email at

Tuesday, April 28, 2020

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)


Sandra Weidner
                                                                     Case #2017CV001644
City of Racine

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
.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.


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

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:
(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
(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
(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.

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:

No comments: