Wisconsin Presidential Election Is too Important to Be Left in Voters' Hands

Left Unexplained: How 2,177 Signatures on Green Party Nomination Disappeared

Madison, Wisconsin — Voter obstruction, dark money, corruption in public office; Democrats are adopting the ways of the Republican Party.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered another political decision yesterday that attacks a foundational right of citizens to organize and place a candidate of their choosing on the ballot for voters' consideration.

In this case — Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker v. Wisconsin Elections Commission (No.  2020AP1488-OA) — the beneficiaries are the Democratic Party and their cheerleaders, Democratic-aligned election officials.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an instantly infamous 4-3 decision that denied the Green Party petition challenging the Wisconsin Elections Commission staff decision that was imbued with the force of law, in error, by a Commission administrator.

The Green Party and its Wisconsin citizen supporters wanted the Green Party's presidential and vice-presidential candidates to appear on the General Election ballot.

In Dane County, Democratic Party-aligned municipal and county election officials issued several communications on social media specifically implying a preference in the Howie Hawkins - Green Party petition (litigation) before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

For example, some 25 minutes before the Supreme Court released its decision, the Madison City Clerk signaled its office's desire to mail out the specific ballots for which the Democratic Party fought — without the Green Party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees.

Writes the Madison City Clerk in its official Twitter feed:

A big thank you to the poll workers who have labeled absentee envelopes for 79,958 @CityofMadisonvoters. Once we are given the go-ahead to put ballots in the mail, track the status your absentee at https://myvote.wi.gov. #MadisonVotes2020

This and other local officials' communications make clear the Democratic Party-aligned election officials' preference on ballots, though Hawkins was being adjudicated after a Green Party petition to the Court. [See The Rachel Maddow Show, for example, for reporting on election clerks' stated preference on which ballot they mail out: With Green Party or without Green Party. Maddow's piece calls the Green Party and Wisconsin citizen efforts to place a candidate on the ballot a "scam," a position that is the consensus among Democratic Party allies (see Court foils Republican Green Party scam to sap Democratic votes).]

Election officials had no business expressing a ballot preference. This calls into question their neutrality in administering elections without bias when these same officials' political survival is contingent on the Party, the Democratic Party, that instigated dubious administrative action against the Democrats' political opponent.

Local officials should not express or even appear to imply desired outcomes of litigation that involve any private political party whose material benefit is dependent on the Court opinion and order.

Put another way, local election officials should have zipped it and let the litigation proceed without public, social-media comment.

But fealty to the Democratic Party outweighs the needs for unbiased administrations of elections, so social media communications rife with political positions were emitted, and traditional watchdogs were silent.

Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker v. Wisconsin Elections Commission

The Court issued blistering dissents to the majority opinion that let stand the decision of Wisconsin Elections Commission staff that sustained a Democratic Party complaint against the Hawkins-Green Party nomination paperwork.

One dissent written by Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack lays out why the Commission is in error and the concern that the liberty interests of Wisconsin citizens and voters should be taken into consideration in administrative and Court deliberation.

In normal functioning of the Commission, a complaint against a nomination is evaluated, an advisory memo is prepared by staff, and the commissioners vote.

Well, the commissioners voted on the complaint and it did not pass. No matter, the complaint was accepted with the force of law.

Writes Justice Roggensack in part:

¶19 It is important for the public to know that there are election  laws  that  bear  on  [Allen] Arntsen's  challenge,  which  the Commission refused to follow.  First, the Commission was required to presume that the addresses listed on the nomination papers were the  correct  addresses  for  the  dates  listed  because  Wis.  Admin. Code § EL 2.05(4) requires that "[a]ny information which appears on a nomination paper is entitled to a presumption of validity."Section EL 2.07(1) confirms that the Commission "shall apply the standards in § EL 2.05 to determine the sufficiency of nomination papers."Second, § EL 2.07(3)(a) requires that "[t]he burden is on the challenger to establish any insufficiency."

¶20 Here, Arntsen's challenge was based on "information and belief."He had no personal knowledge of where Walker lived on what date; therefore his allegation is insufficient to overturn the presumption that the addresses listed on the nomination papers are correct.  Since Crane v. Wiley, 14 Wis. 658 (1861), we have held  that  allegations  based  upon  information  and  belief  in  a complaint  make  a  verification  insufficient  for  material  facts.  However,  the  Commission's  votes  showed  it  did  not  honor  the presumption of the nomination papers' facts as Wis. Admin. Code §EL 2.05(4) requires; it did not require Arntsen to prove that the  addresses  on  the  nomination  papers  were  incorrect  as  §EL 2.07(3)(a) requires; and it treated Arntsen's allegations made on information and belief as if they proved that Walker's address was incorrect on more than 1,800 nomination papers.   

 ¶21Mérida appeared on behalf of the Green Party candidates at the August 20, 2020 Commission meeting to present evidence about the dates that Walker lived at each address, as legal counsel for the Commission told her she could do.2However, Ann Jacobs, who served as chair of the Commission, prevented the presentation of evidence about the dates of Walker's move.  The Commission then voted  6-0  to  sustain  Arntsen's  challenge  to  57  signatures  and rejected  it  for  48  signatures.    The  Commission  also  voted  on whether  to  sustain  Arntsen's  challenge  to  1,834  signatures  on nomination papers that contained Walker's earlier address.  The Commission  deadlocked,  with  3  Democratic  appointees  voting  to sustain Arntsen's challenge and 3 Republican appointees voting to deny it.  Therefore, Arntsen failed to meet his burden to prove 2The   meeting   can   be   viewed   in   its   entirety   at https://wiseye.org/2020/08/20/wisconsin-elections-commission-special-teleconferencemeeting-10/.   any  insufficiency  of  the  addresses  for  Walker  listed  on  the nomination papers.  Wis. Admin. Code § EL 2.07(3)(a).  At that point, the Green Party candidates had 3,909 presumptively valid signatures pursuant to §EL 2.05(4) (3,966 filed less 57 signatures rejected by the Commission).

 ¶22However, notwithstanding the Commission's vote on August 20, 2020, on August 21, 2020, the Commission Administrator sent Hawkins and Walker a letter stating that since the Commission had certified a total of only 1,789 signatures, less than the 2,000 required for ballot access, Hawkins' and Walker's names would not be on the ballot for the November 3, 2020 general election.  There is no explanation in that communication about how the Commission disallowed an additional 2,177 signatures that were presumptively valid after the Commission voted to invalidate only 57 of the 3,966 signatures  submitted.    The  Commission  Administrator  must  have treated  Arntsen's  challenge  to  1,834  signatures  as  having  been proved, even though the Commission had voted not to sustain his challenge. 

¶23 On  August  26,  2020,  the  Commission  certified  the independent  candidates  for  President  and  Vice President.    On September 1, 2020, the Commission certified the party candidates for  President  and  Vice President  to  the  county  clerks.    The September 1, 2020 communication notified the county clerks of the legal challenge to ballot access that had been filed by Kanye West and Michelle Tidball and that there were media statements from the Green Party candidates that they intended to file a court action to gain ballot access.  Therefore, at least by September 1, 2020, the county clerks knew that the Commission's certification may not be the final ballot for the November 3, 2020 general election.

¶24 The  Green  Party  filed  suit  seeking  ballot  access  on September 3, 2020.  Perhaps, the Green Party could have filed suit on August 26, 2020, when the Commission certified the independent candidates.    However,  lawsuits  take  time  to  gather  relevant documents  and  affidavits  needed  to  proceed .    In  addition,  the county  clerks  were  on  notice  from  September  1,  2020,  when  the Commission  certified  the  final  ballot  for  the  November  3,  2020 election, that the Green Party would likely file suit and that Kanye West already had filed suit for ballot access.

¶25 This lawsuit is not about the Green Party sleeping on its rights.  It is about the treatment that independent candidates from  a  small  political  party  received  from  the  Commission,  who repeatedly refused to follow the law relative to nomination papers.

¶26 It has been said that transparency is the best medicine for curbing governmental practices that abuse the rights of those who  must  interact  with  government.    The  Commission  ignored  its legal  obligations  under  Wis.  Admin.  Code  §§EL  2.05(4)  and  EL 2.07(3)(a), and in so doing it suppressed the rights of voters to choose Green Party candidates for President and Vice President.  The court's Order is silent on the Commission's unlawful conduct and imposes no consequences for what it has done.  The court's silence not only affirms lawless conduct by the Commission, but also provides no directive for the required treatment of nomination papers in the future.  

¶27Silently affirming lawless conduct that has been brought to the court's attention is an abdication of the court's obligation to  stand  with  the  law,  even  when  doing  so  is  uncomfortable.  Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the Order and join the opinion of Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler that follows.
#

The national Green Party press release is reproduced in full below:

Greens Denounce Wisconsin Supreme Court Decision

(Syracuse, NY – September 14, 2020) Green Party nominees for President and Vice President, Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker, rejected the decision handed down earlier today by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to deny placing them on the November 2020 ballot.  The Green Party has been on the ballot in Wisconsin for every presidential election since 1996.

Several years ago, the workers of Wisconsin occupied the state capitol building with shouts of “this is what democracy looks like.”  Angela Walker mobilized her Milwaukee transit workers local union into that defense of workers’ rights.  Unfortunately, today, the state Supreme Court demonstrated something completely different from what most people consider to be democracy: a choice on their ballot.

“The court majority failed to recognize the partisan Wisconsin Election Commission’s repeated unlawful actions, said Andrea Mérida, campaign manager.” Mérida continued, “now we have a dangerous precedent where a major party can effectively decide which minor parties can participate in elections, by conjuring up arbitrary requirements on the fly to remove its opposition. Regardless, the fact remains that we met all of the legal requirements for ballot access and followed the WEC’s instructions to the letter with regards to Angela Walker’s change of residence.”

“We were screwed. As the dissenting opinion explains, the actual facts and the law show that we are qualified for the ballot. Partisan hacks should not be running elections for their own parties. They set up the absentee ballot snafu. The decision is a travesty of justice,” said Hawkins.

“Our campaign rejects the idea that we should be punished for what the court majority considers an untimely legal response.  As noted in the dissenting opinion, our campaign filed only two days after the Commission certified their list of independent candidates.  As a working-class campaign that cannot afford attorneys on retainer, unlike the two major parties, it takes time for us to find legal representation, formulate a response and file documents,” Angela Walker said.

The campaign is currently weighing its legal options, and Wisconsinites may now have to write-in Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker in order to vote for the only presidential ticket that fights for a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and fair elections and ballot access. The campaign vows to continue to fight alongside the Wisconsin Green Party to regain its ballot status, which will require one percent of the statewide vote, or about 20,000 votes.

###

See also:

Central Wisconsin Vows to Continue Fight Against Proposed Factory Farm after Supreme Court Defeat

 An activist rightwing Wisconsin Supreme Court bends
law to arrive at a decision green-lighting a proposed
massive factory farm in central Wisconsin.

'No amount of compromise worth risking the health, safety, and welfare of our citizens,' says Saratoga Concerned, a Wisconsin citizens' group

Saratoga Concerned and allied clean water groups may be the most powerful citizen-action Wisconsin phenomenon since the peace movement.

These central Wisconsin residents appear injured and not surprised by the Wisconsin Supreme Court's 5-2 decision in favor of a proposed factory farm.

Looking for meaning in a corrupt court's decision appears a fool's game. But here goes.

The Court decision by Republican justices in Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga implies a new legal doctrine, (not acknowledged by state jurists because it suggests corruption), that broadly stated elevates a general claim of corporate vested property rights through the inclusion of a vague reference to 'land' in a state building permit application, against community zoning power.

The corrupt decision is revealed in the dissenting opinion of Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson joined by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, though the implication is subtle:

Today, the majority expands the Building Permit Rule to create vested rights to  particular uses of land so long as the land is 'specifically identified' in the building permit application.

This ill-advised expansion of the Building Permit Rule sacrifices the important public policies that the Building Permit Rule was designed to encourage, namely, 'predictability for land owners, purchasers, developers, municipalities, and the courts.'

Golden Sands is not an expansion of the Building Permit Rule, it's a perversion and warping of the Building Permit Rule. Put simply, property owners must strictly conform to applicable zoning regulations except when they don't.

Abrahamson and Walsh Bradley suggest as much in footnote 7 of their dissent, (p. 3):

At  the  time  Golden  Sands  submitted  its  building  permit application, the land at issue was enrolled in the DNR's Managed Forest Land  program, which precluded agricultural uses, and Golden Sands was aware of the Town's efforts to rezone the land. 

One wonders how reasonable Golden Sands' expectations were given what it knew at the time it submitted its building permit application.

For central Wisconsin residents, Golden Sands means residents' right to peaceful, healthy living in homes and communities is outweighed in this case by factory farms' right to degrade such peace and health by the industrial operation of private corporations.

The predictable effect of operating a factory farm is toxifying the water supply causing communities to zone for protection, but this is no longer a powerful basis for argument in litigation of corporations' claim to vested property rights in many situations now.  

Golden Sands applies statewide. After Golden Sands as long as corrupt Republican justices remain in the majority, the Court will find for corporations over other competing interests case-by-case.

The majority opinion in Golden Sands is a convoluted argument five justices threw together to find for the corporation.
---
An eruption of dejection was palpable in central Wisconsin after the Wisconsin Supreme Court announced its decision the morning of June 5.

An objective reading of the devastation Big Agriculture inflicts onto other communities concludes vast harm is subjected to non-corporate interests, an acceptable outcome for the Republican Party.

After the sixth year of the grassroots fight against this proposed factory farm owned by the Wysocki corporation, some residents appear locked in an abusive relationship with the Republican Walker administration, the Republican-dominated Supreme Court and the Republican-dominated state legislature.

As each new injury through policy decision is inflicted onto this region, many politically active residents walk on eggshells fearful that publicly calling out Republicans for corrupt policy decisions will upset their Republican abusers.

In Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga, the Republican Wisconsin Department of Justice filed an extraordinary amicus brief in November 2017 in favor of private corporate interest against Wisconsin communities after the Republican Wisconsin Supreme Court quickly agreed to hear the case in Sept 2017 with the clear intention of reversing the rare victory achieved in state appellate court in April 2017.

Many residents last year and in 2018 mistook their communties' presentation of a narrow legal issue in Golden Sands as mandating something other than what can be expected from the collective corrupt intent of five Court justices who arrived at in a predetermined result.
 ---
If central Wisconsin residents say nice things about legislative Republicans and Scott Walker, pretend Republicans on the Wisconsin Supreme Court are not corrupt and are not rightwing judicial activists, the policy outcomes will not change. Residents are not players or stakeholders, not even valid competing interests, in the minds of policymaker.

To this point, central Wisconsin clean water activists have not thrown all-in towards a concerted electoral effort to defeat the policymakers who are committed to the devastation of the activists' communities.

Unless this broad grassroots movement replaces Republican Party policymakers, residents' current status of not mattering with be replaced with in the way to predictable outcomes.

Stay tuned.

From Saratoga Concerned

Friends and neighbors,

Many of you have already heard from either radio, newspaper, or our Facebook page, the WI Supreme Court reversed the WI Appellate Court decision and ruled in favor of Wysocki. The decision was a 5-2 split with only Justice Abrahamson and Justice Walsh-Bradley ruling in our favor.  Although an extremely frustrating outcome, it was one to be expected when we look at the make-up of the current sitting Justices.  The full copy of the decision can be viewed here.

It is important to state loud and clear OUR FIGHT AGAINST WYSOCKI IS NOT OVER.  He may have won the battle but the war between our opposing sides rages on.  There are still roads untravelled that we can pursue in the fight to preserve our water, air, and soil.  The court decision has only reignited the fire in many of us, now more than ever, we need the rest of our citizens to re-engage and stand alongside us and fight.

Over the years many of you have donated your talents, sacrificed your time, and emptied your pocketbooks to assist in our battle.  We are again asking for your assistance in the coming weeks as we plan to be proactive in our battle and face the situation head-on.  No more waiting patiently for Wysocki to make a move and then react, it is time we start making our own moves as we continue forward.

Watch for an upcoming announcement and meeting date to learn how you can assist and get involved to protect our beautiful Saratoga.

Sincerely,
Saratoga Leadership Team

Criste Greening, Eric Peterson, Timm Rosenthal, Brian Hamm, Rob Borski, Bruce & Doreen Dimick, Bob and Mary Wright, Dan and Nancy Fara, Buzz and Helen Donahue
Concerned Rome Citizens (CRC) Representatives: Don Ystad, John and Jeanie Endrizzi

What happens next seems to be the million dollar question on everyone's mind. Please know, information provided below are possible ways of how this scenario could play out moving forward, there is no set path or predetermined avenue we (or our town board) may decide to take.  Only time will tell and determine future actions.

Contact with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Members of our group immediately rekindled relationships with our WDNR contacts to get an idea of what happens next with the CAFO permitting process.  The preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been on hold while the WI Supreme Court determined the outcome of our case.  Communication with WDNR personnel indicated the following.

    No immediate plans have been made to reopen the EIR review and complete the pending EIS (simply too soon to have scheduled a planning meeting with necessary individuals)

    The WDNR is still awaiting Wysocki's
    Administrative code NR150 has changed multiple times since our battle started in 2012 and again since the EIS completion was placed on hold, WDNR personnel could not answer definitively how this would impact our case until it is determined which version of NR150 they would be following moving forward
    WDNR personnel state NR150 changes MAY impact our opportunity to have the WDNR complete an EIS and hold a public hearing as was the original plan prior to the WI Supreme Court appeal.
    Constant communication will be maintained with the WDNR and we will keep citizens abreast of information as it is received. 

EIS Hearing (IF GRANTED)
If the WDNR completes the EIS statement and a public hearing is granted, we will need every able body possible to pack the house and speak against the dairy and its plans.  Prior to the appeal being filed to the Wi Supreme Court, the plan was to host the hearing at the Wisconsin Rapids Performing Arts Center (PAC).  As of now future plans are uncertain.

CAFO Permitting
The cold reality is there has never been a CAFO permit denied in the state of Wisconsin, we fully expect the Wysocki organization to receive their permits with little opposition from the WDNR but hopefully with some restrictions due to all the natural resource data we have supplied over the years.  In reality, the WDNR's hands are tied and must follow the rules for permitting.  However, once permitted the town of Saratoga (or other invested parties) can file for a Contested Case Hearing.

Contested Case Hearing
A contested hearing is a formal court hearing, held when the parties do not agree on one or more aspects of the permit.  In this situation, it would be a contested case against the WDNR's ruling to issue a permit noting numerous issued involved.  A Judge hears both parties tell their stories and then makes a decision. Depending on who brought forth the contested case, individuals can speak for themselves, bring witnesses, and present documents. Court rules of evidence and procedure are followed.

Additional Points to Consider

    If reaching the point of a Contested Case Hearing the CAFO will again be on hold while it is battled in the courts, this could take years

    Over the past few years, Saratoga has put in place numerous ordinances that would make operating a CAFO within our community a tangled mess of hurdles for Wysocki to overcome, making business operations difficult

    Local volunteers under the guidance of the WDNR have compiled 5 complete years of extensive water data of our creeks, residents have supplied 500+ residential water samples, and our town continues to collect monitoring data from the 10 test wells drilled around proposed fields creating one of the most concrete water baseline data profiles in history.  We will know if our water becomes contaminated and WE WILL KNOW WHO IS GUILTY OF CONTAMINATING IT and can pursue legal action if necessary

    Adams County township of Rome has also started stream monitoring efforts as well as installed monitoring wells.  The town and local volunteers are actively collecting data on current water conditions to proactively protect their citizens and assist Saratoga in their efforts.

    With the Supreme Court decision, be prepared to see changes in our landscape as it was announced in the newspaper by Wysocki "The dairy will begin working on some farmland aspects of the project this year by clearing more land and putting some of the land already cleared into production"

Continued Concerns

For years we have worried about the proposed CAFO and the massive amounts of manure it would bring to our area but also about the effects of clear-cutting and cropping the thousands of acres within Saratoga.  To be clear, we do not want either within our borders - period!  It has been considered that perhaps the CAFO piece of the plan would go away and just the cropping of our lands would remain, clear-cutting thousands of acres will still have a significant detrimental impact to our groundwater and due to the numerous high capacity wells needed for irrigation, would significantly impact our groundwater levels as well.

There is no amount of compromise that is worth risking the health, safety, and welfare of our citizens.

Saratoga Concerned will continue to fight.

Wisconsin Gov Candidate, Flynn, Hits State Court Decision on Factory Farm

Update: Gov Scott Walker and Wisconsin Republicans leave behind death. From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and The Political Environment:

"Celina Stewart, a young mother in the tiny town of Nekoosa, lost an infant daughter to a fatal brain malformation that has been associated with high levels of nitrate, a fertilizer byproduct found in the community’s drinking water. Her tragedy led to a community well testing program this year, which found that 40 percent of the homes had nitrate concentrations that, like hers, were far above the legal limit."
 ---
Madison, Wisconsin — Matt Flynn, candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for governor, responded to the Golden Sands v. Saratoga decision and opinions released today by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Flynn has taken an aggressive stance towards factory farms and Republican Party work in favor of factory farms against local control and state anti-pollution statutes and regulations.

Reads Flynn's press release:

Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Matt Flynn today responded to the shortsighted decision by the State Supreme Court in Golden Sands Dairy LLC v Town of Saratoga, which will allow the concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) – also known as a factory farm – to proceed despite overwhelming community opposition.

"This decision ignores precedent and legalizes contamination and draining of our groundwater," said Flynn. "As governor, I will restore local control, enforce local ordinances, and support any county that rejects CAFOs which are poisoning our groundwater and must be stopped."

Golden Sands Dairy is owned by the Wysocki Family of Companies, which has been accused of violating state environmental laws, but has also contributed over $30,000 to Governor Scott Walker.

Flynn has been a strong opponent of unregulated CAFOs in Wisconsin, and has called for laws to limit their ability to use groundwater and contaminate wells.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules for Proposed Factory Farm over Communities

Madison, Wisconsin — The Wisconsin Supreme Court held for a proposed massive factory farm in a widely anticipated decision released this morning.

Updates and links follow this morning.

Here is the link to 2015AP1258 Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga.

The decision is five-to-two in favor of Wysocki Golden Sands factory farm.

This is a decision by Republican justices for Repulbican interests, against communities and families. The majority opinion was written by out-going Justice Michael J. Gableman who is retiring from the Court on July 31.

A naked act of results-aimed corruption in the judiciary, Gableman's decision upends the doctrine of vested property rights and towns' ability to protect families and the community.

After today's decision all a corporate interest has to do to manage destructive operations is conceal its aims in a Building Permit Rule application and include a vague reference to land.

Writes Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson joined by Justice Ann Walsh Bradley in dissent:

Today,  the majority  expands  the  Building  Permit  Rule  to  create  vested rights  to  particular  uses  of  land  so  long  as  the  land  is 'specifically identified' in the building permit application.

This ill-advised expansion of the Building Permit Rule sacrifices  the  important  public  policies  that  the  Building Permit  Rule  was  designed  to  encourage,  namely,  'predictability for land owners, purchasers, developers, municipalities, and the courts.'

The  majority's  expansion  of  the  Building  Permit  Rule transforms what was once an easy-to-apply, bright-line rule into a  rule  requiring  a  case-by-case  analysis  of  the  applicant's specificity  regarding  both the  description of the property included within the scope of the building permit application as well as the property's proposed use.

Tears, anxiety and a resolve to keep fighting describe the central Wisconsin communities' mood this morning.

One Saratoga resident reached by phone said she has slept only two hours in the last two days awaiting the Court decision and opinions.

Another resident, Criste Sullivan-Greening of Saratoga Concerned, writes in Facebook:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is a lawless institution and its Republican justices will find a way to rule in favor of Republican interests no matter the damage to Wisconsin communities, residents and the Court as a functioning branch of government.
 ---
Below is a column written in 2017 on what the Wisconsin Supreme Court has become after Republicans and Republican justices worked to transform the Court into a tool for Republican interests.

Pictured is Wisconsin Supreme Court at the state capitol. Inside
this iron door deliberation dies, and Republicans reign ascendant.

Madison, Wisconsin — The Wisconsin Supreme Court no longer functions as an independent judicial body.

A corrupt institution, Court justices, (five of the seven), elected to 10-year terms rely on $ millions from rightwing interests to keep the judges in their offices where Republican interests are jealously protected by the subsequent conduct of the justices.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is part of the Republican political machine, a turgid and pretentious cog spewing out reliably Republican case opinions for the benefit of Republican interests.

The justices' ethics are decided by Republican justices who rejected proposed rules that would mandate justices recuse from cases involving mega-donors to their campaigns, (Beck, Wisconsin State Journal). The law of the land in Wisconsin for the judiciary is: Fund my election, and I'll vote your way if you come before my court, (Mal Contends, The New Yorker).

So it was no surprise that the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted to hear a case this month from central Wisconsin concerning the plans of a polluting, industrial agricultural outfit, the Wysocki Family of Companies, that proposes to build and operate a massive factory farm based in Saratoga, Wisconsin that would devastate parts of four counties. The case is Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga.

Residents in central Wisconsin are scared, so scared that nobody wants to go on the record and speak the truth about Wisconsin has become, specifically about what the Supreme Court has become. Who can blame these people?

Their communities, homes and small businesses are at stake in Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga and bad-mouthing the Supreme Court is considered risky.

As noted in these pages, it's an indication how corrupt Wisconsin government is under Republican rule that residents contacted in Wood and Adams counties believe Republicans on the Wisconsin Supreme Court will vote to hear the Golden Sands Wysocki petition, overturn the appellate decision and radically expand the vested rights of property owners to commit virtually any environmentally and economically destructive act, altering the capacity of local communities to protect their economic and environmental well-being and the safety of families against corporate actors.

Since 2011 Republicans have implemented an unprecedented statutory framework according property rights supremacy over any other competing rights, including public interest concerns.

No one is surprised the Wisconsin Supreme Court is corrupt. Certainly not James Wysocki, chief financial officer of the Big Ag outfit that will devastate central Wisconsin.

Reports Karen Madden in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, quoting Wysocki:

'Golden Sands is gratified, but not surprised, that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has taken this case. It will provide the court the opportunity to clarify the law of vested rights in Wisconsin for all businesses that create jobs in the state and to rectify the unfair process by which the town of Saratoga sought to deprive Golden Sands of its vested rights.'

Numerous agricultural and real estate groups filed motions with the Supreme Court that supported the court taking the case. Those groups were concerned that other communities could change the rules after property is purchased, Wysocki said. 

Under the new Republican theory of vested rights in Wisconsin, an owner of property becomes a extraordinary, super-interest for whom environmental, safety, zoning, and water-protection laws do not apply.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will vote in Wysocki's favor 5-2 sometime in 2018 in Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga. Don't be surprised.

Wisconsin Supreme Court to Release Decision on Proposed Factory Farm, Local Govs and Communties on June 5

Updated - Madison, Wisconsin — The Wisconsin Supreme Court is not an impartial judicial body anymore.

That's not what the state's high appellate court is in business for. The Court serves special interests.

But the Court announced that on June 5 the decision and opinions in 2015AP1258 Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga will be released. See Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Release of Supreme Court Opinions. Find the case on June 5 at Wisconsin Courts.

In the Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will decide whether some 1.7 million Wisconsin citizens, some 30 percent of the state living in towns, can act locally to protect local conditions, property values, families, drinking water quality, and local character through zoning, (p. 14. Brief of Amicus Curiae - Local Business Amici. Filed by Christa Westerberg).

The Golden Sands factory farm is seeking a new and novel interpretation of the state's vested property rights doctrine to render a town's capacity to protect itself virtually non-existent. [For legal updates on the case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, enter 15ap1258 in the Appeal Number field.]

In April 2017, "the 4th District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Town of Saratoga, holding that the vested rights that the Wysocki Family of Companies have in a building permit for seven dairy buildings on 98 acres do not authorize them to use more than 4,660 acres throughout the Town for the application of manure ... ," (Apr 13, 2017; 015AP001258; Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga; District 4; Wood County,).

Stopping this massive application of manure could be a mortal blow to the business operation of this proposed factory farm, Golden Sands Dairy LLC.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court Jan 11, 2018.

No central Wisconsin resident contacted this weekend expressed confidence the Wisconsin Supreme Court would follow existing doctrine on corporate property rights and municipal authority. Anything is possible as powerful interests are parties to both sides of the case. Facts, law, long-observed doctrine and arguments are irrelevant in the Court's proceedings.

In action related to this case, since 2011 Republicans have implemented an unprecedented statutory framework according corporate property rights supremacy over any other competing rights, including public interest concerns.

Notes David Strifling at the Marquette University  Law School:

In 2016, the Wisconsin Legislature [enacted] Wis. Stat. § 227.57(11). The statute provides that a 'court shall accord no deference to the agency’s interpretation of law if the agency action or decision restricts the property owner’s free use of the property owner’s property.'

Though to this point Republicans have worked to change the nature of corporations' property rights vis a vis the public interest function of state agencies and local governments, the Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga case accords the Republican-dominated Supreme Court a way to expand corporate property rights over the health and safety claims of neighbors and communities.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Corporate interests, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau and Wisconsin Realtors Association, have filed Amicus, (Friend of the Court), briefs in support of the Court hearing the Golden Sands-Wysocki petition.

Republican Supreme Court members protect corporate interests, and for years have refused to recuse themselves in cases in which the justices' political campaigns have benefited from heavy spending by litigants, (Wisconsin Democracy Campaign), (Wisconsin Democracy Campaign).

Some central Wisconsin residents contacted believe that because the remaining credibility of the Wisconsin Supreme Court as an independent judicial body is at stake, the Court may not overturn the well-grounded April 2017 state appellate decision in Golden Sands.
 ---
From Saratoga (Wisconsin) Concerned Update

6/1/2018

Special Announcement:
Supreme Court - Golden Sands Dairy -vs- Town of Saratoga
Decision coming on Tuesday, June 5th, 2018

Earlier this morning the WI Supreme Court posted the list of cases whose decisions will be announced next week.  Saratoga's case is on the list for release on Tuesday, June 5th.

It is important to remind our followers the decision in front of the WI Supreme Court is NOT about whether Wysocki can build his CAFO in Saratoga, but specifically what he legally can do with the land he eventually purchased in 2015.  The decision ahead will either allow Wysocki to clear-cut the parcels for cropland or uphold Saratoga's current zoning ordinance which was in place before the land was purchased.

Although a win at the WI Supreme Court level would be cause for a huge celebration, it does not necessarily end completely our battle with the Wysocki's.  It would, however, be a significant roadblock for him moving forward with his proposed CAFO. 

The minute the decision is made public on Tuesday we will immediately break down the information and blast it out via our Newsletter and Facebook pages.  Please be thinking positive thoughts and keep your fingers crossed for a verdict in our favor.

Sincerely,
Saratoga Concerned Leadership Team

Wisconsin Clean Water Advocates Are in Fighting Mood

'Why do we, as a democratic society, allow the rich and powerful to trample over the rights and health of the average rural citizen!'

Updated - Commenting on children drinking manure-laden water caused by factory farms, Janet McConaughey of Ixonia, Wisconsin, (Jefferson County), said:

"What I'm concerned about is (5-year-old grandson) Jordan's world. So, I want to know that when he's grown up, he'll have a decent place to live. He'll have clean air, clean water," (Bowden, Wisconsin Public Radio).

Ms. McConaughey is not alone as Gov. Scott Walker has ceded rural Wisconsin as a colony to Big Ag, without regard to the consequences to families and communities.

Walker's brazen give-away of private homes and public communities is a major political fight that is bearing electoral fruit.

But a major battle is the Wisconsin courts.

In central Wisconsin, 10,000s of residents are waiting to hear what the Wisconsin Supreme Court will decide to do with their communities and homes in Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga case, awaiting opinion and decision.

Golden Sands is a name of a proposed factory farm of the infamous Wysocki corporation.

The stakes are high.

1. The Court can eliminate the democratic capacity of families to protect local conditions, property values, drinking water, health, and local character.

2. The Court can decide to impose onto Wisconsin a radical, new conception of corporate vested property rights.
---
Clean water advocates have built a movement in Wisconsin.
---
On April 3, Big Ag's candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Michael Screnock, Scott Walker's candidate, was decisively defeated by Rebecca Dallet who campaigned in part on protecting clean water as a value.

Consider the unofficial results from four central-Wisconsin counties, much of which would be devastated by an adverse Court decision in Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga case.

Next to each county below is the Trump victory margin in 2016, and the Democratic swing.

Adams County: (Won by Trump 58 to 36 percent)

Rebecca Dallet       - 1892 votes (49 percent)
Michael Screnock  - 1912 votes (50 percent)
—Democratic swing of 21 points

Wood County (Won by Trump 56 to 37)

Rebecca Dallet       - 6471 votes (52 percent)
Michael Screnock  - 5933 votes (47 percent)
—Democratic swing of 24 points

Juneau County (Won by Trump 60 to 34)

Rebecca Dallet       -  2157 votes (45 percent)
Michael Screnock  -  2600 votes (54 percent)
—Democratic swing of 17 points

Portage County (Lost by Trump 44 to 49)

Rebecca Dallet       - 7455 votes (62 percent)
Michael Screnock  - 4435 votes (37 percent)
—Democratic swing of 20 points

[Trump figures are rounded. Dallet-Screnock figures omit scattering votes.]

Conclusion: The Blue Wave is building in Wisconsin, and clean and safe water advocates are energizing the momentum.
--
The Wysocki corporation has a factory farm in Juneau county, and it is polluting families unfortunate to live near the shit-emitting monstrosity, the Central Sands Dairy, LLC.

Central Sands is applying for a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit.

An update from central Wisconsin residents, Bruce Dimick and Doreen Dimick follows:

Hello all,

On March 22, 2018 there was a WPDES public renewal hearing for the Wysocki CAFO, Central Sands Dairy, in Armenia, Juneau County. This public hearing was conducted by the DNR as are all these public hearings. Wysocki has been in frequent violation of his current WPDES permit, but that appears to be of no great concern to the DNR.

I did not have any great expectations about how this hearing would go, but I was greatly encouraged by the outcome.  First of all at least 9 citizens from Saratoga showed up and 5 of those citizens spoke in opposition to renewal of Wysocki's WPDES permit. But what was the biggest surprise was that at least 50 people showed up for the hearing and an additional 13 people, all from Armenia and the surrounding area spoke up against.  No one spoke in favor of granting Wysocki a renewal.  The people from Armenia spoke from the heart. They had had their wells contaminated, their property devalued, and their way of life degraded.

Sheri Red Fox, who can't use her water for much of anything, spoke of having to distill enough water just to brush her teeth and have enough to drink and cook with.  She lives quite close to the CAFO.  A former employee of Wysocki spoke of how he had been ordered to spread manure on frozen ground and on snow covered fields, all of which is illegal.  When he complained he was fired by Wysocki's managers and threatened if he ever told anyone about what was going on.  One member of the Armenia Town Board spoke up on how the contaminated water was adversely affecting his constituents.

Many people from Armenia thanked those of us from Saratoga for standing with them.

I could not identify anyone from the Wysocki organization being at the hearing, but I am sure they had at least one plant to report back to "Jimmy".

No one is under any illusion that the DNR will not renew the WPDES permit, but the testimony given is now a matter of public record and could be used in court proceedings in the future.
--
WPDES PERMIT HEARING FOR CENTRAL SANDS DAIRY – MARCH 22, 2018

Geologically speaking, the Central Sands area was a large lake called Glacial Lake Wisconsin formed after the last ice age.  There was a large ice dam in the Wisconsin Dells area that allowed the lake to persist for 5 or 10,000 years. During those years, the lake filled up with sand from the Wisconsin River and its tributaries. Once the ice dam gave way, the lake drained and our current environment was slowly established. We might envision that we are living over a huge washtub of sand filled with water. The sand is quite porous, so this washtub is continually replenished with rainwater and snowmelt. There is no real distinction between surface water and ground water in this porous environment.

 Most of us who live in the Central Sands in rural areas have our own private wells, whether they be drilled wells or sandpoints.  For the most part we are all drinking from the same aquifer.  This aquifer is both plentiful and vulnerable to pollution due to the porosity of the sandy soil. It is incumbent on all of us that live here and use this aquifer to protect it for the good of all. 

Excessive nitrates are a particular pollutant that easily are dissolved in rainwater and flow down into the aquifer. The EPA limit for dissolved nitrates in drinking water is 10 ppm for municipal water supplies for health reasons. Colorectal cancer, blue baby syndrome, and other deadly ailments are among the diseases linked to nitrates in drinking water.

The Central Sands Dairy has a total of 9 monitoring wells strategically placed around the CAFO.  Many of these monitoring wells have consistently exceeded the EPA limit of 10 ppm by wide margins.  The worst reading that I have seen recorded was 88 ppm for CSD 7S in October 2017.  Think of that – almost 9 times the EPA limit!

So all this contaminated water flows in a predominately southeasterly direction on its way to the now highly contaminated Lake Petenwell. Along the way it contaminates the water supplies of the rural residents in its path.

All of us siting here today know that the DNR will renew the WPDES permit for the Central Sands Dairy. The question is why do we, as a democratic society, allow the rich and powerful to trample over the rights and health of the average rural citizen!
---
WPDES PERMIT HEARING FOR CENTRAL SANDS DAIRY,
Mar. 22, 2018

The hearing today centers on the DNR’s decision whether or not to give the Central Sands Dairy a permit to continue operations for the next five years and under what conditions it may operate. One would think that this permit would be based on what effect the dairy has and has had on the groundwater in the area of and around the dairy. 

The EPA standard for maximum nitrogen in the groundwater is 10 ppm, yet almost all the monitoring wells in and around Central Sands Dairy show levels well above that standard. So it is very concerning that it seems that there have been  no real efforts to enforce that standard. There is no way that the houses around the CSD have drinkable well water and must choose expensive bottled water and/or a reverse osmosis system.  Indeed one would wonder where the dairy is accessing the water that is given to the cows that produce the milk. 

Municipal water supplies must stay within the 10 ppm limit. Restaurants or other service businesses that rely on water must stay within that limit. Central Sands Dairy is not even close. I would urge the DNR to deny the permit under present business practices and enforce some meaningful limits.

Doreen Dimick
Wisconsin Rapids, WI

Wisconsin Supreme Court Case on Vested Property Rights and Zoning Powers Set for Oral Argument, Jan. 11

Proposed Golden Sands factory farm in central
Wisconsin could turn rural paradise into an
industrial wasteland. Don Ystad of Adams County
Wisconsin who has been promoting tourism
and recreation for years writes:
"Take a step back from the politics of this
situation and ask yourself, 'what is best
for the state of Wisconsin? Another CAFO sited, or the
preservation and growth of an existing, vibrant area,
poised to be the 'golf mecca of the Midwest?'
Unfortunately, the Wysocki CAFO has the
political support of local State Rep. Scott Krug,
(R-Nekoosa, Wisconsin) and State Sen.
Patrick Testin, (R-Stevens Point). These pols
have already chosen Big Ag over everything else,
including a new Sand Valley Golf Resort,
multi-generational families and entire communities.

The Wisconsin Republican Party's attempt to transform the legal scope of property rights on behalf of major financial donors is behind a case that could prevent the operation of a massive factory farm, sited in the town of Saratoga in central Wisconsin.

The case is Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga. The high court will hear oral arguments on Jan 11, 2018. [Note: For legal updates on the case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, enter 15ap1258 in the Appeal Number field, leave the rest of fields blank and hit search at bottom-left of the linked Wisconsin Supreme Court page.]

The Wisconsin Supreme Court no longer functions as an independent judicial body as its members have become corrupted and beholden to the Republican-linked special interests that fund some of the Court members' campaigns. Judicial ethics are decided by Republican justices who rejected proposed rules that would mandate justices recuse from cases involving their mega-donors to their campaigns, (Beck, Wisconsin State Journal, Mal Contends, The New Yorker).

Communities and private citizens want an April 2017 state appellate decision to stand because the ruling restricts a massive factory farm from beginning operations, as Republicans and Big Ag work to impose onto Wisconsin a radical, new conception of corporate vested property rights.

The predictable consequences of operation of the proposed Golden Sands factory farm are the pollution and depletion of water and air, devastating parts of four counties in this region.

The April 2017 Golden Sands Dairy LLC appellate ruling effectively kills the operation of the massive factory farm by disallowing use of a 4,660-acre manure dumping field on which millions of gallons of liquid cow waste would be vectored every year. The unanimous appellate ruling recognizes the town of Saratoga used its zoning power in accordance with state law and decades of legal precedent.

Concludes an amicus brief in part filed on behalf of local businesses in December 2017:

Over 1.7 million Wisconsin citizens more than 30% of the state’s population reside in towns like the Town of Saratoga. In this case, the Town reasonably evaluated local conditions and zoned its land to prevent harm to property values and businesses, drinking water quality, and local character. By seeking a 6,000-acre exception to this rule, GSD [Golden Sands Dairy] cannot credibly state that expanding the vested rights doctrine does 'no violence' to the Town’s ability to regulate land use. (GSD Br. at 26.)

The Court should affirm the court of appeals’ decision upholding the Town’s lawful exercise of its zoning authority in this case, and reject GSD’s requested expansion of the vested rights doctrine. 

Bottom line: Will the Wisconsin Supreme Court issue yet another corrupt decision on behalf of Republican interests? There is hope.

Two citizen groups, Protect Wood County (Wisconsin) and Its Neighbors and Concerned Rome (Wisconsin) Citizens are urging central Wisconsin residents to await the decision from the Court expected sometime in the Spring 2018.

From Protect Wood County:

Friends and Neighbors,

The date is set, January 11th, 2018, at which time our case against Wysocki will be heard in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  Although this news broke quite a while back, there was the chance for extension requests and/or other delays, therefore, we kept silent on the news until we were positive the date would stick.  It officially appears that January 11th will be our day in court.

Cases in front of the Supreme Court follow a very formal and structured format.  Due to this, Saratoga’s legal team has asked that citizen supporters NOT attend the oral argument proceedings.  We ask all our followers please adhere to the legal teams request and continue to wait patiently for the outcome and judgment decision to be handed down later this spring.  Most likely we will not hear a deciding judgment until March or April of this year. Once again, we have more waiting ahead.

It is important to clarify the basis of the Supreme Court case as we continue to hear many residents misunderstanding what our current case is about.  The case before the Supreme Court is about vested rights to the thousands of acres of land Wysocki purchased in Saratoga.  In a very simplistic nutshell, the court will be deciding if Wysocki can clear-cut and crop the thousands of acres of land he purchased after Saratoga’s zoning was in place.  The court is not determining if Wysocki has the right to build the buildings and/or the CAFO, simply if he has the right to use the land for his identified purpose which is in conflict with Saratoga's zoning.  This battle has been a very complicated web of twist and turns, surely one for the record books.  

We will keep everyone informed as we continue through the next few months.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Looks to Terminate Its Diminished Credibility

Pictured is Wisconsin Supreme Court at the state capitol. Inside
this iron door deliberation dies, and Republicans reign ascendant.

Madison, Wisconsin — The Wisconsin Supreme Court no longer functions as an independent judicial body.

A corrupt institution, Court justices, (five of the seven), elected to 10-year terms rely on $ millions from rightwing interests to keep the judges in their offices where Republican interests are jealously protected by the subsequent conduct of the justices.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is part of the Republican political machine, a turgid and pretentious cog spewing out reliably Republican case opinions for the benefit of Republican interests.

The justices' ethics are decided by Republican justices who rejected proposed rules that would mandate justices recuse from cases involving mega-donors to their campaigns, (Beck, Wisconsin State Journal). The law of the land in Wisconsin for the judiciary is: Fund my election, and I'll vote your way if you come before my court, (Mal Contends, The New Yorker).

So it was no surprise that the Wisconsin Supreme Court voted to hear a case this month from central Wisconsin concerning the plans of a polluting, industrial agricultural outfit, the Wysocki Family of Companies, that proposes to build and operate a massive factory farm based in Saratoga, Wisconsin that would devastate parts of four counties. The case is Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga.

Residents in central Wisconsin are scared, so scared that nobody wants to go on the record and speak the truth about Wisconsin has become, specifically about what the Supreme Court has become. Who can blame these people?

Their communities, homes and small businesses are at stake in Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga and bad-mouthing the Supreme Court is considered risky.

As noted in these pages, it's an indication how corrupt Wisconsin government is under Republican rule that residents contacted in Wood and Adams counties believe Republicans on the Wisconsin Supreme Court will vote to hear the Golden Sands Wysocki petition, overturn the appellate decision and radically expand the vested rights of property owners to commit virtually any environmentally and economically destructive act, altering the capacity of local communities to protect their economic and environmental well-being and the safety of families against corporate actors.

Since 2011 Republicans have implemented an unprecedented statutory framework according property rights supremacy over any other competing rights, including public interest concerns.

No one is surprised the Wisconsin Supreme Court is corrupt. Certainly not James Wysocki, chief financial officer of the Big Ag outfit that will devastate central Wisconsin.

Reports Karen Madden in the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, quoting Wysocki:

'Golden Sands is gratified, but not surprised, that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has taken this case. It will provide the court the opportunity to clarify the law of vested rights in Wisconsin for all businesses that create jobs in the state and to rectify the unfair process by which the town of Saratoga sought to deprive Golden Sands of its vested rights.'

Numerous agricultural and real estate groups filed motions with the Supreme Court that supported the court taking the case. Those groups were concerned that other communities could change the rules after property is purchased, Wysocki said. 

Under the new Republican theory of vested rights in Wisconsin, an owner of property becomes a extraordinary, super-interest for whom environmental, safety, zoning, and water-protection laws do not apply.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court will vote in Wysocki's favor 5-2 sometime in 2018 in Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga. Don't be surprised.

Wisconsin Supreme Court to Hear Factory Farm Appeal for Inflated Property Rights

Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear factory farm appeal

Examination of the updated Wisconsin Supreme Court website (PDF) indicates the Court will hear Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga.

The Court website reads in part: "Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga - When a permit applicant secures vested rights by filing a valid building permit application for a project (Wisconsin's "Building Permit Rule"), does the law protect the applicant's right to both construct buildings and to use the project land in the lawful manner described in the building permit application?"
--
In central Wisconsin the fearful, hope-and-see mood describing families awaiting the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision to grant or deny review of a state appellate court April ruling, Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga has been replaced by expletives by residents, and muttered statements of determination not to be chased out of their own communities by Republicans and a polluting factory farm bellowing the right to use corporate property in violation of settled vested property rights.

Central Wisconsin Awaits Supreme Court on Factory Farm Appeal for Inflated Property Rights

Popular opposition to proposed massive factory farm
in central Wisconsin faces corrupt state Supreme Court.
Photo by Mary Captain-Braund

Appellate law and vested property rights concern families in central Wisconsin

Update: Examination of the updated Wisconsin Supreme Court website (PDF) indicates the court will hear Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga.

The Court website reads in part: "Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga - When a permit applicant secures vested rights by filing a valid building permit application for a project (Wisconsin's "Building Permit Rule"), does the law protect the applicant's right to both construct buildings and to use the project land in the lawful manner described in the building permit application?"
--
Madison, Wisconsin — In central Wisconsin a fearful, hope-and-see mood describes families awaiting the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision to grant or deny review of a state appellate court April ruling, Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga.

Residents want the April state appellate decision to stand because the ruling restricts a massive factory farm from beginning operations under a radical, new conception of corporate vested property rights

The communities' future depends on the high Court decision as the predictable consequences of operation of the proposed Golden Sands factory farm are the pollution and depletion of water and air, devastating parts of four counties in this region, if it began operation.

The Golden Sands Dairy LLC appellate ruling effectively kills the operation of the massive factory farm by disallowing use of a 4,660-acre manure dumping field on which millions of gallons of liquid cow waste would be vectored every year.

The Supreme Court decision on the Golden Sands-Wysocki corporation's petition for review, a legal request of a court to hear a case, is expected around October 12, some six months after the April appellate ruling's date.

The appellate ruling freezes construction plans of the dairy Golden Sands CAFO, Confined Agricultural Feeding Operation, by honoring the current legal delineation of vested property rights.

[Note: For updates the case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court is 2015AP001258. Enter   15ap1258 in the Appeal Number field, leave the rest of fields blank and hit search at bottom-left of the linked Wisconsin Supreme Court page.]

Republican Altering of Health, Safety and Environmental Protection

It's an indication how corrupt Wisconsin government is under Republican rule that residents contacted in Wood and Adams counties believe Republicans on the Wisconsin Supreme Court will vote to hear the Golden Sands Wysocki petition, overturn the appellate decision and radically expand the vested rights of property owners to commit virtually any environmentally and economically destructive act, altering the capacity of local communities to protect their economic and environmental well-being and the safety of families against corporate actors.

Since 2011 Republicans have implemented an unprecedented statutory framework according property rights supremacy over any other competing rights, including public interest concerns.

Notes David Strifling at the Marquette University  Law School:

In 2016, the Wisconsin Legislature [enacted] Wis. Stat. § 227.57(11). The statute provides that a 'court shall accord no deference to the agency’s interpretation of law if the agency action or decision restricts the property owner’s free use of the property owner’s property.'

Though to this point Republicans have worked to change the nature of corporations' property rights vis a vis the public interest function of state agencies, the Golden Sands Dairy LLC v. Town of Saratoga case accords the Republican-dominated Supreme Court a way to expand corporate property rights over the health and safety claims of neighbors and communities.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Corporate interests, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau and Wisconsin Realtors Association, have filed Amicus, (Friend of the Court), briefs in support of the Court hearing the Golden Sands-Wysocki petition.

Republican Supreme Court members protect corporate interests, and for years have refused to recuse themselves in cases in which the justices' political campaigns have benefited from heavy spending by litigants, (Wisconsin Democracy Campaign), (Wisconsin Democracy Campaign).

Some central Wisconsin residents contacted believe that because the remaining credibility of the Wisconsin Supreme Court as an independent judicial body is at stake, the Court may not overturn the well-grounded April state appellate decision.

Proposed Golden Sands factory farm in central Wisconsin
could turn rural paradise into industrial wasteland.
 Don Ystad of Adams County Wisconsin
who has been promoting tourism and recreation for writes:
"Take a step back from the politics of this
situation and ask yourself, 'what is best
for the state of Wisconsin?  Another CAFO sited, or the
preservation and growth of an existing, vibrant area,
poised to be the 'golf mecca of the Midwest?'
Unfortunately, the Wysocki CAFO has the
political support of local State Rep. Scott Krug,
(R-Nekoosa, Wisconsin) and State Sen. Patrick Testin,
(R-Stevens Point). These politocs have already chosen Big Ag
over everything else, including the Sand Valley Golf Resort.