Steven Avery Attorney Hits Wisconsin Judge for Constructing Adverse Ruling Against Facts and Law — Awaiting Corrupt Ruling

Madison, Wisconsin — The attorney representing Steven Avery offered a harsh opinion this morning that a presiding circuit court judge is constructing an adverse ruling in an effort to preserve what attorney argues is the wrongful conviction of Avery, featured in the Emmy-winning Making a Murderer.

Kathleen Zellner writes in Twitter: "The lower court is facing the impossible task of constructing an adverse ruling that will not be reversed by the higher court. The facts and clearcut laws will be the wrecking ball of this house of cards. Time to do the right thing for Steven Avery."

The lower court is facing the impossible task of constructing an adverse ruling that will not be reversed by the higher court. The facts & clearcut laws will be the wrecking ball of this house of cards. Time to do the right thing for Steven Avery. #JusticeNow #MakingAMurderer https://t.co/QpEoWrt6vY

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) May 30, 2019

Advocates for Steven Avery are growing angry at what appears to be the corrupt effort by Sheboygan County Judge Angela W. Sutkiewicz (substituting) who apparently reached a result adverse to Steven Avery in State v. Steven A. Avery, Appeal Number 2017AP002288 long ago.

But Sutkiewicz works backwards. Result first, then draft an order and opinion to support the position of corrupt Wisconsin law enforcement, an opinion that will, law enforcement and Sutkiewicz believe, prevail in appellate court for a time — a delaying tactic.

The prosecution led by Attorney General Joshua Kaul (D) is employing the legal services of corrupt state attorneys including Mark Williams, Asst Attorney General and Special Prosecutor Thomas J. Fallon, and Special Prosecutor Norman Gahn.

Fallon and Gahn do not challenge the oft-repeated fact that the two corrupt jurists not only worked together to illegally destroy evidence, the two DoJ attorneys now write legal filings opposing Zellner's March 11 call for a reversal or new trial in post-conviction litigation.

Before Zellner won her motion for a remand (sending back) the case to circuit court, Zellner argued in her Feb. 1 legal filing:

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. ...

Kahl, Ken Kratz, Mark Williams, Thomas J. Fallon, and Norman Gahn. This is Wisconsin law enforcement. And Angela W. Sutkiewicz is the Wisconsin judiciary.

Fallon and Gahn argue that the evidence they help destroy was "inexplicably released" in their  March 29, 2019 legal filing, (p 13).

In its late-March legal filing, the DoJ argues procedural objections to Avery's charges of bad-faith evidence destruction, deceit, concealment and deception, all of which present Due Process questions, (Steven Avery legal filings; #Work with KZ, WBAY, WLUK).

The deception of the DoJ attorneys veered into another spectacle in February when state attorney Mark Williams left a Feb errant voicemail message to Thomas Fallon on Zellner's phone, plotting how to mislead Zellner.

Making a Murderer's Steven Avery Waits on Ruling, Hearing, Anything from Corrupt Circuit Judge

Update: Sheboygan County Judge Angela W. Sutkiewicz (substituting) reached a result adverse to Steven Avery in State v. Steven A. Avery, Appeal Number 2017AP002288 long ago. But Sutkiewicz works backwards. Result first, then draft an order and opinion to support the position of corrupt Wisconsin law enforcement, an opinion that will fly in appellate court to some extent.

Sutkiewicz is working on drafting and an adverse ruling that will sabotage and work against the wrongfully convicted Steven Avery.

It's how it is here.

From Kathleen Zellner, wrongful conviction attorney:

The lower court is facing the impossible task of constructing an adverse ruling that will not be reversed by the higher court. The facts & clearcut laws will be the wrecking ball of this house of cards. Time to do the right thing for Steven Avery. #JusticeNow #MakingAMurderer https://t.co/QpEoWrt6vY

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) May 30, 2019

The dreadful Kafka could not have imagined Wisconsin law enforcement and Judge Angela W. Sutkiewicz.

Madison, Wisconsin — Wrongfully convicted Steven Avery, is awaiting a state circuit court ruling on his motion for an evidentiary hearing, and a new trial.

A website, Work with KZ, (for Avery's wrongful conviction attorney, Kathleen Zellner) maintains the site for the press, public and those interested in this particular state crucifixion.

The post, Awaiting ruling from Circuit Court, is reproduced below:

Awaiting ruling from Circuit Court

The Court has 90 days from the date the motion was filed with the Circuit Court if the response and reply are NOT considered. (June 9 - or the 10th, since the 9th is a Sunday).

Kathleen's most recent filing implies that the Court did not ask for the State's response.  We will have to wait for the Court to say whether or not the response and subsequent reply will be considered.

IF THE RESPONSE AND REPLY ARE ACCEPTED, the 90 days starts from the date Kathleen filed her reply, which would put the due date at July 10.

This is what we expect:

If the court grants the motion and says Steven gets an evidentiary hearing, the State cannot appeal that decision.

 If they have a hearing and the resulting order is for a new trial to happen, the State will appeal that decision.

If they have a hearing and the resulting order is that a new trial is denied, Kathleen will add it to her appellant brief.

If the court denies the motion and says Steven cannot have an evidentiary hearing, Kathleen will add it to her appellant brief.

So, either way, it's going back to the Court of Appeals.

Here's the info on responses FYI:

Can the State respond?

1. The court can deny the motion without a response from the State.

2. The court can grant a hearing without a response from the State.

3. The court cannot grant the motion without a response from the State. (If the judge asks the State for a response, that means she's probably considering granting the motion.)

4. The State can respond regardless but the judge doesn't have to consider their response if she didn't ask for one.

* If she asks the State for a response, she will dictate how long they have to respond.

For those of you who are interested, here is the Wisconsin Statute that says what the required procedure is for the court: Click Here.

Wrongfully Convicted in Wisconsin — Waiting for Judge Angela Sutkiewicz' Adverse Ruling and Opinion

Madison, Wisconsin — Some things in Wisconsin seem impervious to change.

One of the worst enduring features is corrupt law enforcement exemplified by disgraced ex-district attorney Ken Kratz (Calumet County), Special Prosecutor Mark Williams (Dept of Justice), Attorney General Joshua Kaul, and far too many more to list.

The bad work of Kratz is being defended by Williams, Kaul and others for whom facts, transparency and truth are to be opposed, lest Wisconsin law enforcement is exposed more prominently as indecent, capable and inclined to railroad the innocent.

Williams is a class-A scumbag, revealed by private investigator Ira Robins to have hidden evidence, and lied repeatedly to the court in a frame-up of Lawrencia (Laurie) Bembenek.

It makes sense in the amoral mind of Kaul that in protecting another frame-up Williams would be called upon as a special prosecutor in State of Wisconsin vs. Steven A. Avery, (Manitowoc County Case Number 2005CF000381).

Just three months ago, the wrongfully convicted Steven Avery won an important state appellate court ruling.

Wrote Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner:

Avery Update: We Won!!!!!! Back to the circuit court. #TruthWins @llifeafterten @ZellnerLaw @TManitowoc @michellemalkin #MakingaMurderer

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) February 25, 2019

But Zellner and Avery's advocates know the courtroom of  Judge Angela Sutkiewicz will bring an adverse ruling. Sutkiewicz is as corrupt as any Wisconsin law enforcement personnel, so the case will be won in appellate court.

The problem is Sutkiewicz is taking her sweet time and has not even scheduled hearings, per the Feb 25, 2019 appellate court order mandating "any proceedings necessary to address [Avery's] claims," which the State fails to address in argument on the merits.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice (DoJ) does not address the merits of Steven Avery's characterization of Wisconsin's post-conviction conduct  — DoJ bad faith, evidence destruction and suppression — because the DoJ cannot credibly do so.

So, as Summer approaches, we wait and wait. Writes Zellner:

We would love to give you an Avery update but that is only possible if the everyone does their job...just sayin' 17 days and counting...#MakingAMurderer2 #FolliwtheRules

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) May 14, 2019

Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul Is Promoting a 'Mockery of Justice' in Making a Murderer Case

Above, attorney Kathleen Zellner is shown walking with
innocent people for whom she and her legal team have won
exoneration and freedom. The world-renown attorney
faces perhaps her biggest challenge yet against corrupt
Wisconsin law enforcement, and a state judiciary hostile
to civil rights and stacked with corrupt jurists biased in favor
of police. Zellner has won a worldwide following of
admirers who object to the imprisonment of people known
to be innocent.

Innocent awaits ruling from corrupt county circuit court

Madison, Wisconsin — A wrongfully convicted man, Steven Avery, is awaiting a state circuit court ruling on his motion for an evidentiary hearing, and a new trial.

The Feb 25, 2019 appellate court order mandating "any proceedings necessary to address [Avery's] claims" points to a hearing after briefing at the circuit court to which the case had been sent back.

No such proceedings have been ordered to this date.
 ---
Steven Avery's story is abject demonstration of the determination of law enforcement to work against innocents, and the incapacity of Wisconsin society — corporate media, police, courts, bureaucracies, elected representatives and many citizens — to even acknowledge the perverse efforts of the Wisconsin Dept of Justice (DoJ) now led by Attorney General Joshua Kaul (D), to keep innocents in prison.

Kaul is working to shield criminal acts committed by Wisconsin law enforcement by blocking examination of evidence, opposing all court hearings, and promoting "finality in criminal litigation" so that police and prosecutorial misconduct are protected, and the innocent remain imprisoned, (p.4. State's Response to Defendant's Motion for New Trial Based on Alleged Youngblood Violation, March 29, 2019).

Steven Avery is featured in the Emmy-winning documentary, Making a Murderer.

Kaul has the discretion to accede to Avery's requests for transparency and open examination of evidence and state misconduct.

The case is now before Sheboygan County Judge Angela W. Sutkiewicz who is expected to issue a ruling within weeks on Avery's legal motions. 

Sutkiewicz is a corrupt judge who does the work of police and prosecutors against people and the cause of truth.

Advocates for truth in the Avery case expect their efforts to be won in state appellate court after an anticipated adverse ruling by Sutkiewicz.

The post-conviction ligation is State v. Steven A. Avery, Appeal Number 2017AP002288, now before Manitowoc County Circuit Court, substituted by Sutkiewicz.

State of Wisconsin Criminality 

In its late-March legal filing, the DoJ argues only procedural objections to Avery's charges of bad-faith state evidence destruction, deceit, concealment and deception, all of which present Due Process questions, (Steven Avery legal filings; #Work with KZ, WBAY, WLUK).

Continuing its strategy of avoiding mention of charged state criminality and lawlessness in litigation, the State's conduct is striking in its avoidance of the merits of Avery's charges that the Calumet County Sheriff's Office secretly transferred evidence, the remains of a murder victim, Teresa Halbach, to private custody in 2011, in violation of state statutes that govern preservation of physical evidence collected; among other allegations.

Commenting on the State's March 29, 2019 legal filing in Newsweek Magazine, Avery's post-conviction attorney, Kathleen Zellner, said:

Wisconsin Dept of Justice is painting itself into a corner
in its effort to keep innocent men in prison. "The State
is thumbing its nose at the appellate court once again,"
wrongful conviction attorney Kathleen Zellner told Newsweek
on April 2. "That court specifically ordered that the merits of the
alleged bone destruction be addressed. Rather than follow the
court's directive, the State has constructed a convoluted
procedural argument that defies logic or precedent."

'Of course the State cannot address the merits of Avery's claim, because it is blatantly guilty of evidence destruction. Its charade continues without the slightest inclination to discover the truth. Significantly, one of the culprits in the whole sad scenario authored the State's Response. Unfortunately, the citizens of Wisconsin are the recipients of this mockery of justice.'

Zellner refers to the DoJ post-conviction litigation team and Thomas Fallon, who helped oversee the decision to return the alleged human bones to the Halbach family. Fallon wrote the state’s response, and is defending his own misconduct.

The post-conviction ligation is State v. Steven A. Avery, (Appeal Number 2017AP002288), now before Manitowoc County Circuit Court.

Before Zellner won her motion for a remand (sending back) the case to Circuit Court, Zellner and other advocates for the innocent Avery argued in her Feb. 1 legal filing:

The entire #CorruptiwocCounty case against Steven was based on a house of cards composed of lies, deceptions, fabrications, planting, hiding & destroying of evidence, smoke, mirrors, & the distractions of drugged out narcissistic ex-DA. No wonder they can't keep story straight. https://t.co/KYN3BQ22sK

— Lloyd R Bass II (@lloydbassII) April 13, 2019

Steven Avery Supporters Want Sheboygan County Judge off Case — Cite Conflicts, Bias

Updated - Madison, Wisconsin—Supporters of the wrongfully convicted Steven Avery want Sheboygan County Judge Angela W. Sutkiewicz to step aside from the case on which she has a conflict of interest, and is operating in apparent violation of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Ethics.

Concern that Sutkiewicz is hostile to Avery's post-conviction litigation has caused supporters to begin a petition last weekend, that quickly garnered over 10,000 signatures calling for Sutkiewicz to remove herself from the case, and asking for support from Gov Tony Evers (D).

Judge Sutkiewicz began hearing Avery's post-conviction litigation in 2013 after Manitowoc County Judge Patrick Willis retired in 2012.

In Making a Murderer, season 2, (episode two, 42:51-minute mark), Avery said he "had a problem with [Sutkiewicz] before," recounting that his post-conviction litigation was heard by Sutkiewicz in 2013.

Sutkiewicz was simultaneously presiding over Avery's post-conviction litigation and murder victim's Teresa Halbach's wrongful death suit against Avery in 2013 (Manitowoc County Case Number 2006CV000150 Teresa M Halbach Estate et al vs. Steven A Avery et al.).

Notes Avery: "I thought maybe it, [post-conviction litigation], would go to a different judge, she got them both."

Sutkiewicz held open the Halbach-Avery civil litigation for some 15 months after the Halbach estate requested a voluntary dismissal in November 2013, in an apparent bid to goad the plaintiff into seeking settlement monies from Avery.

In 2015, Avery sent a letter to the court inquiring about the status of the civil suit following the Notice of Motion for (Plaintiff's) Voluntary Dismissal hearing of November 21, 2013. Avery also appealed his post-conviction litigation to state appellate court complaining about Sutkiewicz' conduct in both cases. Sutkiewicz then dismissed the civil litigation in April 2015.

The Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct demands that judges "shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary" (SCR 60.03 A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities).

That Sutkiewicz acted in contravention of the Code of Judicial Conduct appears apparent.

Additionally, the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates:

SCR 60.03 (2)  A judge may not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.  A judge may not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or of others or convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. ...

Sutkiewicz' conduct in which she heard two Avery cases, Sutkiewicz acted in accordance with her oft-stated wish that courts act as victims' advocates, to the point of compromising the rights of the accused and the convicted.

Next step: Judge Sutkiewicz will hold a hearing in late April in which numerous law enforcement and prosecutors suspected of misconduct will be compelled to testify in a public hearing (Mal Contends, Ferak).

Sutkiewicz is under fire and very public scrutiny.

Notes John Ferak in an interview with Avery post-conviction attorney, Kathleen Zellner:

2. What can people expect to happen in Steven's case over the next 60 to 90 days?

Zellner response: In the next 60 days the circuit court will rule on whether Mr. Avery's conviction should be reversed. The judge, Angela Sutkiewicz, should recuse herself from the case since she has a blatant conflict of interest. She has presided over the Halbach wrongful death case and Avery's post-conviction case. This is totally improper and she should recuse herself as Judge (Willis) did. If she will not, Avery fully expects her to rule against him as she has on every issue to date. She should be holding an evidentiary hearing but it is doubtful she will. The appellate court will reverse her for all of her blatant errors.

Sutkiewicz substitutes her affinity for prosecutors in place of neutral adjudication. To be accused means you have no rights, to be convicted means law enforcement can do no wrong, in what passes for Sutkiewicz' legal mind in Wisconsin.

In 2017, Sutkiewicz rejected Steven Avery's request for a trial made through his post-conviction attorney, Kathleen Zellner.

Sutkiewicz issued her ruling and opinion without ordering and conducting an evidentiary hearing on Kathleen Zellner's 1,200-page post-conviction motion, replete with expert forensic testimony and analyses.

"The judge criticized the defense conclusions as 'speculative' and based on 'interim opinions' by experts," notes Heavy. com.

Few observers believe Sutkiewicz is equipped with the competence to adjudge world-renown forensic scientific evidence.

On June 14, 2018, Avery through Zellner filed a motion for judicial substitution of Sutkiewicz, (Fox-11, Digital). The state objected to the motion for a new judge (Fox-11 News).
---
"When a judge determines that, for any reason, he or she cannot, or it appears he or she cannot, act in an impartial manner," a judge must disqualify herself, reads Wisconsin statute,757.19.

Asks a UK Avery supporter, "why is Sutkiewicz still on this case?"

Ex-DA in Making a Murderer Case Advocates on Social Media for Racist Teen at Jan D.C. Rally, and other Rightwing Causes

Disgraced ex-district attorney who corruptly prosecuted the
wrongfully convicted citizens featured in the docuseries,
Making a Murderer, can no longer practice law in Wisconsin
due to a suspended license, according to the
State Bar of Wisconsin's attorney profile.

Madison, Wisconsin — Ken Kratz is the disgraced former district attorney of Calumet County Wisconsin, now living in Appleton.

Kratz' unindicted public misconduct featured in Making a Murderer and Wrecking Crew paints Kratz as a lurid, corrupt criminal in his performance as a district attorney.

But Kratz is much worse.

In 2010, Kratz faced being fired after Wisconsin Gov Jim Doyle began removal proceedings and the Wisconsin District Attorneys Association called for Kratz to resign after at least 10 women complained of sexual misconduct and harassment by Kratz, (pp 262-63, Ferak, Wrecking Crew, Demolishing The Case Against Steven Avery).

Kratz' license to practice law in Wisconsin is currently suspended due to unrelated administrative deficiencies. It's likely Kratz will never practice law again in Wisconsin.

So, Kratz now inserts himself in rightwing politics defending wrongful convictions, and attempting to win favor with rightwing political forces through Kratz heavy social media presence.

Yesterday, Kratz joined forces with open racists defending Make America Great Again teens who taunted and harassed a Native America veteran after a D.C. rally last weekend.

Echoing the rightwing, Kratz also adopts the Trump-Fox News banter, calling the Making a Murderer docuseries, "fake."

#makingamurderer don’t pretend the MaM mob is any different than advancing a KNOWINGLY false narrative against teenagers in Kentucky. Attorney Kathleen Zellner, Jerry Buting, and many others have taken their FAKE 2-season docuseries, and ruined people’s lives. #Bloodsport https://t.co/sipkDLGhlD

— Ken Kratz (@Ken723Ken) January 22, 2019

Other topics on which Kratz opines include a defense of Donald Trump, whom Kratz says is the "greatest negotiator in history," and:

• Retweeting the wisdom of Sarah Palin
• Trolling wrongful-conviction attorney, Kathleen Zellner
• Trolling Justice Kavanaugh accuser,  Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

What does the disgraced Ken Kratz do now besides social media posts?

There's the Republican Party, refuge for racists, miscreants and those for whom ethics and decency do not weigh, like Ken Kratz.

Money Triumphs in Dane County 47th Assembly District

Dog Days of August and Wisconsin Democracy

Dane County, Wisconsin — Not sure who is more contemptible, white Republican election inspectors and Fitchburg City Hall who work to stop the votes of minorities or the Republican ass-hats who stuck Wisconsin with the Fall Partisan Primary elections in the first days of August.

I know who comes in third.

If a multi-millionaire candidate shopping for the statehouse parachuted into a district, spent six-figures, after refusing on several occasions to support the Recall-Scott Walker movement as a UW-Madison student, after having been outed as devoid of community involvement, elected-office experience, political advocacy, knowledge of public affairs, and paying a D.C. consulting firm $10,000s to write, produce and mail reams of multi-page, glossy campaign literature, then this candidate would likely be disavowed or at the least not endorsed by Democratic Party strategists.

Wrong, wrong decade, wrong century.

The most valuable capital in politics is money of course, but this truism is now foundational law, blacking out any semblance of community democracy and grassroots participation. This epic-failure defect is now acclaimed by too many Dem. Party players with their hands out looking for their cut of the bank account of the new multi-millionaire in town, one Jimmy Anderson.

If you thought helping grassroots, democratic movements were a mission-critical Democratic Party objective in Dane County, you are dead wrong.

The Herb Kohl model of Democratic Party politics reigns supreme at all levels of electoral campaigns.

Gone are the days of William Proxmire, dropping a $100 to get elected, or Russ Feingold, knocking on every door of his district multiple times to get his start in electoral politics in a 1982 campaign for Wisconsin State Senate, though on a positive note Feingold is working to bring back people over money, an endeavor that looks to win in this cycle in Wisconsin's U.S. Senate race.

I refer you to the campaign for Democratic Party nominee for the Wisconsin State Assembly, (District 47), featuring Fitchburg Ald. Tony Hartmann (D), Fitchburg Ald. Julia Arata-Fratta (D) and California native, Jimmy Anderson.

Anderson is the multi-millionaire referenced in the lede paragraph. Anderson won the three-way primary, 44 percent (Anderson) to 38 percent (Arata-Fratta) to 16 percent (Hartmann) on August 9.

Anderson told the Capital Times that he would have opposed Scott Walker in the 2011 Recall campaign, but was forbidden by "law" from signing the Recall petition, a ludicrous suggestion that went uncorrected and virtually unchallenged in the local news media during the last days of this early August low turn-out affair.

I met Jimmy Anderson, he came to our home, nice guy. I sent the guy suggestions about hitting doors, Mark Pocan, Bernie Sanders and voiced my concerns on a number of public policy issues.

As the campaign continued, it became clear that Anderson knew next to nothing about public policy.

Tony Hartman and Julia Arata-Fratta came to our home next, and it was immediately apparent that these two Fitchburg alders were running to win, with deep roots in the community, and a wide knowledge of public affairs, so we, our household, supported Hartman and Arata-Fratta.

Everybody played by the rules, but Mark Pocan disappointed by sitting on the scales blinded by the promise of Anderson's money to come.

Fresh from last month's Democratic National Convention in which Pocan worked to shut down the Bernie Sanders Wisconsin delegation, Pocan hoisted Anderson to victory.

Congratulations are due Pocan, Anderson and political consultants with the Pivot Group and Andy Gussert.

Absent a return to citizen-based, democratic movements defining the Democratic Party, Dane County and Wisconsin need no more such victories.

This morning, Pocan is back in my InBox, shaking the trees for bucks. Didn't strike me as auspicious, post-partisan state fall primary, 2016.

Dane County—Jimmy Anderson Refused to Sign Recall-Scott Walker Petition, Now Claims It Was Illegal

Jimmy Anderson refused to sign Recall-Scott Walker petition in 2011.
Now, Anderson claims he could not sign because it would have been
illegal because he is disabled. This is absolutely, 100 percent wrong.
Wisconsin Elections Commission officials confirmed this morning
Wisconsin election law allows help from anyone a voter or signer
chooses to vote or sign a Recall petition or a candidate nomination paper.
For more information on Accessibility, see Wisconsin Elections Commission

Jimmy Anderson lies about refusal to sign recall-Scott Walker 2011 petition Update - Chapter 2 of the Elections Commission administrative rules states that, "An elector shall sign his or her own name [on a petition] unless unable to do so because of physical disability. An elector unable to sign because of physical disability shall be present when another person signs on behalf of the disabled elector and shall specifically authorize the signing." The administrative rule applies to all election-related petitions, including recall petitions and nomination papers.
---
Wisconsin State Assembly, (dist 47), candidate Jimmy Anderson acknowledged he was approached several times to sign the Recall Scott Walker petition and refused.

Now, Anderson claims his refusal was not for ideological grounds but because, Anderson falsely claims, it was unlawful to sign the Recall petition because he was disabled.

Anderson's claim is the most uninformed, easily disconfirmed line of garbage uttered in Wisconsin the last six years. To say it is unlawful to sign a Wisconsin Recall petition because of a disability is a lie that would make Scott Walker blush.

Applicable Wisconsin statutory language takes a decided will-of-the-voter stance on election rules. Federal law prohibits discrimination against differently abled voters from participating in any electoral process in any manner.

Reads Wisconsin Statute: Recall Petition –9.10(2)(j) (j) If a challenger demonstrates that someone other than the elector signed for the elector, the signature may not be counted, unless the elector is unable to sign due to physical disability and authorized another individual to sign in his or her behalf. (emphasis added)

Officials contacted this morning at the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) confirmed the above facts in an email.

Anderson told the Madison Capital Times in a piece by Todd D. Milewski that, "Whenever (Recall organizers) would approach me, I would tell them that of course I would love to sign it but I just physically can't. And I know that you can't sign it for me because that'd be against the law. I had to decline at the time."

Anderson is a liar.

Anderson also claims to be an attorney and lawyer in Wisconsin, but leaves out the fact he is forbidden to practice law or offer legal advice, (Mal Contends).

Dane County Assembly Candidate Misrepresented Status as Attorney

James Anderson as described in State Bar of Wisconsin;
an inactive status means Anderson may not practice law
in Wisconsin (State Bar of Wisconsin)

"No individual other than an enrolled active member of the state bar may practice law in this state or in any manner purported to be authorized or qualified to practice law."
- Wisconsin Supreme Court rule, SCR CHAPTER 10 REGULATION OF THE STATE BAR ... SCR 10.03  Membership

Updated - Jimmy Anderson cannot practice law in Wisconsin. But the state assembly candidate points to his status as an "attorney" and a "lawyer" as qualifications for elected public office.

Jimmy Anderson misrepresented his professional status as an attorney, show statements Anderson made in a candidate questionnaire, and a video forum.

One of three candidates for an open seat in Dane County's 47th assembly district election, (Fall 2016 Wisconsin Partisan Primary), Anderson said in part, "As the only lawyer in the field, I have a unique understanding of our legal system. I’m extremely confident in my ability to guide good policy from idea to law," in a candidate questionnaire on the online League of Women Voters of Dane County, Inc., conducted by email and published July 13.

In a different question-and-answer candidate video by the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin, a video of Jimmy Anderson shows Anderson explaining his qualifications for state assembly and why he is running. The exchange is moderated by Jim Cain, and was conducted on July 22, co-produced by the League of Women Voters of Dane County, Inc. and the City of Madison.

Jim Cain asks, "What is your professional, educational and civic background, that qualifies you for the state assembly and why are you running?" Anderson says in part, "I believe I am the only attorney that's currently running for the position in this district."

Anderson's status as an inactive attorney indicated at the State Bar of Wisconsin's website is confirmed by an August 1, 2016 email to Mal Contends from the State Bar of Wisconsin that reads in part, "Atty. James P. Anderson was admitted to the State Bar of Wisconsin on 1/31/2013. He maintained an Active license until voluntarily changing his status to Inactive on 5/23/2014."

An inactive status means Anderson is unlicensed to practice law in Wisconsin, according to Wisconsin Supreme Court rules governing the practice of law in Wisconsin.

Reads Wisconsin Supreme Court rule, SCR CHAPTER 10 REGULATION OF THE STATE BAR ... SCR 10.03  Membership (3)  Classes of membership: "(a) The members of the state bar are divided into 4 classes: active members, judicial members, inactive members and emeritus members.  ... The class of inactive members includes those persons who are eligible for active membership but are not engaged in the practice of law in this state and have filed with the secretary of the association written notice requesting enrollment in the class of inactive members.

b)Any inactive member in good standing and any judicial member who is no longer serving in a judicial office may change his or her classification to that of an active member by filing with the secretary a written request for transfer to the class of active members and by paying the dues required of active members.  No inactive member who has not actively practiced law in this state or in another state during the last 10 years may be transferred to active membership until the transfer is approved by the supreme court except a judicial member who is no longer serving in a judicial office shall be classified as an active member upon his or her written request.

(c) No judicial or inactive member may practice law in this state or hold office or vote in any election conducted by the state bar.  No person engaged in the practice of law in this state in his or her own behalf or as an assistant or employee of an active member of the state bar, or occupying a position, the duties of which require the giving of legal advice or service in this state, may be enrolled as an inactive member.

(4)  (a)  No individual other than an enrolled active member of the state bar may practice law in this state or in any manner purported to be authorized or qualified to practice law. ...