, your Honor?
THE COURT: Open participation or opening of the
courtroom with respect to allegations of contempt.
MR. WAIT: That's correct, your Honor. We just
wanted today's hearing to be held in open court, your
THE COURT: Mr. Wait?
MR. WAIT: I wasn't aware that this was a
contempt hearing, being that there is no information
available on CCAP.
THE COURT: My question is very specific, sir.
Is your motion to intervene that today's hearing with
respect to contempt be open to the public, yes or no?
MR. WAIT: I would request that if I can
verbally to be done, yes.
THE COURT: We don't make verbal requests, sir.
You have every right to appear pro se under Wisconsin law
and by our constitution, but you do not get any pass with
respect to procedure or process. Do you understand that?
MR. WAIT: Yes.
THE COURT: The Court never had an intent to
close the hearing on contempt today. I don't know where
that came from. I've seen it eluded to in a number of

articles that have been provided by Mr. Cohen.
I've seen it eluded to in the Racine Journal
Times as of this very date. The content of the nature of
the contempt issue, the disclosure of the information,
which is subject to court seal, does not have to be
addressed or brought up in terms of the contempt issue.
The issue here is quite narrow and specific.
Did Ms. Weidner violate a seal order by this Court by
disclosing information to third parties, not parties privy
to this, Mr. Hinkston, Mr. Cohen, or the parties that were
allowed access to this document.
That matter is before the Court of Appeals. The
issue of my sealing is one of the issues that's present
before the Court of Appeals.
However, one does not get to simply violate a
seal order because you may think it's illegal, or
improper, or an erroneous exercise of discretion by this
So the issue, the narrow focus of my hearing, is
public access to the issue of whether or not Ms. Weidner
was held in contempt or should be held in contempt for
violation of a court's order but, secondly, the content of
the information, which is under seal, will not be
disclosed or should not be mentioned during the course of
this proceeding.

That seal order remains in effect by my order,
also by the order of the Court of Appeals.
So that information should not be disclosed.
Secondarily, so I don't know if that takes care of your
concern, Mr. Spahn, or not, but your client --
This courtroom will be open to the public for
the contempt proceeding, and you can address that later
on, Mr. Wait, as well.
Secondly, there's been a request from
Mr. Hinkston for an adjournment of this matter indicating
that he believes that, based on the nature of the
allegations in the contempt filings in this matter, that
you have a conflict of interest. Is that accurate?
MR. HINKSTON: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: The Court need not go through those.
Those, of course, would be your duty and responsibility if
there was a conflict not to represent Ms. Weidner, so the
question then flows to Ms. Weidner directly.
Do you seek counsel at this proceeding, ma'am?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, I have, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you seek to have counsel sitting
next to you at this proceeding?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well. The Court is deferential
to that. The Court will allow you time to retain counsel
to be here for this matter.
I know that Mr. Cohen objects to that and has
cited that there has been additional dissemination of
information, which is at least theoretically subject to
the seal order in this matter made by Ms. Weidner.
She eludes into the Racine Journal Times as late
as today, this morning I saw. I can't verify the accuracy
of the reporting, that it was at the urging of someone
else that you disclose information.
This Court's position, ma'am, is that whether or
not you agree or disagree with my seal order, it is an
order of this Court. You must be compliant with that
Even if you think it is imprudent or an abuse of
exercise of discretion, you must be compliant with that
order until the Court of Appeals, which your present
counsel has brought before it as an issue, renders its
determination. Do you understand, ma'am?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Cohen, anything you wish to add?
MR. COHEN: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Hinkston?
MR. HINKSTON: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Then back to you, Ms. Weidner. Have
you taken some effort to try and obtain counsel?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, I have, your Honor.
THE COURT: Can you tell me without -- I don't
want to know any names, but have you retained someone?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, we are meeting tomorrow at
THE COURT: So I do not want to adjourn this
matter for a great deal of time.
I am going to give you the next set court date,
and I would ask that whoever that counsel is, that you
make sure that that counsel will be available for that
hearing. Do you understand?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE CLERK: October 3 in the afternoon.
THE COURT: Could you check your calendars for
October 3 in the afternoon, please?
MR. COHEN: Your Honor, I have matter, but I
will move that matter. I think this is a matter of some
THE COURT: Mr. Cohen, thank you for that
courtesy. Mr. Hinkston, I am not sure what your
participation will be, if at all, but can you check your
MR. HINKSTON: Yes. I have no conflict, your
THE COURT: So that will be the date,
Ms. Weidner. Would you check with your new counsel to
make sure that if you do retain this person, that he will
be available that date and time prepared to go, all right?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, I will, your Honor.
MR. COHEN: I heard afternoon.
THE CLERK: 1:30.
THE COURT: I'd like to impose on someone here
to prepare an order that the contempt hearing will be open
to the public.
However, the content of the information that's
subject to the seal order will not be disclosed or
divulged by anyone.
Essentially, the Court is not going to
re-litigate its decision relative to the sealing. Yes,
Mr. Spahn?
MR. SPAHN: Your Honor, I appreciate your
willingness to let me be heard.
Given that this proceeding is open, I was
wondering if your Honor would unseal the motion for
THE COURT: I cannot, because it includes
matters that are partial to the seal.
I want to make myself quite clear. I am willing
to open this courtroom for the issue of contempt, but with
respect to the actual content of the seal order, that's
not going to be part and parcel.
The issue here is very simplistic to the Court's
eye, and the hearing will be focused in that aspect. Mr.
Cohen, can I lean on you to prepare that order?
MR. COHEN: Be happy to.
THE COURT: Anything else then?
MR. HINKSTON: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, thank you.
MR. COHEN: Thank you, your Honor.
(Hearing adjourned).

) SS:
I, Leslie M. Johnson, RMR, CRR, CPE, Official Court Reporter,
Branch 2, do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript
constituting of 10 pages inclusive is a true and accurate
transcript of the proceedings taken on the 25th day of
September, 2018.
Dated this 25th day of September, 2018.
Leslie M. Johnson (electronically signed)
Leslie M. Johnson, RMR, CRR, CPE

Official Court Reporter, Branch 2

Now let's take a look at the court's daily calendar posting by the court door on the day of the hearing.

Note the date and printed time of 7:31 am concerning the 
scheduled hearing at 9am.
Now go back and read the transcripts again.
"THE COURT: The Court never had an intent to
close the hearing on contempt today. I don't know where

that came from."
Does the above posting at the court door indicate any intent by the circus court to hold an open court hearing as of 7:31am on the day of hearing? The answer is no.

Was there any public notice posted of the contempt hearing?
Again the answer is NO!
No publicly posted notice of the 9-25-2017 contempt hearing exist  on the WCCA format, nor on any other posted media known to this writer despite the advanced court scheduling of the contempt hearing.
The errors, acts and omissions of this court's egregious conduct of the 9-25-2018 hearing begs a forensic audit of the complete  court case history.

A perfect storm of evidence alluding to conspiracy, complicity and collusion of a judge attempting to silence an open records plaintiff. 

On Sept. 24th. the law office of Godfrey Kahn s.c. faxed a letter notifying the court that the collective News Media wishes to intervene in the matter under Wisconsin statues 803.09. 

 The morning of the hearing, at approximately 8:15 am,  a pro se litigant filed a motion to intervene with authorities, or in the Alternative motion to adjourn into the circus court system.  These two filings by independent movants help provide the plaintiff the relief she needed to secure an open contempt of court hearing and a short reprieve from a very malicious, punitive and complicit judge.

RCC maintains the judge has overstepped his authority by sealing an open records case.

Attention Judge Gag-the-bitch
You may silence Sandy, but you won't silence us.

A "gofundme" account has been established to help with 
Sandy Weidner's legal fight.
Please help her fight the good fight against the evil empire.

We at RCC say

Gasiorkiewicz - Letteney - Cohen
conspiring clowns