Sandy Weidner's attorney played it safe and filed a motion for judicial substitution
Racine County Circus Court
Sandra Weidner vs. City of Racine
# 17CV1644
Eugene Gagthebitch
This is the document that should
have been filed.
(Blogger changed the formatting)
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT RACINE COUNTY
__________________________________________________________
Sandra Weidner
Plaintiff
Vs.
Case
#2017CV001644
City of Racine
Defendant
__________________________________________________________
MOTION TO
RECUSE
____________________________________________________________________________________
NOW COMES the Plaintiff Sandra Weidner to
move to recuse Judge Eugene Gasiorkiewicz from the above entitled matter under
the following authorities:
28 USCS Sec. 455, and Marshall v
Jerrico Inc., 446 US
238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980). "The
neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will
not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts
or the law."
The above is
applicable to this court by application of
Article VI of the United States
Constitution and Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 483 n. 35, 96 S. Ct.
3037, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1067 (1976).
"State courts, like federal courts, have a
constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal
law."
The court’s
record speaks for itself.
The court
ruled in most bias and complicit ways, ruling against the Plaintiff’s right to amend
her complaint within 6 months. Then came the court’s erroneous rulings of
privileged documents and Gasiorkiewicz’s illegal, outrageous criminal acts of sealing
the entire court record to create an illegal secret court. In doing so Judge
Gasiorkiewicz has knowingly and willingly violated the following:
WIS. STAT. § 57.14,
WIS.
STAT. § 59.20(3),
WIS. STAT. § 802.09(1)
WIS. STAT. § 946.12(1),(2), (3), (Felonies)
First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Oath of Office
SCR 60.02
SCR 60.03
SCR60.04
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND:
.Judge
Gasiorkiewicz has a history of deliberately violating other litigant's personal
liberties and/or has wantonly refused to provide due process and equal
protection to all litigants before the court and/or has behaved in a manner
inconsistent with that which is needed for full, fair, impartial hearings.
The United
States Constitution guarantees an unbiased Judge who will always provide
litigants with full protection of ALL RIGHTS. Therefore, the Plaintiff
respectfully demands Judge Gasiorkiewicz recuse himself in light of the
evidence attached within this motion and Exhibits
1,2,3,4,5,6 detailing unethical/ illegal/criminal misconduct or
conduct which gives the Plaintiff good reason to believe Judge Gasiorkiewicz
cannot hear this case in a fair and impartial manner.
CONCLUSION:
A criminal
has no business being on the bench
In Wisconsin,
a Circuit Court Judge is required to be a Wisconsin licensed attorney. A Wisconsin attorney’s license requires the
holder of the license to adhere to the rules of law, not act as a rogue attorney
or judge as Gasiorkiewicz has done in this case.
Gasiorkiewicz acting as judge compounded
these offenses against both the Plaintiff and the Public as he trashed the
rules of law and judicial conduct in this case in favor of his ego and
undisclosed agenda(s).
Ethical and
criminal complaints have been filed against judge Gasiorkiewicz into the
Wisconsin Judicial Commission and the Wisconsin Attorney General’s office
concerning this case. The facts are
indisputable and irrefutable that judge Gasiorkiewicz disregarded the rule of
law and overstepped his assigned judicial boundaries, committed gross
violations of the law, committed crimes and aggrieved both Plaintiff and Public
in the process of conducting court.
As noted by
the COA, Judge Gasiorkiewicz wrongfully
denied Plaintiff the right to amend her complaint, what the COA negligently
failed to acknowledge is Gasiorkiewicz illegally sealed the entire court record
creating an illegal secret court contrary to Wisconsin statutes and the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, thus violating his oath of office and
making Gasiorkiewicz a “Constitutional Infidel” and unfit for public service.
Judges,
both individually and collectively must respect and honor the judicial office
as a public trust. Judges must strive to maintain the trust and
confidence of the legal system. The effectiveness of the judiciary rests
ultimately on the trust and confidence that the people confer upon judges.
Judge
Gasiorkiewicz while conducting court engaged in war upon the Plaintiff’s rights
and that of the Public. The judge gagged
the Plaintiff with his illegal secret court and placed her in a most dark
situation as Gasiorkiewicz kept hidden from the Public his criminal acts.
Judge
Gasiorkiewicz trashed the public confidence and trust of our court system and
became a national embarrassment to anybody affiliated to the Wisconsin Courts.
Gasiorkiewicz
knowingly and willingly violated his judicial trust by violating the rules of
law as stated in this motion.
Judge Gasiorkiewicz
belongs in prison, not on the bench, is unfit for public service and therefore for
all of the above must recuse himself from this case and ALL cases.
Dated this
27th Day of April, 2020
________________________
Sandra Weidner - Pro se
123 Any Street
Racine, Wi. 53405
PH: 555-555-5555
CC. Scott Letteney
LIST OF
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1. COA verdict and remand of Gagthebitch denying statutory right
to Plaintiff to amend complaint within 6months.
Exhibit 2. Judge Gasiorkiewicz illegally sealing the complete court
record, committing crimes during the process of conducting court and creating
and maintaining an illegal “secret” court.
Exhibit 3. Judge Gasiorkiewicz wrongfully ruling
on “privileged” records.
Exhibit 4. Verified Ethics/Criminal Complaint filed to the Wisconsin
Judicial Commission
Exhibit 5. Verified Criminal Complaint filed to
the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office.
Exhibit 6. Judge Gasiorkiewicz negligently and wrongfully ignoring/denying
Defendant James McClain substitution of judicial assignment. Case #19CV1357
Exhibit 7. ????
Wisconsin
Statutes and Anontations:
WIS. STAT. §
757.14 “The
sittings of every court shall be public and every citizen may freely attend the
same……”
Citizens are directly empowered by
statute 757.14
to observe court proceedings.
WIS. STAT. § 59.20(3), The court
shall:
" open to the examination of any person all books and
papers required to be kept in his or her office and permit any person so
examining to take notes and copies of such books, records, papers or
minutes ...."
Citizens are directly empowered by statute
59.20(3) to the opening of Court records for public examination.
WIS. STAT. § 802.09 Amended and supplemental
pleadings.
(1) Amendments. A
party may amend the party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time
within 6 months after the summons and complaint are filed or within the time
set in a scheduling order under s. 802.10. Otherwise a party may amend the
pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and
leave shall be freely given at any stage of the action when justice so
requires. A party shall plead in response to an amended pleading within 20 days
after service of the amended pleading unless: a) the court otherwise orders; or
b) no responsive pleading is required or permitted under s. 802.01
(1). If a defendant
in the action is an insurance company, if any cause of action raised in the
original pleading, cross-claim, or counterclaim is founded in tort, or if the
party pleading in response is the state or an officer, agent, employee, or
agency of the state, the 20-day time period under this subsection is increased
to 45 days.
Felony Misconduct
WIS. STAT. § 946.12 and its subsections:
946.12 Misconduct in public office.
Any public officer or public employee who does any of the
following is guilty of a Class I felony:
946.12(1)
(1) Intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known
mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer's or employee's
office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or
946.12(2)
(2) In the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer
or employee, does an act which the officer or employee knows is in excess of
the officer's or employee's lawful authority or which the officer or employee
knows the officer or employee is forbidden by law to do in the officer's or
employee's official capacity; or
946.12(3)
(3) Whether by act of commission or omission, in the
officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee exercises a
discretionary power in a manner inconsistent with the duties of the officer's
or employee's office or employment or the rights of others and with intent to
obtain a dishonest advantage for the officer or employee or another;
First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution:
The First Amendment guarantees that American court proceedings are presumptively open
to the public. The U.S. Supreme court has explained the public's presumptive rights
of access to court proceedings are rooted in both logic and history.
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT RULES……
SCR 60.02 A judge shall uphold the integrity and
independence of the judiciary. An independent and honorable judiciary is
indispensable to justice in our society.
SCR 60.03 A judge shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities. (1) A judge shall
respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
SCR 60.04 and its subsections
A judge shall perform the duties of
judicial office impartially and diligently. The judicial duties of a judge
take precedence over all the judge's other activities. The judge's judicial
duties include all the duties of the judge's office prescribed by law.
Other Citations,
Removal on Remand
Hurles v.
Ryan, 752 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2011)
As a matter
of due process, a judge who fails the “appearance of impartiality” test may not
sit as the judge in the case. In this case, when a pretrial ruling concerning
the appointment of additional counsel was appealed, the judge appeared as a
nominal party in the appellate court but actually filed a pleading, urging that
the ruling was proper and that the simplicity of the case (implying that the
evidence of guilt was overwhelming) justified the decision to deny the
appointment of two lawyers in this death penalty case. That pleading also
questioned the ability of the lawyer who was representing the defendant. The
Ninth Circuit held that the state trial judge’s participation in the appeal may
have rendered her too biased to participate in the death penalty proceedings
that ensued in the trial court. A remand for a full evidentiary hearing on the
state judge’s impartiality was required.
United States v. Torkington, 874 F.2d
1441 (11th Cir. 1989)
Because of
the trial judge’s actions during the trial, upon remand from the Eleventh
Circuit, it would be appropriate for the case to be assigned to a different
judge.
____________________________________________________________
We have two criminals on the Bench.
Lisa Neubauer and Eugene Gasiorkiewicz
The COA (Court of Appeals) whitewashed this case.
Read the verified criminal complaints filed
against Gasiorkiewicz and Neubauer here:
