Wednesday, June 14, 2017

DOC "money scam" Latest actions


Injunction was filed in court April 13th; 2017. The injunction is in Branch 6, Dane County Circuit Court, Judge Shelley Gaylord, presiding: Marcus Kerby V. Jon Litscher, 17-IP-18,  

latest from Injunction architect: "We got the informa pauperis approved and the suit against them will move forward. The court also ordered the sheriff to serve the defendants. We should get a hearing soon.  The Judge is Shelley Gaylord, branch 6.

Read copy of injunction: https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/1-1-arandall-k-mataya-injunction.pdf

Randal Mataya' s Instructions in the Newsletter:
This From Randall Mataya, architect of the suit:
    First off, a legal action, such as an injunction, seeks to stop a specific act of the DOC. It is initially a "temporary' situation. The court looks to the body of the petition to determine if we have raised sufficient facts to get it to order a temporary injunction. It then schedules a hearing at which all evidence is put forth, arguments made and the court then decides whether to make the injunction permanent or to end it.
   Now, here is where it gets a bit complicated. In order to get that injunction, I alleged that the DOC enacted a policy called 309.45.02 that is in direct conflict with State laws. Now, the injunction is sought pursuant to 813.02 Wisconsin Statutes. However, because I am challenging the validity of 309.45.02, the court must construe 309.45. 02, as a D0C rule, which calls into the equation, 227.40, Wis. Stats. which is a Declaratory Judgment. This DJ is required by the statute, the legal procedural rules for challenging a rule of the DOC. So, in the injunction, I quote declaratory judgment as part of our legal action, combining an 813.02 and 227.40 proceeding since both are in play. Its complex. However, if we prevail, it will make the DOC stop taking everyone’s money etc. That is why I said everyone needs to relax and let this legal action progress to its end to see what happens. EVERYONE, TAKE CHILL PILL!!!!! ha ... ha.
    In the declaratory judgment portion, you will see I named those entities that have to be notified, i.e. the joint committee for administrative rule review the Attorney General and the DOC Secretary. These people all had to be served with a summons and petition, by the Dane County Sheriff. $42.00 per person served! The filing fee is $129.50. Its all coming o t of the release account.
   We never know how a court will act. It should obey the law and if it does, we will win this legal action. In your john doe, the court said the inmates could file certioraris. That is true. HOWEVER, any decision on certiorari,wi11 only apply to that individual inmate that filed it. Certiorari is the worst way to go. Declaratory judgment is legally required..
   We allege 309.45.02 is in conflict with State law and-that law is 973.045, 973.05, 973.06,and.301.32. We do not make any challenge to 2015 Wis. Act 355. This act is not retroactive and thusly does not affect anyone sentenced prior to July 31, 2016. That 309.45.02 policy is being applied illegally. 50% deductions across the board. Act 355 does not say it is retroactive-so there is no valid reason to attack it. That 50% language all stems from 309.45.02 and the DOC has taken to citing 301.32 as its guiding light. That is stupidity on their part. 301.32 only got amended to allow "restitution to be paid by the inmates. 301.32 does not do anything else.
    The DOC could legally take 50% from new inmates sentenced after 7-31-16. It chose to take it from everyone, which would make 355 a retroactive act. But, since it isn't, the DOC is abusing its authority, As usual. This should answer all questions. No need for anyone to file anything right now. It’s being done. Randall Mataya

LATEST NEWSLETTER: https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/ffup-newsletter-summer-2017.pdf
(  money scam section starts page 4)

Other submissions by prisoner litigators.
disclaimer: we are not lawyers can not judge these submissions. All have received objections from other litigators. TO my knowledge, these suggestions have not been tried and are honest attempts to help. However make sure you study them carefully beofre trying and make sure they apply to your case. 
 1Submission by Tony Merriweather
1)Notice/Motion For Contempt of Court Under Principal Action" :
https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/t-merriweather-motion-for-contempt-prin-act.pdf

2)"Order For Production of Documents for Contempt of Court Under Principal Action" https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/t-merr-order-for-prod-of-docs.pdf

here is Tony's statement on the above:
I wanted to finish the New pleading, that will be more successful in getting the-Court's to deal with the issue of the DOC's arbitrarily stealing money from inmate's for restitution & Surcharges etc., So please find the "Notice/Motion For Contempt of Court Under Principal Action" and the "Order For Production of Documents for Contempt of Court Under Principal Action", (2-pages).I made it where it should address pretty much of anyone concerns in the DOC, all they have to do is fill in the blanks. However, on the Order for Production of Documents, they fill in the blanks, and where they see State of Wisconsin To: Records & Business Office Personnel, they will need to put the address of the prison they are currently confined in. However, they do not fill in the Date or place where the Judge is to sign.

     This is a Motion which they must file with their Court they were Convicted in so they put the County in which they were Convicted and Sentence and their Criminal Case Number, where they see:Case No._______, and their name goes where they see: defendant, or, defendant/Complainant.

2 Submission by Nate Lindell:

a) motion to  modify sentence :https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/1-1-amotion-to-modify-sentence-lindell1.pdf
b) correction for newsletter 6 17:https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/n-lindell-for-news-6-17.pdf

3 Submission by Jason Kurtz
Motion for clarification: https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/money-scam-resolve-kurtz.pdf
Motion for clarification: https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/money-scam-resolve-kurtz.pdf

News articles on Controversy over taking inmates' funds
FFUP edited articles as they appeared in 4 17 newsletter:

Articles edited by FFUP form MJS by Gina Barton and form the Isthmus, by Bill Lueders https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/doc-money-scam-articles-4-17.pdf

link to online article by Gina Barton is MJS :http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/wisconsin/2017/02/20/wisconsin-inmates-seek-john-doe-probe-into-money-withheld-prisoner-accounts/98149056/


___________________________________________________________________________
posted April
4 17 news
Newsletter for spring with update on money scam: https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ffup-newsletter-4-17all.pdf

I. RGCI inmates submitted an injunction. Here is case info for lookup:
2017IP000018/04-13-2017/ Dane/ Marcus J Kerby XRE vs. Jon Litscher

If it wins it will help all. Here is Litigator, writer's latest statement:


INJUNCTION’S IN. WHAT NOW?
Suggestion from injunction writer

Here is the explanation you seek for the newsletter. First off, a legal action, such as an injunction, seeks to stop a specific act of the DOC. It is initially a "temporary" situation. The court looks to the body of the petition to determine if we have raised sufficient facts to get it to order a temporary injunction. It then schedules a hearing at which all evidence is put forth, arguments made and the court then decides whether to make the injunction permanent or to end it.

Now, here is where it gets a bit complicated. In order to get that injunction, I alleged that the DOC enacted a policy called 309.45.02 that is in direct conflict with State laws. Now, the injunction is sought pursuant to 813.02 Wisconsin Statutes. However, because I am challenging the validity of 309.45.02, the court must construe 309.45. 02, as a DOC rule, which calls into the equation, 227.40, Wis. Stats. which is a Declaratory Judgment. This DJ is required by the statute, the legal procedural rules for challenging a rule of the DOC. So, in the injunction, I quote declaratory judgment as part of our legal action, combining an 813.02 and 227.40 proceeding since both are in play.

 Its complex. However, if we prevail, it will make the DOC stop taking everyone’s money etc. That is why I said everyone needs to relax and let this legal action progress to its end to see what happens. EVERYONE, TAKE A CHILL PILL!!!!! ha ... ha.

In the declaratory judgment portion, you will see I named those entities that have to be notified, i.e, the joint committee for administrative rule review, the Attorney General and the DOC Secretary. These people all had to be served with a summons and petition, by the Dane County Sheriff. 42.00 per person served! The filing fee is 129.50. Its all coming out of the release account.
We never know how a court will act. It should obey the law and if it does, we will win this legal action. In your john doe, the court said the inmates could file certioraris. That is true. HOWEVER, any decision on certiorari will only apply to that individual inmate that filed it. Certiorari is the worst way to go. Declaratory judgment is legally required. We allege 309.45.02 is in conflict with Stat-law-
 and that law is 973.045, 973.05, 973.06,.and 301.32. We do not make any challenge to 2015 Wis. Act 355. This act is not retroactive and thusly does not effect anyone sentenced prior to July 31, 2016. That 309.45.02 policy is being applied illegally. 50% deductions across the board. Act 355 does not say it is retroactive so there is no valid reason to attack it. That 50% language all stems from 309.45.02 and the DOC has taken to citing 301.32 as its guiding light. That is stupidity on their part. 301.32 only got amended to allow 'restitution" to be paid by the inmates. 301.32 does not do anything else.

The DOC could legally take 50% from new inmates sentenced after 7-31-16. It chose to take it from everyone, which would make 355 a retroactive act. But, since it isn't, the DOC is abusing its authority. As usual. This should answer all questions. No need for anyone to file anything right now. Its being done.
Randall Mataya 86187, RGCI
Here is above statement in PDF form:
https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/randall-mataya-inj-explanation-for-blog-4-26-171.pdfHere is above statement in PDF form: https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/randall-mataya-inj-explanation-for-blog-4-26-171.pdf


II . FFUP's John Doe was submitted in February and was dismissed mid April. With it was 22 complaints by prisoners. Tony Merriweather has submitted and template for appeal but this is untenable as FFUP is overwhelmed and the injunction is the better route. 

Here is court dismissal document /https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/dane-court-dismissal-4-8-17.pdf

WHAT was submitted last month to the Dane County Court . The John Doe motion was written by Nate Lindell.

John Doe request-https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/nate-lindel-full-case-jd-typed.pdf- 

exhibits 1 and 2: https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/nate-lindell-exhibits-for-court1.pdf 
                             https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/nate-lindell-exhibits-for-court2.pdf

22 inmate complaints: https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/scroll-down-9-cases.pdf    

                                       https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/1-a-scroll-down-11-cases.pdf


                                       https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/1a-r-j-jones-jdwhole-case1.pdf


template for individual actions recently submitted/ https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/t-merr-letter-4-20-17-for-newsletter-all.pdf


Finally , here is the template for an injunction Submitted to FFUP just as spring newsletter was mailed out- Now that the injunction is files for all, it is still good for study.
injunction template


Newsletter spring 2017/Next one- update, coming mid May


FOR other LATEST FFUP ACTIONS on other issues GO HERE:

http://solitarytorture.blogspot.com