Saturday, April 21, 2018

DOC "money scam" spring actions

 FFUPgofundme campaign :www.gofundme.com/prisonforum
Money SCAM Spring 4 18 


Breaking the law?
State appears to be defying court orders on deducting inmate accounts

by Joe Tarr ,March 1, 2018
    Two Dane County judges have ruled that the state Department of Corrections  cannot deduct more than 25 percent of inmates’ trust funds, as it has been doing
 to cover restitution, court surcharges and other fees. However, a prisoner rights  activist says that  the state continues deducting  a higher percentage of money
 from accounts despite the  rulings.
     In 2015, the state Legislature passed Act 355, defining a garnishment structure for the Department of Corrections to  follow in docking inmates’
accounts.
     The trust accounts hold the money that inmates earn doing prison work between 5 cents and $1.60 an hour — or gifts deposited by family and friends. Inmates use the money to buy food, including items for special diets, and incidentals like deodorant, stamps and clothing. As Isthmus reported in February 2017, several inmates have complained about 50 percent or more of their trust accounts being deducted by the state.
Some inmates have been fighting the deductions. Last summer, Marcus Kerby, an inmate at Fox River, filed a suit against the DOC. On Jan. 18, Dane County Judge Shelley Gaylord ruled in Kerby’s favor, issuing an injunction that prohibited DOC from deducting more than 25 percent. She also ruled that the state cannot deduct from money given to inmates by family or friends, writing “family and friends do not owe such money.”
        However, the judge did not rule on whether the state had to return money taken inappropriately from inmates accounts — because the request for an injunction didn’t ask her to do so.  Despite the injunction, Kerby wrote the court on Jan. 25 to complain that DOC is still taking an improper amount of money from his account.
        In another case, Joshua Howard, an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution, complained that the DOC is violating his conviction judgment by deducting 50 percent of his account. Dane County Judge Juan Colas ruled on Feb. 1 that DOC was violating the law and failing to adhere to Gaylord’s injunction.
    “The DOC received an order requiring it to collect from [inmate] funds for surcharges and restitution at a rate of ‘up to 25 percent.’ The DOC, aware of the court order, instead collected at a rate of 50 percent,” Colas wrote. “This amounts to a failure to follow the law.”
       On Feb. 8, the state notified the court that it will be appealing Gaylord’s injunction.
        Peg Swan, a prisoners rights advocate in Richland County, says that the DOC continues deducting more than 25 percent from inmates’ accounts. Swan, who lives near the state’s maximum security prison in Boscobel, corresponds with numerous inmates. She says they’re all telling her the same thing: “[DOC] is still deducting and they’re not giving money back. That’s what everyone is writing me.”
         Tristan Cook, a spokesperson for DOC, declined to comment about the injunction, except for a statement: “The Department of Corrections is a passionate advocate for victims of crime, which includes ensuring that victims receive court-ordered restitution owed them by inmates in Department custody. The Department has long-standing statutory authority to collect funds from an inmate’s account to pay restitution and other financial obligations owed by the inmate.”
Cook deferred further questions about the case to the state Department of Justice’s Johnny Koremenos. Koremenos did not respond to several requests for comment.
https://isthmus.com/news/news/state-25-percent-taking-inmates-money/                                                                             
                                                                               TWO COURT DECISIONS

STATE OF WISCONSIN                                     CIRCUIT COURT              DANE COUNTY
State ex rel Marcus J, Kerby,  
Plaintiff/Petitioner       
vs.
Jon Litscher,                                                                                                       Case No. 17 CV 1363
Defendant/Respondent____________________________________________________________________________           

Petitioner appeared by phone and Respondent appeared by Asst. A.O. David Rice for an oral ruling. Per the reasons stated on the record:
1. Certiorari is the correct posture for this case.
2. In such an action, refunds are subject to the notice of cairn statute, 893.82. See unpublished decision Plschke v. Sondalle, 2000 WI APOP 43, 237 Wis, 2d 691 The issue of a refund is not before this court,
3. I agree with Respondent that the more specific statute at hand regarding 25% Withholding of certain funds per a 973.04 governs. Subsection (h) limits the types of funds from which fines up to a maximum of 25% can be paid. Those types of funds do not include money from family or friends. They only include those specifically listed. Any money received from friends or family are not within those categories, including the last items listed at money due the clerk of courts. Family and friends not owe such money.
4. No DOC rule can override that or any other specific statute, Act 355 did nothing to change. 973.04. The orders from the court stating the correct 25% maximum for withholding are, therefore, the valid orders DCC must follow.
5. Declaratory judgment and an injunction are appropriate and available remedies where an agency rule is unlawful and where needed to stop a practice, as here, that is not authorized.
6. Based on the above, I need not address any other issues raised.
IT IS ORDERED, The underlying interpretation by DOC of withholding more than 25% is invalid, declared to be invalid and an injunction is hereby issued preventing any further withholding that goes above the 25% and the types of funds available.
Dated January 18, 2018                                                                                                                              BY THE COURT
                                                                                                                                                                  Shelley J Gaylord
cc. Petitioner, AGA Rice.

2)
STATE OF WISCONSIN                  CIRCUIT COURT                                      DANE COUNTY, WI
                                                                  BRANCH 10 ____________________________________
STATE ex rel. JOSHUA HOWARD,
Petitioner,                                                                                                      Case# 2016CV3251
V.                                                                                                                               
JON E. LITSCHER, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Corrections,
 Respondent
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                         DECISION AND ORDER
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
         Petitioner Joshua Howard, an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution, filed this certiorari petition for review of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections' ("DOC") decision to dismiss his inmate complaints. In July 2016, pursuant to an amendment to its policy, the DOC Increased the percentage of restitution, court costs, and surcharges it collected from prisoners'  funds from 25% to 50%. Petitioner's judgment of conviction orders that his restitution and other costs are "[t}o be paid from up to 25% of prison wages and as a condition of extended supervision." R. 119. Petitioner complains that, among other things, Respondent's policy violates his judgment of conviction. For the following reasons, the agency decision is REVERSED.                                                                               
                                                                            STANDARD OF REVIEW
             On certiorari review the court evaluates whether: (1) the agency kept within its jurisdiction; (2) the agency acted according to. law; (3) the action was arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable and represented its will and not its judgment; and (4) the evidence presented was such that the agency might reasonably make the decision it did. State ex rel. Brookside Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. Of Adjustment, 131 Wis. 2d 101, 119,388 N.W.2d 593 (1986)
                                                   DISCUSSION
             Respondent contends that a sentencing court's order specifying that the DOC is to collect from a prisoner at a certain percentage is an "impemissibl[e] attempt[] to limit [the] authority" of the DOC. Whether or not a sentencing court has the authority to require that the ordered restitution and other costs are to be collected by the DOC at a particular rate is beyond the scope of this opinion. The DOC has disregarded a court order, arguing that it can "control the restitution rate even if a court has impermissibly attempted to limit that authority." Res. Br. at 11. The weight of caselaw is contrary to the respondent's assessment.                                                                                                                                    
           Even if a trial court acts outside the scope of its authority in an order to an agency, the agency is not empowered to simply disregard the order. State ex rel. Eastman v. Burke, 28 Wis. 2d 170, 178, 136 N.W.2d 297(1965); Bartus v. Wisconsin Dept of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Corr., 176 Wis. 2d 1063, 1082, 501 N.W.2d 419 (1993) ("neither the Division of Hearings and Appeals nor the Department of Corrections has been granted the authority to void or reverse circuit court judgments"). The agency "could not independently determine the propriety of the restitution Order, and [it]-could not reverse the dictates of the original Order absent receipt of a corrective Order." State ex rd. Lindell v. Litscher, 2005 WI App 39, 120, 280 Wis. 2d 159, 694 N.W.2d 396, aff'd sub nom. State v. Lindell, 2006 WI App 194,120,    (2)
296 Wis. 2d 418, N.W.2d 399. When faced with a potentially erroneous court order, the DOC must seek a remedy just as any other litigant would; it cannot ignore the order and implement a conflicting .policy. State ex rel. Eastman v. Burke, 28 Wis. 2d 170, 178, 136 N.W.2d 297 (1965).
         Here, the DOC received an order requiring it to collect from Petitioner funds for surcharges and restitution at a rate of "up to 25%." The DOC, aware of the court order, instead collected at a rate of 50%. This amounts to a failure to follow the law.
                                                      CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the final administrative decision of the DOC is REVERSED and REMANDED for further action consistent with this opinion..
Electronically signed by Juan B. Colas, Circuit Court Judge 02/01/2018         
                                                                                                                        
Above is the Isthmus article and court orders that have been making the rounds through the WI prison system along with three fine essays with suggestions for future action by Randall Mataya and Harlan Richards and Tony Merriweather. Below is the latest essay received by FFUP ,perhaps a timely summation of how possibly to proceed- citing 14tth amendment violation.  There have been calls for a class action and I agree. However nothing is settled and all in flux . Exhaust your remedies, let us know of actions you take. FFUP will be working with litigators toward some kind of resolution soon that satisfies both needs- stop the illegal taking for prisoners funds. 2) pay back what has been taken.


TO Jon E. Litscher – Secretary WI DOC
 3099 E. Washington Street
P.O. Box 7925
Madison, WI 53707-7925

Office of Legal Counsel WIDOC
3099 B. Washington Street
P.O. Box 7925
Madison, WI 53707-7925

Warden Doug Percy OCI
P.O. Box 140
Oregon, WI 53575

Deputy Warden Paul Ninnemann OCI
 P.O. Box 140
Oregon, WI 53575

Kevin Alvarez – CMSD OCI
 P.O. Box 140
Oregon, WI 53575

Wayne Stuessy - Record's Office Supervisor OCI
P.O. Box 140
Oregon, WI 53575





FROM: Peter J. Long #383030/% OCI, P.O. Box 938;Oregon, WI 53575

DANE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT INJUNCTION ORDERED AGAINST DOC REGARDING ACT 355 AND WITHHOLDING PRISONER FUNDS  DATE:            March 20, 2018

Dear Secretary Litscher, DOC Legal Counsel, Warden Percy, Deputy Warden Ninnemann, Mr. Alvarez, and Mr. Stuessy:
      
        Pro Se Litigant Background: My name is Peter J. Long and Tam an inmate at Oakhill Correctional Institution ("O.C.I."). I am currently serving a 5 year prison sentence for an OWl. I am well educated with a B.S. Degree in Industrial Engineering from UW-Platteville (May 1991) and an MBA from UW-Milwaukee (May 1997). I am also the only state inmate to ever take and pass the Law School Admission Test ("LSAT") while in custody. Further, I am a registered member of the National Jailhouse Lawyers' Guild. Lastly, I served a total of 8'/2 years in the military as an infantry soldier through the U.S. Army and the WIARNG and received an Honorable Discharge from service.
      PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Dane County Circuit Court has recently granted the following injunction against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections ("DOC") stating that its underlying interpretation of Wisconsin Act 355 by the DOC of withholding more that 25% is [invalid], declared to be [invalid], and an injunction was issued preventing any further [w]ithholding that goes above the 25% and the types of funds available.
        Wisconsin Act 355 which was passed on April 11, 2016, had an effective date of July 1, 2016 ("Act 355"). Act 355 only modified the restitution statute and how restitution is collected under the restitution statute pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.20(1 1)(c). It allows the DOC to collect  reasonable percentage. Act 355 does [not] apply to all fines, fees,
DNA surcharges, and VWS. These fines, fees, and surcharges continue to fall under Wis. Stat. § 973.05(4)(b), which allows collection at a rate of 25%. (See attached Wis. Stat. § 973.05). The DOC's decision that 50% was, and is, "reasonable" also conflicts with the 25% mandate of § 973.05 because pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.20(12)(a),              
all  restitution, fines, costs, fees, and surcharges are reduced to a single collection order at 25%. Further, there is nothing in Act 355 which allows retroactive application. Therefore, Act 355 can only be applied to offenders sentenced on or after July 1, 2016.
        State ex reL Marcus J. Kerby v. Jon Litscher, Dane County Circuit Court Case No. 17CV 1363, provides, in part, as follows: (See attached Circuit Court Order).                                                                                                          
HOLDINGS AND FINDINGS OF FACT: (Filed January 18, 2018)
1. The Circuit Court agrees with Respondent that the more specific statute at hand regarding 25% withholding of certain funds per s. 973.05, governs. Subsection (b) limits the types of funds from which fines up to a maximum of 25% can be paid. Those types of funds do not include money from family or friends. They only include those specifically listed. Any money received from family and friends are not [within] those categories, including the last items listed at money due the clerk of courts. Family and friends do not [owe] such money. Id. (Also see attached Wis. Stat. § 973.05).
2. No DOC rule can override that or any other specific statute. Act 355 did nothing to change s. 973.05. The orders from the court stating the correct 25% maximum for withholding are, therefore, the [v]alid orders DOC must follow. Id
3. Declaratory judgment and an injunction are appropriate and available remedies where an agency rule is [u]nlawful and where needed to stop a practice, as here, that is not [a]uthorized. Id.
IT IS ORDERED, the underlying interpretation by DOC of withholding more than 25% is invalid, declared to be invalid and an injunction is hereby issued preventing any further withholding that goes above the 25% and the types of funds available. Id.                                                                                                                                                                 
        State ex rel. Joshua Howard v. Jon E. Litscher, Dane County Circuit Court Case No. 1 6CV325 1, provides, in part, as follows: (See attached Circuit Court Decision and Order).
HOLDINGS AND FINDINGS OF FACT: (Filed February 1, 2018)
1. The DOC has disregarded a court order, arguing that it can "control the restitution rate even if a court has impermissibly attempted to limit that authority." The weight of caselaw is contrary to the respondent's assessment. Id. at 2.
2. The DOC has not been granted the authority to void or reverse circuit court judgments.
3. The DOC received an order requiring it to collect from Petitioner funds for surcharges and restitution at a rate of "up to 25%." The DOC, aware of the court order, instead collected at a rate of 50%. This amounts to a failure to follow the law. Id. at 3.

Wis. Stat. § 973.05(4)(b) provides as follows:
"Issue an order assigning not more than 25 percent of the defendant's commissions, earnings, salaries, wages, pension benefits, benefits under ch. 102, and other money due or to be due in the future to the clerk of circuit court for payment of the unpaid fine, surcharge, costs, or fees. In this paragraph, "employer" includes the state and its political subdivisions." (emphasis added).
The Aforementioned Circuit Court Orders apply to ALL DOC inmates, to include ALL inmates at Oakhill Correctional Institution pursuant to Wis. Stat. 4 227.10(3)(c) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Wis. Stat. § 227.10(3)(c) provides, in part, as follows:
     "Each person affected by a rule is entitled to the same benefits and is subject to the same obligations as any other person    under the same or similar circumstances."
                 Lawful imprisonment necessarily makes unavailable many rights and privileges of the ordinary citizen, a "retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system." Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285 (1948). But though his rights may be diminished by the needs and exigencies of the institutional environment, a prisoner is not wholly stripped of constitutional protections when he is imprisoned for crime. There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249 (1971); Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91(1945).                                                                                                                                                                         
              The Fourteenth Amendment forbids a state to "deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That means "that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S. Ct. 3249 (1985). The Fifth Amendment requires the federal government to obey the same equal protection standards as the states. Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 638 n.2, 95 S. Ct. 1225 (1975).
The Supreme Court has held that an individual who claims he has been treated differently from others similarly situated, intentionally and without rational basis, states an Equal Protection Claim as a "class of one." Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564-65, 120 S. Ct. 1073, 1074-75 (2000). A "class of one" equal protection claim will be          evaluated under the rational basis test. Borzych v. Frank, 340 F. Supp. 2d 955, 970(W.D. Wis. 2004). The plaintiff in such a case will be required to show, not only that he was badly treated, but also that persons similarly situated were not treated that way. Alicea v. Howell, 387 F. Supp. 2d 227, 236 (W.D. N.Y. 2005).
                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                       RELIEF REQUESTED
               Technically an order applies only to the litigants in the case, but as a practical matter, it must be applied across the board and applies to all of the DOC institutions and centers pursuant Wis. Stat. § 227.10(3)(c) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Judge Gaylord ordered the DOC to stop deducting 50% from inmates' wages because 25% is the law in Wisconsin; Wis. Admin. Code - DOC 309.45.02 is illegal. Further, taking court costs, fine, fees, DNA surcharges, VWS, and restitution money out of family and friends gift money is also to stop as it is illegal and not [a]uthorized by statute. Id. at § 973.05.
             Please be advised that, by notice of this legal letter, all above named individuals and departments have been made personally aware and knowledgeable of the injunction against the DOC and are obligated to immediately cease their illegal activities. Failure to comply with this Court Ordered Injunction and Wis. Stats. § 227.10(3)(c) and § 973.05, after having knowledge that the current actions are illegal, will create liability based upon an individual capacity for future lawsuits.
              I am respectfully requesting that the DOC administration in Madison instruct and order OCI administration and the OCI Business Office to comply with the Court Ordered Injunction by only deducting 25% of offenders' wages to pay fines, fees, court costs, DNA surcharges, and VWS. Further, since § 973.05, governs, and subsection (b) limits the types of funds from which fines up to a maximum of 25% can be paid, those types of funds do not include money from family or friends. They only include those specifically listed. Id. at § 973.05(4)(b). Therefore, gift money cannot be touched to pay fines, fees, court costs, DNA surcharges, and VWS.
Respectfully Submitted By: PeterJ.Long, Pro Se Litigant & Registered Member of the National Jailhouse Lawyers' Guild
_____________________________________________________________________________


UPDATE 9 17 on injunction:"AAG filled a motion to dismiss and I defeated his crap. I submitted a supporting brief and it is now the AAG'S turn to respond and then it is mine. Judge Shelley l. Gaylord seems to like making her own words as law. "Randall Mataya

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 Notice of Injury and Claim filed in April: https://ffupstuff.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/mataya-notice-of-injury-and-claim.pdf

download template 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

   

Bill Proposal for Rejuvenating Wisconsin's Failed Corrections system

Proposal for rejuvenating Wisconsin’s Failed Correctional System contents Intro- the need for deep change changes needed Charts an...