Wisconsin's Worst DA Chased from Office Is Still Defended by Wisconsin Democrat Attorney General

Depravity of Wisconsin disgraced DA Ken Kratz,
driven from office in 2010, is still defended
by Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul (D)
who works to keep innocents in prison.

Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz resigned in disgrace in 2010 following allegations that Kratz sexually harassed several women, including an assault claim alleging Kratz "had forcible sex with an emotionally vulnerable woman after previously prosecuting the woman," (Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kratz (In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kratz)).

But Kratz wasn't responsible for his conduct, Kratz pleaded.

Kratz' Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Sexually Compulsive Disorder and addictions to several drugs are the real culprits, Kratz said.

Such is the character of the man who perpetrated conflicting frauds upon two juries in the infamous frame-ups of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey, featured in the Emmy-winning Making a Murderer.

Ken Kratz. This is whom Democrat Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul defends today, at all costs against decency and innocence.

Disgraced Wisconsin District Attorney Wants NYT v. Sullivan 'Overturned' Following Legal Defeat for Cop

Goya Here Comes the Bogeyman,
plate three from Los Caprichos.
Bogeyman do not like criticism
from citizens.

Crooked Cops Fly Together

Commentary

Madison, Wisconsin — Disgraced Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz resigned in 2010 following allegations Kratz sexually harassed several women, including a sexual assault claim alleging Kratz "had forcible sex with an emotionally vulnerable woman after previously prosecuting the woman," (Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Kratz (In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Kratz)).

Kratz is also notorious for his crooked prosecutions of less than two years earlier from Kratz' harassment and assault, a time during which Kratz corruptly prosecuted two innocents featured in the Emmy-winning Making a Murderer (Netflix) docuseries. Kratz termed himself a "dick" for the assaults, not for the crooked prosecutions.

The "dick" blamed his narcissistic personality disorder and multiple drug addictions, after being driven from the district attorney's office after the allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault came to light, after which he was driven from the Wisconsin legal profession altogether in 2019.

Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, were convicted of first-degree homicide by Kratz for the 2005 murder of a young photographer, Teresa Halbach. Both men are serving life sentences in spectacular miscarriages of justice, supported by Wisconsin Democrats, the better to look tough on crime.

Now, a retired cop, Andrew Colborn, whom Wisconsin citizens say helped frame Steven Avery just lost a civil suit for defamation against Netflix. The case is Andrew L  Colborn v. Netflix, Inc,, et al,, case No. 19-cv-0484-bhl); and the case was dismissed on summary judgement.

The crooked prosecutor Ken Kratz has raised his head again after being driven from office, the law profession and the state of Wisconsin.

Kratz wants the landmark First Amendment case, New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) overturned.

"Shifting the burden to the defamed person to prove he didn’t plant evidence is, of course, an impossible standard. Courts continue to protect big media against any accountability for outrageous claims made in the name of entertainment. It’s time to overturn the NY Times vs Sullivan’s actual malice hurdle and recognize that real people, and their reputations, are being crushed in the process," the Wisconsin Law Journal quoted Kratz last week.

Kratz' statement follows plaintiff Andrew Colborn request to gut NYT v. Sullivan in a legal filing in 2019, a maneuver widely seen as Hail Mary call.

The core holdings of Sullivan protect rights of people in communities to criticize and hold accountable crooked public office holders Kratz and cops in east-central Wisconsin who routinely view with suspicion those citizens who fervently object to their conduct.

Colborn and Kratz are crazy.

Kratz lies whenever he speaks. He lost his career & reputation long before MaM, when he sexually harassed victims in cases he prosecuted & 15 women came forward. MaM just revealed his true character & his wrongful prosecution of innocent BD & SA. #Ibelieve15women #MakingAMurderer https://t.co/e7tGSnFJw6

— Jerome Buting (@JButing) March 16, 2023

New York Times v. Sullivan

In 1964, the New York Times and civil rights workers prevailed over tyrannical Montgomery police and its odious City officials at the United States Supreme Court, New York Times v. Sullivan .

Justice William Brennan writing for a unanimous court authored a defense of the liberty of the people against government tyrants, a principle that today stands as both an inspiring statement for liberty and a landmark declaration of the power of citizens over public officials.

Writes Brennan:

The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand,

presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many, this is, and always will be, folly, but we have staked upon it our all. United States v. Associated Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1943).

Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-376, gave the principle its classic formulation:

Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. ... Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Thus, we consider this case [New York Times v. Sullivan] against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. (New York Times v. Sullivan).

Parable of Racist Police

To understand the power of Sullivan today, consider a recent example of racist Wisconsin police in which the DeForest, Wisconsin Police Chief Daniel Furseth was caught on video surveilling and mocking a group of black teenagers dressed for their high school prom, and stopping by an area restaurant, as was reported by a former police intern on YouTube in June 2018.

DeForest, Wisconsin Police Chief Daniel Furseth is a racist
cop who surveiled and mocked five young black men
in some faux black slang with a demeaning, racist and
derogatory narrative caught on video. Furseth was widely
criticized, resigning under fire before joining like-minded police
at the Town, not the City, of Madison, Wisconsin. Prior to
the holdings in New York Times v Sullivan (1964), public
officials like the Furseth could prevail in libel actions, pleading
libel per se against those such as the police intern who
published the video on YouTube. Wrties the whistle-
blower: "This is what the stupid, ignorant, and imbecilic Village
of  DeForest elects to be their 'Top Cop.' This is the racist
Chief of Police Daniel Furseth, who is much like the rest of
DeForest, poorly educated, socially intolerant, and completely
incompetent when it comes to federal law (you know
the one that trumps state and local law when it’s in conflict
with it). Only a redneck and backassward community like
DeForest would want someone like this as a Chief to keep the
black man out."

Observing the youths and commenting in mocking accent, Furseth said: "Okay, we is out on our dates. We got the bitches, we gonna get them, and we gonna give them food. I got my cane, I’ve gots (sic) my suit. Oh baby … Okay, boys, let’s go in. This is the fanciest restaurant we ever been to and it’s called the Steak ‘N Shake. (Laughter) Unbelievable."

A reader should listen to the 36-second clip on YouTube to get a full accounting of the malice and racism that most small-town Wisconsin cops know to keep under wraps. Furseth and his all-white police force really do not like black people.

In August 2018 came reports of four new counts of misconduct by Furseth, (WISC-TV).

Chased out of office, the racist Daniel Furseth was never heard from again, right? Wrong.

Furseth was quickly hired by the town of Madison, not the City, in October 2018.

An official with the town of Madison police department, not the City, confirmed by phone on August 14, 2019 that Furseth is still employed with the Town police, locally notorious for racism, harassment, bogus citations and misconduct.

Pre-New York Times v Sullivan (1964), or had American jurisprudence taken another direction, the Town, DeForest and Furseth may have enjoyed cause for civil action for my opining that Daniel Furseth and Town and Village officials are racist, ignorant pig-fuckers who should have their teeth kicked out.

The former police intern who blew the whistle on YouTube similarly might not enjoy protections for his commentary about the character of the DeForest, Wisconsin Police Dept in which Furseth rose through the all-white ranks to become chief in 2015.

The judiciary over the last 60 years has risen to become a refuge for civil pleadings from social movements working for those persecuted by the State — often the repository of lurid souls like Daniel Furseth and L.B. Sullivan who, one may believe, should be anomalous is a classical liberal society.

Liberties Prevail

The United States Supreme Court of the 1950s, 60s and 70s in significant areas made it appear individual rights prevailing were a dynamic as inevitable as the triumph of reason over racism and liberation over atavistic taboo.

Landmark legal rulings after rulings were won and each victory seemed a fulfillment of long-denied liberties as the civil rights and peace movement flourished.

Brown v Board of Education (1954), New York Times v Sullivan (1964), Loving v Virgina (1967), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and United States v. United States District Court (1972) and dozens more Court holdings promised to buttress citizens against routine incursions of liberty by State actors and law enforcement.

Sullivan under Attack
 
Many today fear an epic backlash, and the challenges to Sullivan are emblematic.

 There are now at least three cases in three different appellate circuits — Second, Sixth and Seventh — in which rightwing plaintiffs appear intent on revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan.

• Sixth Circuit - Nicholas Sandmann v. WP Company LLC, d/b/a [doing business as] The Washington Post (2:19-cv-00019). Plaintiff says he will appeal the dismissal decided in jUly 2019.
• Seventh Circuit - Andrew Colborn v. Netflix, Inc (1:19-cv-00484). Likely to be dismissed in a  Dec 19, 2019 hearing in District court. An appeal is possible.
• Second Circuit - Sarah Palin v New York Times Co, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 17-3801. Case will be heard on the merits in U.S. District Court.

 Political rightwingers and disgraced cops. Yuck.

System Choice — Power to Direct State Violence Is Discretionary, Political and Vicious

The once exonerated Steven Avery faces
his most malicious enemy in the
Democratic Party and a corrupt
Wisconsin Judiciary that has abdicated
its duty to act with impartiality. Damage and
destruction are the aims against Avery
and his nephew who have committed a
mortal sin in Wisconsin: Fighting back
against state violence and corrupt cops.
SPIRITS Goya sneered at malevolent clergy
in Hobgoblins.

Madison, Wisconsin — In Wisconsin, human rights workers fight for the innocent — brutalized by liars populating offices of district attorneys, attorneys general and seemingly an entire state judiciary — yet these same human rights advocates often labor under delusion.

This delusion is that the criminal justice system and the judiciary function in an intellectually honest, non-political fashion objectively finding facts, doctrine and application of law like detached, non-political agents of pure epistemology, so dedicated as to approach hard science.

Lunacy. Worse, it's a lie.

While not every Wisconsin district attorney is a verminous Ken Kratz (driven from law and Wisconsin), or an odious Vince Biskupic (a sitting judge!), nor is every cop a Matt Kenny (still a Madison cop) or Mark Wiegert (still a sheriff) or a cold-blooded killer Stephen Heimsness (sponging off Madison people as he claims he was traumatized for killing the innocent Paul Heenan), misconduct and malignant action of cops and prosecutors incur little costs, commonly garner professional awards, and win plaudits from most judges.

Put another way, cops will kill, and prosecutors will destroy life; and the judiciary, best understood as a cult of high  clergy, will stamp its imprimatur as agents of the Sovereign, smiling down on imprisoned slaves of the state like black-robed kobolds, diminutive "goblin-like creatures with short-tempers and a mischievous spirit."

See, for example, Wisconsin sitting County Circuit Judge Vince Biskupic: "[J]ust stay away from anything to do with [Vince] Biskupic. He will pull you into this (a homicide charge). You have nothing to do with it. He doesn’t care about you or your kids," a lawyer warned an innocent, lest she become another victim of Wisconsin injustice. 

And that was before Biskupic became a Outagamie County judge, and before he resigned in scandal as Outagamie County District Attorney.

Scandal and crime rarely disqualify for service in Wisconsin's criminal justice system.

The Judiciary

Widespread faith in the state and federal judiciaries persist no matter deceit.

This may be changing.

As judicial supremacists in the United States Supreme Court have decided women no longer possess autonomy over their own bodies and no longer have liberty to choose whether they have children, millions of Americans are asking, who the hell do these justices think they are? Monarchs?

It's a good question, but one that up to now was more likely to be brought up by Sidney Powell than the Democrat establishment.

The question of judicial supremacy especially as embodied in the federal judiciary that routinely overrides the will of Congress and the presidency on liberty questions, per Court caprice or service to favored interests, has been staring America in the face for a long time.

Civil disobedience is only now becoming widespread.

During COVID 19 that spurred a body of law governing citizen behavior on public health grounds, sheriffs the nation-over stated as Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling said, "state law does not have the power to supersede or suspend the Constitutional rights of American citizens" (WISC-TV).

Racine's Schmaling and others were not going to let laws or any judge intrude upon liberty (Washington Post, The Guardian).

Following the heroic leaking of the draft Supreme Court opinion eviscerating reproductive liberty enshrined in Roe v. Wade, (Politico) (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization), Democrat prosecutors across the nation raced to declare they will not prosecute women under existing state laws defining abortion as a criminal offense (Washington Post). See Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al. No. 19-1392.

Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul (D) declared his office will not investigate or prosecute woman or doctors for abortion 'offenses.' Further, Kaul is discouraging district attorneys and law enforcement throughout the state from enforcing an 1849 ban on abortion.

Putting aside why Wisconsin Democrats did not legislate away this ban in 2009 when Democrats had unitary control of state government, Kaul said on social media this week that his determination to protect women's choice would be fought on several fronts, including the courts, "We must speak out against this effort to erode Wisconsinites’ freedom. If the Court abandons precedent and Roe falls, we must fight to protect reproductive freedom—and our other freedoms—in Congress, state legislatures, and state courts."

We must speak out against this effort to erode Wisconsinites’ freedom. If the Court abandons precedent and Roe falls, we must fight to protect reproductive freedom—and our other freedoms—in Congress, state legislatures, and state courts. 4/4

— Attorney General Josh Kaul (@WisDOJ) May 3, 2022

Human Rights

Disobedience of Court-sanctioned lawlessness is a healthy development for human rights.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the face of judicial malignancy, commenting on the Roe opinion leak, said people must "live with outcomes we don’t agree with" or the judiciary is imperiled.

Really? In Thomas' view, there is no recourse once the judicial kings and queens have spoken. It's how Thomas and his friends view the Court.

The United States Supreme Court is poised to issue an edict that women are no longer masters of their own bodies, and following the release of this information, Thomas reasons we have to "live" with it.

We can hope that recent disobedience to what Thomas terms an "outcome" will be the beginning of massive civil disobedience, transparency from the Court, and resulting reform that will include mandates that every oral argument, judicial memo and correspondence be revealed to the American people in as close to real-time as possible.

The institutional narcissism and unparalleled arrogance of the judicial branch, working for the police and totalitarian movements needs to come to an end.

Steven Avery Attorney: 'Huge Amount of New Evidence' Coming in Making a Murderer Case

Liberty Leading the People, by Eugene Delacroix (1830).

Liberty Rights of Innocent Falling in the Regressive State

Updated - MADISON, WIS — As public faith in the Wisconsin and federal criminal justice systems remains low, the attorney for the once-exonerated Steven Avery will file a new legal petition containing a "huge amount of new evidence," an announcement reads today.

Just in case any of you are wondering we are working as hard as ever on Steven Avery’s case. We will be filing a new petition with a huge amount of new evidence. We will never give up pounding on the doors of justice for him.

@MakingAMurderer #TruthWins

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) January 11, 2022

The case is State of Wisconsin v Steven Avery, featured in the Emmy-winning Making a Murderer docuseries.

Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, were convicted of first-degree homicide for the 2005 murder of a young photographer, Teresa Halbach. Both men are serving life sentences.

The coming Avery-Zellner filing follows a Nov 2021 defeat at the Wisconsin Supreme Court that refused to hear a petition, in accordance with the Wisconsin Judiciary's abdication of its role as guardians of civil liberties and defendant rights.

Most see the Avery-Dassey saga as revenge prosecutions in Manitowoc and Calumet counties, an insular region of the state known for small-town justice — injustice.

Steven Avery's real crime was to be exonerated for a 1985 wrongful conviction, and then file a federal civil rights action against Manitowoc County, known locally as "corruption county." 

The State of Wisconsin needed corroboration of allegations in its frame-up against Avery in 2003, so in a grotesque action in 2005-06, threw an innocent 16-year-old Dassey into legal fires, with no consideration given to the fact Brendan Dassey was demonstrably innocent.

Now, the Avery and Dassey cases have become partisan lightening rods as leading Wisconsin Democratic Party officeholders, including Gov. Tony Evers (D) and Attorney General Joshua Kaul (D), have worked to block evidentiary hearings the publicly challenge rampant law enforcement misconduct

In a legal spectacle in the Spring 2021, Thomas Sowinski of Manitowoc swore in a statement that he saw the prosecution's key trial witness plant the murder victim's RAV4 vehicle on the property of Steven Avery.

In other words, a credible resident swears he caught conspirators red-handed in a frame-up scheme in Wisconsin's infamous murder case drawing headlines in state post-conviction litigation.

Sowinski appears the stuff of movies — maybe, some mused, in response Wisconsin's new attorney general would seek to vacate two murder convictions, amid a vow to clean up law enforcement in east-central Wisconsin.

DOJ delay strategy

The Wisconsin Dept of Justice quickly responded on April 16 to the Sowinski statement.

The DOJ filing includes unfounded accusations challenging attorney Zellner's ethics, and a bizarre statement complaining about the fact that Avery spotlights more prosecutorial misconduct for allegedly withholding exculpatory evidence — a Brady violation.

This is the same tactic launched at Zellner by the State of Missouri in her successful exoneration of Ryan Ferguson.

The DOJ asserted that the sheer multiplicity of alleged Brady violations in the record should be read against the defense.

Avery's attorney, Zellner, reacted with restrained outrage.

Zellner replied to the Court on April 22, 2021: "It is a supreme irony that in one of the most blatant examples of a wrongful conviction the State's only response is to falsely accuse Mr. Avery's lead counsel of nefarious conduct for discovering a 6th Brady violation. Rather than seeking justice, the State wants to 'slay the messenger' by putting forth more false allegations, a skill that it has mastered over the last 16 years. The State turns a blind eye towards its past actions of withholding exculpatory evidence."

The Democratic-led DOJ said nothing about the substance of Sowinski's sworn statement, or that the prosecution apparently failed to notify the defense about this witness after he contacted the Manitowoc Sheriff's department in 2005.

The defamatory ethics violation accusation against Zellner was quickly disconfirmed by Zellner and the DOJ never mentioned the matter again, failing to apologize and straighten out the record.

Dems stand with police

Why is the Democratic-led DOJ defending the work of Kenneth R. Kratz, former Calumet County District Attorney, (1992-2010), who was forced to resign in disgrace in 2010 for outrageous conduct in 2009, just two years after prosecuting the Avery-Dassey cases?

Kratz is self-described as suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, sexual compulsion disorder and multiple drug addictions.

Kratz described himself a "dick" for his work as district attorney in which he claimed he could not help himself harassing crime victims because of his disorders for which he was undergoing professional treatment, amid an allegation he possibly assaulted a woman.

Wisconsin Democratic Party officials, Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Joshua Kaul, have made the political decision to work for law enforcement, even Ken Kratz, against the wrongfully convicted.

This is political liberalism at its most vicious and irrational.

One month into his term in 2019, Kaul filed legal responses signaling the DOJ would stall Avery's  possible exoneration by filing procedural objections.

The quality of mercy towards the innocent appears to be exhausted under the warrant of Wisconsin Democrats.
--
Why are demonstrably innocent peoples' lives being destroyed in Wisconsin? 

Why do so many accept what the Wisconsin Judiciary and criminal justice system are doing?

It's an old story: See Milton Mayer's They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (University of Chicago Press. ©1955).

Mayer, an American Jewish writer who had gone to Germany in the 1930s, made friends with 10 people, all of whom were members of the NAZI Party. He found them courteous, funny, genuine human beings whom he called "friends."

They were also fools and certainly were guilty.

---
From Milton Mayer:

But Then It Was Too Late

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government. ..."

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security."

This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter."

"You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time." ...

Wisconsin Supreme Court Denies Steven Avery Hearing; Court Follows Democrat Request

Wisconsin Supreme Court protects law enforcement
corruption, misconduct in denying Steven Avery petition.

Updated: Madison, Wisconsin — The attempted destruction of Steven Avery by the state of Wisconsin is proceeding apace.

Attorneys received notification of an expected denial of Avery's Aug. 25, 2021 Petition for Review from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on Nov 17, 2021. 

Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, were convicted of first-degree homicide in Wisconsin in 2007 for the murder of a young photographer, Teresa Halbach.

The case is State of Wisconsin v Steven Avery, featured in the Emmy-winning Making a Murderer docuseries.  

The once-exonerated Steven Avery faces a vendetta from multiple foes, including the Wisconsin Democratic leadership, corrupt law enforcement and the Wisconsin Judiciary which has largely abdicated its role as protector of individual Constitutional rights in favor of covering for police misconduct.

The short Court statement includes no dissents, no explanation and no stated reasoning of the decision deliberated in secret. 

"It is ordered that the petition for review is denied," reads the statement, not housed on a public website.

Replied Zellner:

Steven is just beginning. What lies ahead —a habeas petition w/ fed. court,a new petition w/circuit court on evidence appellate ct. left undecided, a new reward offer by our amazing benefactor. We’ve just finished warming up in the first inning @MakingAMurderer

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) November 19, 2021

This lack of reasoning, lack of transparency, as well as materiel misstatement of facts and history by judges in this case continue to cast doubt on the decisions and the credibility of the Wisconsin judicatory.

This denial is the high court protecting the reputation of the criminal justice system and the Wisconsin Judiciary, and the public's job is to watch as innocent men remain is prison.

Avery seeks a public evidentiary hearing on new exculpatory evidence that was hidden by the prosecution for the purpose of blocking material facts pointing to Avery's innocence. 

He also seeks a new trial, reasoning that the non-existent case for his guilt combined with the clear law enforcement misconduct would make the scandal of another guilty trial verdict impossible.

The next step for Avery is to seek redress in federal court, or file in County Circuit Court.

The sheer number of documented Brady violations and other law reinforcement misconduct make refiling in County Court an easy matter.

In a legal spectacle in Spring 2021, Thomas Sowinski of Manitowoc swore in a statement that he saw the prosecution's key trial witness plant the murder victim's RAV4 vehicle on the property of the man convicted of homicide in 2007.

In other words, a credible resident swears he caught conspirators red-handed in a frame-up scheme in Wisconsin's infamous murder case drawing headlines in State post-conviction litigation.

The response of the DOJ was to invent an ethical violation of atty Kathleen Zellner's, and ignore the new evidence instead of launching an investigation and agreeing to an evidentiary hearing.

It is now conventional wisdom that the Wisconsin Judiciary enjoys no more credibility than, for example, the judiciary of Russia or Brazil.

Democrat-led Wisconsin Dept of Justice Is Terrified of Evidence Hearing in Making a Murderer Case

Eugene Higgins, The Black Cloud, oil on canvas,
Smithsonian American Art Museum

Democrats Block Public Light on Police Misconduct

Madison, Wisconsin — Misstatements, defamation, and refusal to address merits of Steven Avery's legal quest for a second exoneration define Democrat-led Dept of Justice misconduct in post-conviction litigation in State of Wisconsin v. Steven A. Avery, (Appeal Number 2017AP002288).

Unreported in Wisconsin corporate media is the fact the DOJ has gone to unprecedented lengths to block a hearing on law enforcement misconduct that helped frame two innocent Wisconsin men. The State strategy is to delay, defame and make political appeals to corrupt judges and other Wisconsin Democrats who have made the state the worst place to be innocent.

"If Mr. Avery's conviction truly has integrity it will withstand the scrutiny of an evidentiary hearing. Without such scrutiny the question of the integrity and fairness of Mr. Avery's trial hangs like a dark cloud over the Wisconsin criminal justice system," writes Avery attorney, Kathleen Zellner in his Aug 2021 petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, (p. 9).

Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, were convicted of first-degree homicide in Wisconsin in 2007 for the murder of a young photographer, Teresa Halbach.

Avery is appealing to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in post-conviction litigation, seeking a new trial or an evidentiary heating in his August 2021 petition.

Since assuming office as attorney general in 2019, Democrat Joshua Kaul has acted perversely in opposition to requested hearings on evidence, garnering disbelief from advocates for the wrongfully convicted and human rights activists.

Kaul is defending the bad work of the odious Ken Kratz, who admits numerous pathologies during his tenure as Calumet County District Attorney to explain away sexual and ethical misconduct in office, before being driven from office, and later resigning his license to practice law in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin attorney Jerome F. Buting has been practicing law here for 40 years. Buting has seen a lot in his practice.

But even Buting was apparently shocked by the conduct of the Democrat Dept of Justice — defying fairness and any sense that a defendant should obtain legal recourse to misconduct — blocking an evidentiary hearing.

Writes Buting on social media after the DOJ penned a bizarre response to Avery's petition before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, a DOJ reponse since publicly rebutted by Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner, devastating the DOJ.

WI’s phobia of an evidentiary hearing in Avery’s case can only be because they know truth would be revealed. Better to cover up #corruptiwoc than seek real justice. But it will only increase public distrust of American justice. #makingamurderer #illusionofjustice #brokensystem

— Jerome Buting (@JButing) September 9, 2021

State’s response to Avery’s @ZellnerLaw petition opposes SCOW review, claiming SA was not treated differently because his case was “the subject of a television show.”
Really? In no other case has WI fought so desperately to avoid any evidentiary hearing. https://t.co/xa4AdS69zX

— Jerome Buting (@JButing) September 9, 2021

It would be difficult for the Wisconsin Judiciary to fall any lower than it has.

The Wisconsin Judiciary has demonstrated that as a branch of government it is no longer an impartial body. Wisconsin courts can be counted on to take the side of corrupt police and dishonest prosecutors no matter how blatant the misconduct in criminal justice litigation.

It is expected in the innocence community that the Democratic-aligned appellate judges — Lisa S. Neubauer and Jeffrey O. Davis — would brush aside state misconduct to politically support Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Joshua Kaul, who work against the innocent.

Both Evers and Kaul are running for reelection in 2022, and a scandal implicating Democratic Party elected officials would likely prove disastrous to the Party, so Party functionaries on the bench and other branches are trying to bury Steven Avery.

Moreover, in the Avery case, Kaul's mother, Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager (2003-2007), was deep into covering for Manitowoc County's misconduct after the first wrongful conviction of Avery. Attorney General Kaul is covering for his Mother's old flacking for crooked police.

Wisconsin's evidence preservation law

One illustration of the DOJ and Democratic judges' perfidy concerns the State's returning the murder victim's remains to the Halbach family, a law enforcement scheme revealed when Avery sought to conduct DNA testing, and found out the bones had been destroyed without notice to him, in violation of Wisconsin's evidence preservation law.

Flaunting the evidence preservation law, in 2011 Calumet County Sheriff Deputy Jeremy Hawkins, Mark Wiegert,and DoJ Attorneys Thomas Fallon and Norman Gahn secretly sneaked the remains of Ms. Halbach, and illegally transported the bones to the Halbach family.

The State previously suggested to the Appellate Court in its Dec. 2018 filing that Avery and Zellner drop their appeal without the State ever having "admitted or disclosed that it had given the bones back to the Halbach family in 2011 [illegally] without notice to Mr. Avery or his counsel," notes Zellner in her Feb. 2019 legal filing.

In other words, law enforcement hid evidence it claims is the murder victim, destroyed this evidence, hid the destruction, lied about the destruction, then claimed the evidence cannot be determined to be exculpatory because it has been destroyed.

In short, the State acted in bad faith at every turn.

Even the prosecutor-biased Judge Angela W. Sutkiewicz acknowledges in 2020 what Zellner uncovered: Writes Sutkiewicz: "The report of Deputy [Jeremy] Hawkins indicates that he, Sergeant Investigator Mark Wiegert, Attorney Thoman Fallon and Attorney Norman Gahn removed materials stored in evidence, and released them to the Halbach family," (p 2).

The Appellate Court hearing the case in July 2021, however, divined, "The Halbach family requested these bone fragments for purposes  of  its  own—likely  for  closure ... ."

Yet, even the DOJ's Thoman Fallon and Norman Gahn who implemented the scheme disconfirm this attempt by the Court, contriving a State-Halbach family scheme, to cover for illegal evidence destruction.

Fallon and Gahn argue that the evidence they helped destroy was "inexplicably released" from the Calumet County Sheriff’s Department’s evidence control unit, March 29, 2019 legal filing, (p 13).

Fallon and Gahn, in effect, assert Fallon and Gahn cannot explain why they released and destroyed the evidence, and state nothing about the Court-invented 'family did it' offering by the appellate court.

This 'Halbach family did it' invention appears nothing so much as a public signal to the Halbach family to speak up and get on board with the lie of moment.

"Inexplicably released" is of course a disingenuous characterization for the illegal destruction of evidence that not only implicates Fallon, Gahn and Wiegert, but also is a clear violation of the Due Process Clause, and is a Brady violation under Wisconsin judicial doctrine.

Lost in all the Court and DOJ lies is the fact an innocent man is litigating for his very life.

Making a Murderer — Dark Cloud Hangs over Wisconsin Judiciary Amid Corruption Concerns

The once exonerated Steven Avery faces
his most malicious enemy in the
Democratic Party and a corrupt
Wisconsin Judiciary that has abdicated
its duty to act with impartiality. Damage,
destruction are the aims against Avery
and his nephew who have committed a
mortal sin in Wisconsin: Fighting back
against state violence and corrupt cops.

Avery Seeks New Trial and Evidentiary Hearing in a Corrupt State Court System

Commentary

Update II: Rebuttal to State's Response in Opposition of Mr. Avery's Petition. This is a devastating public explanation that the DOJ undoubtedly will misrepresent amid its posturing that there is nothing to see here.

Updated: Madison, Wisconsin — Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, were convicted of first-degree homicide in Wisconsin in 2007 for the murder of a young photographer, Teresa Halbach. 

Both men are serving life sentences following much criticized investigations and trials held in east-central Wisconsin, known locally for small-town justice and police corruption.

Avery is appealing to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in post-conviction litigation, seeking a new trial and an evidentiary heating in his August petition.

The case is State of Wisconsin v Steven Avery, featured in the Emmy-winning Making a Murderer docuseries.

But the once-exonerated Steven Avery faces a vendetta from multiple foes, including the Wisconsin Democratic leadership, corrupt law enforcement and the Wisconsin Judiciary which has largely abdicated its role as protector of individual Constitutional rights in favor of covering for police misconduct.

Yesterday, the Wisconsin DoJ filed a response opposing Steven Avery's petition for a hearing before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Avery seeks a public evidentiary hearing on new evidence that was hidden by the prosecution for the purpose of blocking material facts pointing to Avery's innocence. He also seeks a new trial, reasoning that the non-existent case for his guilt combined with the clear law enforcement misconduct would make the spectacle of another guilty trial verdict impossible.

Notes attorney Jerome Buting: "State’s response to Avery’s @ZellnerLaw petition opposes SCOW review, claiming SA was not treated differently because his case was 'the subject of a television show.' Really? In no other case has WI fought so desperately to avoid any evidentiary hearing."

At each point is his post-conviction litigation, the State DOJ has blocked, delayed, deterred and opposed Avery's quest for his second exoneration.

A reader ought consider this whole affair is not akin to sick, ole-boy Louisiana corruption. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma and Missouri have nothing on Wisconsin police-prosecutor corruption, more insidious than any conduct our fellows to the South can conjure.

Few believe in the impartiality of the Wisconsin Judiciary which is capable of doing anything in service to a corrupt police force.

WI’s phobia of an evidentiary hearing in Avery’s case can only be because they know truth would be revealed. Better to cover up #corruptiwoc than seek real justice. But it will only increase public distrust of American justice. #makingamurderer #illusionofjustice #brokensystem

— Jerome Buting (@JButing) September 9, 2021

Wisconsin has a nefarious cast of characters in law enforcement, but the Avery and Dassey cases approach the demented.

Kenneth R. Kratz, former Calumet County District Attorney, (1992-2010), was forced to resign in disgrace in 2010 for outrageous sexual misconduct in 2009, perhaps earlier, just two years after prosecuting the Avery-Dassey cases.

Kratz is self-described as suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, sexual compulsion disorder and multiple drug addictions.

But the Wisconsin DoJ has defended the work of this same repulsive figure Kratz in Avery's post-conviction litigation, instead of launching an investigation into Wisconsin law enforcement, Kratz and other prosecutors' subsequent conduct to determine the reliability of convictions.

"The State ... conveys an attitude of impunity for its past actions of withholding exculpatory evidence and its current action of continuing the concealment of its destruction of potentially exculpatory or useful evidence," writes Avery attorney, Kathleen Zellner in 2019 in a legal filing in appellate court.

The State of Wisconsin DoJ did worse in post-conviction litigation than convey an attitude of impunity. The DoJ has chided the defense for bringing multiple Brady violations to the attention of the Court, so strong is the prosecution's confidence that the Court will sustain the DoJ's positions.

Avery's attorney, Zellner, reacted with restrained outrage this posture.

Zellner replied to the Court on April 22, 2021: "It is a supreme irony that in one of the most blatant examples of a wrongful conviction the State's only response is to falsely accuse Mr. Avery's lead counsel of nefarious conduct for discovering a 6th Brady violation. Rather than seeking justice, the State wants to 'slay the messenger' by putting forth more false allegations, a skill that it has mastered over the last 16 years. The State turns a blind eye toward its past actions of withholding exculpatory evidence."

On July 28, 2021, the Court of Appeals (Dist II), delivered a results-oriented decision and opinion so blatant in adopting the State's errors that lay parties revealed the decision to be rife with misstatement, and misinterpretation of evidence (Reddit). Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner, followed up with a petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court some four weeks later.

On Sept 8, 2021, when the DoJ filed its response opposing Avery's petition for a hearing before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and the large pro-Avery community around the world reacted with gasps and disgust.

This DOJ posture, haughty and disingenuous, raises the question, if the State is so certain that its conviction of Avery and Brendan Dassey are on the level, why does it oppose bringing the case to light before the State high court, an evidentiary hearing, and a new trial?

Avery advocates have noted that the DOJ failed to even challenge Avery's arguments in its response, instead taking on the tone of how dare you challenge the integrity of this conviction?

Attorney Zellner, who has seen every type of State depravity in her practice around the country freeing dozens of wrongfully convicted persons, seemed shook by the pathological tone of the Democrat-led Dept of Justice's latest filing that reads more like a politcal document subtly calling for Party loyalty that a legal filing made in good faith.

Zellner sent out three tweets, deleted two, before she noted: "If we had wanted to re-read the same error filled COA decision again we could have. The State’s Regurgitation Response addresses none of the errors —it just repeats them. Justice delayed again for Steven Avery."

If we had wanted to re-read the same error filled COA decision again we could have. The State’s Regurgitation Response addresses none of the errors —it just repeats them. Justice delayed again for Steven Avery. @MakingAMurderer

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) September 9, 2021

This is Wisconsin.

This is where Martin Lipske, a contemptible District Attorney in Iron County in northern Wisconsin, was driven into retirement just before Lipske fronted for child trafficking schemes.

So, the Wisconsin District Attorney Association named Lipske Prosecutor of the Year for the Department of Justice in 2016, and awarded Lipske the E. Michael McCann Award from the DA Association. 

The Wisconsin Judiciary cannot be counted on to police corrupt law enforcement, certainly not an odious figure like Kratz and the Democrat-led Wisconsin Dept of Justice.

Behind the scenes, the DOJ's attempt to rewrite the state's Brady doctrine will figure into this case.

The four Republicans on the Wisconsin Supreme Court are Avery's hope as Wisconsin Democrats will do their worst to protect wrongful convictions of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey.

The DOJ dismissal of a Brady violation claim is preposterous, for instance, that even the DOJ notes features the defense failure to raise an issue of omission to which the defense was never alerted.

Would love to know how Avery was supposed to raise the destroyed bones argument in his 2013, when they were given back to the family in 2011 and none of his post-conviction attorney's knew about it.

I'd like to see any documentation he was alerted to this screw-up by the state. pic.twitter.com/0Xmy0P32w5

— TickTockManitowoc (@TManitowoc) September 8, 2021

Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul: For Cops, by Cops

Kenosha cops beat on the people in 2020

Madison, Wisconsin —  Attorney General Joshua Kaul (D) loves cops so much and he is so tough, he works to keep innocents in prison.

At a time when our country is questioning law enforcement, Wisconsin's Democratic leadership is working against the people, for the police, no questions asked.

Kaul brandished his experience as a prosecutor and delivered his message on the Up Front Sunday political show.

It's the same political playbook used by Kaul's mother, former Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager (2003-2007): Take the power of the state against the people, squash them, and take what you can as a politician.

As for the people who get squashed by the police from Milwaukee to Wauwatosa to Appleton to Manitowoc to Kenosha — they're shit out of luck.

It's like this in Wisconsin: As families work to keep their dreams alive, Kaul is working for the cops to destroy lives.

Politically what happens next to Democratic prosecutors looking to cash in by running tough on people campaigns is unknown.

Working against the people didn't work for Kamala Harris' presidential bid: "Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors," notes Lara Bazelon.

But Kaul is worse than Harris ever was in defending wrongful convictions.

My prediction is the little shit is going to get squashed in 2022.

Dolores Avery — Dead from a Broken Heart

Madison, Wisconsin — Dolores Avery, the mother of the once-exonerated Steven Avery, passed away this morning.

Mrs. Avery is featured in the Emmy-winning Making a Murderer docuseries, shown contending with the ordeal of her son in his battle with dubious law enforcement, as an apparent frame-up scheme by Wisconsin law enforcement devastates her family in 2005.

Steven was exonerated and released in 2003 after an earlier frame-up scheme in 1985 was exposed by the Innocence Project.

After Steven Avery filed a federal civil rights suit, law enforcement took unusual notice of Avery, singling him out as a perpetrator for the 2005 murder of a young photographer, Teresa Halbach.

The Making a Murderer docuseries offers a poignant look at Dolores Avery, distraught and helpless as law enforcement targets and convicts her son and grandson, Brendan Dassey.

Dolores was known locally as a kind-hearted and principled woman who died never understanding why law enforcement and now the Wisconsin Democratic Party leadership worked so hard to imprison a man whom they know to be innocent.

The world-wide community supporting Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey appears to be grieving today.

Avery is awaiting the decision in state appellate court on several pending motions.

Viewers of Making a Murderer were compelled to feel the pain and suffering of Mr. and Mrs. Avery.

Both come off as salt-of-the-earth and bewildered by the massive and onerous Wisconsin legal system that separated their family until Dolores Avery's death.

I don't think I've ever been more affected by the passing of a person I've never met. 😢 She dedicated years of her life trying to prove Steven's innocence. My condolences to the Avery family. 👼 RIP Dolores#MakingAMurderer#FreeStevenAvery

— Tammy Collins (@TammyCo78496172) July 8, 2021

A mother who fought so hard to see justice for her son Steven & her grandson Brendan. My condolences to the family & to Steven & Brendan who will grieve this immeasurable loss without the comfort of family & with the anger of their distance. RIP Mama Avery you stole our hearts. https://t.co/l7zrbYKEsD

— Tracy Keogh (@TracyKeogh2) July 8, 2021

Update: Fate dealt another cruel blow to Steven Avery today right before his birthday tomorrow; his mother Dolores Avery passed away at 6:50 am. He needs your support now more than ever. RIP Ma Avery ⁦@MakingAMurderer⁩ pic.twitter.com/FsmL8XTYxN

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) July 8, 2021

Making a Murderer Steven Avery Waits, as State Appellate Court ... Vacations? Sunbathes? Drinks Cold Beer?

State of Wisconsin v Steven Avery

Madison, Wisconsin —The once-exonerated Steven Avery awaits a ruling in his post-conviction litigation in state appellate court as he fights his second apparent frame-up scheme at the hands of Wisconsin law enforcement.

Little cause exists to expect the prosecution-friendly Wisconsin judiciary to impartially issue a ruling, but the courtesy of a speedy resolution to pending motions and other filings appears too much to wish for as well.

The case is State of Wisconsin v Steven Avery, featured in the Emmy-winning Making a Murderer docuseries.

Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, were convicted of first-degree homicide for the 2005 murder of a young photographer, Teresa Halbach. Both men are serving life sentences.

In April, a credible resident, Thomas Sowinski, came forward and swore he caught conspirators red-handed in a frame-up scheme, witnessing the prosecution's key trial witness plant the murder victim's RAV4 vehicle on the property of the man, Avery, convicted of homicide in 2007.

The innocence community fears the corrupt Wisconsin judiciary is crafting an opinion to deny a hearing, much less a new trial, after this spectacular new evidence.

Write a letter of support today to Steven Avery—he is super depressed the COA has taken so long. You can make a difference—contact him please!!! ⁦@MakingAMurderer⁩ #TruthWins pic.twitter.com/Ytxs5C6M5O

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) July 6, 2021

The Democratic Party leadership, Wisconsin Democratic Party officials, Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Joshua Kaul, has made the political decision to work for law enforcement, even the odious and disgraced Avery prosecutor, Kenneth R. Kratz, against the wrongfully convicted.

There are two Republican judges, (Paul F. Reilly and Mark D. Gundrum) and two Democratic judges, (Lisa S. Neubauer, Jeffrey O. Davis) on  Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District II.

The Court's decision and opinion in Avery will be political, crafted to whatever is perceived to be in the political interests of the judges, as facts and Constitutional rights fall by the wayside.

Avery Update: Still waiting for Court of Appeals decision. @MakingAMurderer

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) July 4, 2021

So, Wisconsin and Avery wait.