Complaint Review: Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution - Milwaukee Wisconsin

1 of 191.

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT MILWAUKEE COUNTY

Bodie Witzlib

556 Colgate Road

Colgate, WI 53017 Case No:

Plaintiff, Classification No: 30107

v.

Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution;

James Santelle; Lynn Adelman; Jon Sanfilippo; Jon Dietrich; Tracy Johnson;

Kevin Carr; J.P. Stadtmueller; Nancy Joseph; Laura Kwaterski; Paul Kanter; John S.; Sheryl Stawski; Thomas Wilmouth; Edward Hunt; Michael Cohn; Dan Stiller; Stephanie Mott and any unknown federal government employees functioning jointly and in concert with aforementioned defendants.

Federal Courthouse

517 East Wisconsin Ave.

Milwaukee, WI 53202

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES plaintiff Bodie Witzlib taking civil action against the United States Federal Government, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution, and against the aforementioned defendants in their personal capacities, pursuant to law.

The wrongs committed against plaintiff by the defendants unlawful acts, and the deprivations of Liberty, injuries, and losses the plaintiff suffered directly caused by defendants unlawful actions, taken in concert and jointly with state actors and private entities under the color of state and federal law against plaintiff, occurred in Milwaukee Wisconsin and within the Eastern District of Wisconsin between the dates of April 30th, 2013, and October 21st, 2014. Accordingly, Wisconsin State Circuit Court of Milwaukee County has jurisdiction over the foregoing civil action.

Under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; under Article 1 sections 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution; under the United States Code Title 42 sections 1983 and 1985(3); under the Civil Rights Act of 1871; under Wisconsin Statutes 134.01, 802.03, 893.57, 942.12, 946.65, 948.18, 893.19, 946.18; and under Bounds v. Smith (1977) . . . ; the foregoing civil action complaint arises.

2 of 191.

INCIDENT FACTS

1. On January 1st, 2013, plaintiff Bodie Witzlib, a full time college student in the University of Wisconsin College System, was enjoying winter break. Witzlib, not unlike most college students, sought to secure a part time job and be productive when not studying and doing school work for his courses, instead of just vegging out in front of the TV or playing video games. Being lazy definitely would have been in Witzlib’s best interests considering the results of Witzlib’s proactive business goals and entrepreneurial spirit. In mid January, a week before winter break ended, Witzlib was struck with an idea to start a business working for himself with hopes of making money out of the comfort of his own home. In Washington County Wisconsin, Witzlib’s home county, big billboards could be viewed from the major highway that runs through the middle of the county, Hwy 41, advertising and promoting the sale and use of “fireworks.” Witzlib remembered how much fun him and his friends used to have blasting off fireworks for shits and grins. Witzlib did some research on the internet and learned he could produce fireworks on a small scale from the comfort of his home and generate some extra money for food and other expenses. So instead of sitting around and doing nothing, or working for someone else that reaps the rewards of all his labor, Witzlib decided to be creative and productive in his spare time away from studying. Witzlib decided, after doing some research, to start a small business producing fireworks on a small scale. Witzlib made his pipe dream a reality when he established “G.I. Fireworks” in January of 2013. Witzlib thought G.I. Fireworks was a really cool name for a fireworks company. One of Witzlib’s many original ideas. Witzlib researched safety procedures and legally purchased all of the raw materials off the internet and had the materials shipped directly to his home. All legal. Under the United States Code, Title 18 Chapter 40 Section 845 (a)(5), one may legally possess up to 50 lbs. of black powder. Witzlib never possessed anywhere near 50 lbs. of black powder at any time. Witzlib worked all winter long in the production phase of business operations for the summer season of 2013. By the end of April, as Witzlib’s spring semester of college was winding down, Witzlib had produced over a thousand potentially functional firework units, nearly all of them about half the size of your index finger, about the same size as a 12 gauge shotgun shell, and nearly all containing small amounts (1-2½ grams) of potentially explosive powder. Witzlib did not produce “weapons” (pipe bombs, grenades, landmines, bombs, guns, missiles . . .) that are used to possibly harm people, Witzlib produced fireworks that people blast off for shits and grins and that there is actually a market for in Wisconsin and has been for generations. Witzlib did not purchase a thousand fireworks and make a pipe bomb; Witzlib purchased raw materials legally off of the internet, started a small business and worked for 3 months at a workbench in his basement producing a thousand potentially explosive fireworks. Witzlib uses the word “potentially”, because all of the fireworks could have been duds. The fuses were never lit on any of the fireworks so no one will ever know if the fireworks were actually explosive devices because all the fireworks could have been “duds.” Witzlib points out that there is a night and day difference between someone who purchases a thousand fireworks and converts them into a pipe bomb and someone who purchases raw

3 of 191.

materials and works for 3 months at a workbench producing a thousand fireworks. Despite the fact, in Witzlib’s case, there is no question that Witzlib is clearly the latter; the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution is prosecuting and has treated Witzlib as though he were the former. Including violating Witzlib’s Constitutional Rights in efforts to prosecute and convict Witzlib for the sake of exercising and enhancing their own power and for the sake of their own glory. Hence the foregoing lawsuit. Q. 1-7.

2. On April 30th, 2013, two informants appeared at the Germantown Police Department in the Village of Germantown Wisconsin where Witzlib resided, and complained of someone with fireworks in the basement. The informants verbally requested that the Germantown Police remove/arrest that person who was Witzlib. Witzlib’s residence was located at N96 W14250 County Line Road in Germantown Wisconsin. One of the informants was Witzlib’s uncle. Up until this point, Witzlib was under the impression that his uncle was also his business partner. Witzlib’s uncle lent Witzlib all the tools necessary to produce the fireworks; cordless drill, drill bit set, digital scale. Witzlib’s uncle also told Witzlib that he was going to help Witzlib sell the finished fireworks products. On April 30th, 2013, Witzlib’s uncle flip-flopped 180 degrees when he appeared at the Germantown Police Department in a joint effort with his wife, the other informant, to have Witzlib arrested and removed from his home of 5 years. Witzlib’s uncle complained to the police with a laundry list of reasons that he felt justified the removal of Witzlib from his home. Witzlib’s uncle complained to police on interview video that Witzlib stayed up too late at night, slept in too late in the morning, had a messy bedroom, was playing baseball, smelled bad, had bad genes, used his grandmothers car when Witzlib’s was being repaired, possibly didn’t have a license, didn’t pay rent, started a business called “G.I. Fireworks” and was advertising and had fireworks in the basement. The informant, Witzlib’s uncle, requested that police remove Witzlib citing the aforementioned reasons to justify the removal. At approximately 5:00 p.m. Officer P. Schmitt of the Germantown Police Department took steps to obtain a search warrant when Schmitt contacted officials at the Washington County Courthouse. At that time, it was “determined” by officials that consent was required. Between 5:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. government officials planned a scheme to enter Witzlib’s residence without a warrant. The devious scheme was plotted at the Germantown Police Department. At approximately 7:30 p.m., two officers in plain clothes pulled into Witzlib’s driveway in a large unmarked sports utility vehicle and parked at the end of the driveway. These officers were local police officer P. Schmitt and federal officer J. Keeku. These officers exited the unmarked vehicle and walked up to the front door of Witzlib’s house. Witzlib met the officers at the front door. Schmitt told Witzlib that officers were investigating a “hit and run” accident and requested that Witzlib step outside to inspect his car for damage. Witzlib denied being involved in a “hit and run” car accident and stepped outside at the officers’ request. Witzlib was aware that obstructing a police investigation was a crime. Witzlib and the two officers walked out into the driveway to where Witzlib’s car was located, approximately 30-40 ft. from Witzlib’s front door. Upon reaching the car in the driveway, another Germantown

4 of 191.

police officer pulled up on the scene in a marked squad car and parked on the street. This officer, D. Moschea, quickly exited his squad car and walked across the sidewalk and the lawn to where the three individuals were standing near Witzlib’s car in the driveway. At this time, Schmitt told Witzlib that police were really not investigating a “hit and run” and asked Witzlib if there was anything in the house that police should know about. Witzlib, after learning that police had just lied to his face moments earlier, told police to get off the property and asserted his Constitutional Rights. Police refused to leave; Moschea ordered Witzlib not to move and told Witzlib that he was being “detained.” Schmitt and Keeku entered Witzlib’s home without a warrant and with a consent form in their pocket. Q.8. Upon entering the residence, officers stopped to pressure the homeowner Ruth Witzlib to sign a consent to search form. Ruth, under the pressure of Schmitt and Keeku who had intruded into her home, signed the form. Schmitt and Keeku searched and found what they thought might be fireworks in the basement. Schmitt and Keeku exited the residence and handcuffed Witzlib. Witzlib was transported to the Germantown Police Department by Moschea. There, Moschea pressured Witzlib to sign a “Miranda Rights” consent form, waiving Witzlib’s right to remain silent and agreeing to talk with police. Witzlib signed the form at Moschea’s request. Moschea engaged Witzlib in conversation and interrogation for over an hour that was recorded on interview video. Schmitt and Keeku appeared over an hour later and further interrogated Witzlib. Witzlib expressed concern about incriminating himself and requested to talk to a lawyer. After Moschea, Schmitt and Keeku were through interrogating Witzlib; Witzlib was transported to the Washington County Jail and booked on fireworks related charges.

3. On May 1st, 2013, the next day, Witzlib wrote a letter to Mark Bensen, Washington County District Attorney, requesting a signature bond so that Witzlib would not miss his college exams for the spring semester of 2013. Witzlib worked hard, at both his business, and studying, all winter and was achieving high grades in ALL of his college courses.

4. On Thursday May 2nd, 2013, Witzlib met with the Washington County Public Defender Nadia Perez to discuss the case and the initial appearance. Perez was a good attorney.

5. HEARING: On Friday May 3rd, 2013, Witzlib made an initial appearance in Washington County Circuit Court. Bond was set at $25,000.00. News media was present from the major local network stations and footage was broadcast on TV.

6. On or about Wednesday May 10th, 2013, Witzlib retained federal panel attorney Michael Cohn. Witzlib’s mom paid Cohn $5,000.00 out of her life savings. Q.10.

7. On or about May 15th, 2013, Cohn met with Witzlib in the Washington County Jail and provided Witzlib with paperwork and legal documents that included the charges the charges against Witzlib as well as the police incident reports written the day of the incident April 30th, 2013, by officer Schmitt, documenting the day

5 of 191.

of the incident, April 30th, 2013. Witzlib obtained two distinctly different police incident reports, both written by Schmitt, at that time, from federal panel attorney Cohn. The first Schmitt incident report summarized Schmitt’s interview with informant number one, Witzlib’s aunt and wife of informant number two, Witzlib’s uncle. The informant’s lived in a nearby residence. The second incident Schmitt wrote summarized the incident itself. There may have been other reports, however, Witzlib was never given access to any other reports. There was apparently no report written wrote regarding informant number two, possibly because informant number two was video interviewed. If Schmitt did write a report regarding the informant number two interview, that report was never disclosed to Witzlib at any time. Specifically, in the first Schmitt incident report affidavit, summarizing Schmitt’s interview with informant number one (not video recorded), Schmitt quotes informant number one in her original report as stating that Witzlib was “off his medications.” Informant number one stated this false fact as one of informant number one’s reasons to support the arrest of Witzlib, removal of Witzlib from his residence and subsequent raid of Witzlib’s home. Schmitt clearly quoted informant number one in the original police incident affidavit. The statement “off his medications” was in quotation marks in the original report. The original summary of Schmitt’s contact with informant number one was only a few paragraphs on a single page. The only quote on the entire page was the “off his medications” quote by Schmitt. The quote stuck out like a sore thumb, not only because it was the only specific quote in any of the several incident report affidavits but because the statement was a lie. Witzlib was not on “medications” and had never taken “medications” in his entire life! Informant number one, who desired to have Witzlib removed from his residence for years, deliberately and knowingly tells this manipulative lie to police. The first informant’s lie was told to officer Schmitt and Schmitt recorded it in quotation marks in the original police report; “off his medications.” All of the original police incident reports were handed over to Witzlib by federal panel attorney Michael Cohn while Witzlib was located at the Washington County Jail in mid May of 2013.

8. Witzlib examined the original report affidavits with a fine toothed comb, finding numerous inaccuracies, contradictions, inconsistencies, false statements, ONE false quote, and relevant material information left out of the reports all together by the police which authored those reports. Witzlib examined and went over the original police report incident affidavits countless times. Witzlib, who possess above average intelligence and was a high scoring college student coming off a year of above average grades, was locked in a small cell the month of May, 2013, with nothing more than court paperwork and a few police incident reports. Witzlib went over the original police incident reports a hundred times. Schmitt clearly quoted informant number one as stating that Witzlib was “off his medications” in the original incident report of the informant number one interview Schmitt conducted on the day of the incident.

9. In May of 2013, after going over the reports, Witzlib brought all of the false and concealed information to the attention of federal panel attorney Cohn. Cohn

6 of 191.

disregarded everything that Witzlib told him and refused to take any legal action regarding the false affidavits on Witzlib’s behalf. Cohn waived the preliminary hearing and advised Witzlib to take a 4 year federal prison deal offered by the government or plead mental illness. The fact is, Witzlib was not mentally ill then, now, or ever. Witzlib was an organized, focused, high scoring college student who had maintained high grades all year, went two for three in a rec league baseball game, just roto tilled his garden and bought a state fishing license days before the incident, won two large Milwaukee area poker tournaments against a large number of people who were actually trying to win, started a small business and worked all winter producing products and took care of all his responsibilities and commitments above and beyond, like taking care of his elderly grandmothers. Witzlib was not mentally ill in any way. Witzlib was of sound mind, very sound. Witzlib told federal panel attorney Cohn that he asserted his Constitutional Rights outside of his residence in the driveway. Witzlib told federal panel attorney Coohn that police lied to him at his front door. Cohn told Witzlib that nothing Witzlib said mattered because police officer Schmitt and Keeku got the homeowner Ruth Witzlib to sign a consent to search form.

10. Witzlib was in possession of the original police incident report affidavits from mid May, 2013, until August 27th, 2013, when Witzlib’s property and records, both legal and medical, were seized by the government; U.S. Marshal’s, Dodge County Jail administrators, and a federal panel attorney.

11. Witzlib was confined the entire month of May, from May 1st, 2013, until May 29th, 2013, in the Washington County Jail. Nearly the entire month, Witzlib was housed in segregation block D-2 in the Huber wing of the facility. Several of the inmates in that block at that time had lengthy criminal records, in and out of prison. Several of these inmates were hostile and on heavy doses of psychotrophic drugs. One of these inmates was registered sex offender and diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic Lawrence Arnold. Arnold was arrested a few days before Witzlib. Arnold was found hiding in a shed type structure somewhere in the Kettle Moraine State Forrest after a local manhunt had been launched to apprehend him. Witzlib, over the course of the month locked in close quarters with Arnold, told Arnold that he had written a book and in that book, published in 2011, Witzlib asserted the opinion that sex predators should be castrated for the health and wellness of the community. Arnold resented Witzlib for openly condemning his criminal history and for Witzlib’s opinion. Arnold had full access to Witzlib’s story and case because it was broadcast on the local news stations. Arnold, who was heavily medicated at this time for paranoid schizophrenia, and who admitted to hearing voices of people who were not there, wrote a statement against Witzlib. Lawrence Arnold’s statement was 100% false. In the statement, dated May 29th, 2013 the same day Witzlib was transported out of the Washington County Jail, Arnold alleged that Witzlib told him that he was going to “bomb churches” in Germantown Wisconsin. This was a false statement. A lie! This was a malicious lie concocted by a psychopath. Lawrence Arnold. Since May, 29th, 2013, federal prosecutors have used this lie to justify violating Witzlib’s Constitutional Rights and to justify maliciously prosecuting Witzlib. The Arnold statement was entered

7 of 191.

into evidence by prosecutors on May 29th, 2013, and has been used by federal prosecutors as a weapon to justify unlawful tactics of prosecution.

12. The second week of May, as Witzlib was missing his final exams for college after working his tail off all school year to achieve good grades; Witzlib plucked the hair out of his entire face, beard and moustache. Witzlib also shaved his head. The United States Attorney’s Office policy in the Eastern District of Wisconsin Milwaukee Courthouse is to use false statements of unreliable jailhouse rats and informants as a manipulative way to unlawfully obtain power over defendants and as a means of justifying unlawful tactics of prosecution.

13. From May 1st to approximately May 10th, 2013, Witzlib’s case was widely publicized by the local news media and was broadcast on every major local news channel. Witzlib has already suffered from the inaccurate publicity as snakes like Lawrence Arnold have leeched onto his case. Witzlib’s case saw publicity from local talk radio, local TV, the Milwaukee Journal newspaper with a state wide audience and on the internet. The entire Milwaukee area was saturated with Witzlib’s story for over a week. The news media was not reporting the facts and failing to report the whole story. For instance the fact that Witzlib asserted his Constitutional Rights and was an A student in school were details never reported by the media. The news media, with information spoon fed to them directly from police and federal officials, had portrayed Witzlib’s character in a false light; humiliated Witzlib; slandered Witzlib and defamated his character. The government, through the use of lies and fabricated information, created a threat where there wasn’t one and created danger where there wasn’t any, all for the sake of their own glory and desire to prosecute and raid. All at the expense of Witzlib’s constitutionally protected interest in Liberty, life, future and reputation.

14. On May 21st, 2013, Witzlib was indicted by a grand jury on fireworks related charges. Q.11 and R.1.

15. HEARING: On May 29th, 2013, before a scheduled court hearing in Washington County Circuit Court, Witzlib met with Cohn to discuss the case. Cohn told Witzlib that the State of Wisconsin was dropping the charges and that Witzlib had been indicted on federal charges May 21st, 2013. Witzlib again, at this meeting, told Cohn that he asserted his Constitutional Rights and that the police incident reports were filled with false information and were missing information. Cohn ignored everything Witzlib told him and refused to challenge the false reports or the evidence obtained from the unwarranted search. Conn kept insisting that Witzlib claim mental illness and strike some type of deal with the government on those grounds. The only meaningful legal action Cohn took on Witzlib’s behalf was showing up for court on May 29th, 2013, visiting Witzlib in Jail and submitting a standard motion for discovery which Cohn did not draft for Witzlib’s specific case. Q.12.

16. Witzlib appeared for the hearing on May 29th, 2013, in Washington County Court. The state of Wisconsin dismissed the charges. Later that afternoon, after court,

8 of 191.

Witzlib was transported from the Washington County Jail to the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse by federal officials. Witzlib was there secured in the bullpen holding cell area.

17. Before court, an arraignment hearing, Witzlib was taken out of the holding cell area by deputy marshals and led into a small interview room. There Witzlib was interviewed by probation and parole officer S. Mott. Witzlib expressed concern about talking with Mott without his lawyer. Cohn never said anything to Witzlib about an interview with a federal social worker. Mott insisted that the probation interview was standard procedure and told Witzlib that she only wanted basic information from him. Witzlib went through with the probation interview with Mott, which was more like an interrogation than an interview. Mott demanded to know personal information and financial information. Witzlib told Mott that he had no money, was in debt $15,000.00 with college loans and paid every cent he had to Cohn and now owes his mom $5,000.00 for the cost of Cohn’s retainer. Witzlib made it very clear to Mott that neither Witzlib nor his mom were rich. Witzlib also told Mott that over $600.00 in cash was taken from Witzlib’s desktop on the day of the incident by police and that money was never listed in any of the police inventory lists. Mott became visibly agitated by Witzlib’s insistence that he had no money. The meeting with Mott lasted approximately 30-45 minutes. Q.12 and R.2.

18. After the probation interview, Witzlib appears in court before Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph for an arraignment and plea hearing. Cohn was present. Q.12 and R.3. Witzlib pleads “NOT GUILTY.”

19. Bond was not set by Judge Joseph at that time. Witzlib was ordered “temporarily” detained. R.5. Court enters a pre-trial order setting timeliness guidelines, procedural order. R.6.

20. After arraignment, Witzlib is transported to the Dodge County Jail and Federal Holding Facility in Juneau Wisconsin, over an hour drive away from the federal courthouse in downtown Milwaukee. Witzlib remains in the Dodge County facility for the next 3 months. Within a few days of being booked in the Dodge County facility, Witzlib is moved to “C” block, general population. Witzlib discovers that the Dodge County Federal Holding facility does not have a fully functional law library. Despite the posting on the wall of the law library, which advertised the “Lexis Nexis” software computer program, there was actually no “Lexis Nexis” program on the computer in “C” block. Furthermore, Dodge County wasn’t paying the full subscription to the “Lois Law” internet Law Library so inmates only had access to the Wisconsin Statutes, the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions and the U.S. Code. Inmates did not have access to state and federal case law in the Dodge County facility at that time. There were no law books in the “C” block area whatsoever, only the computer. Witzlib was deprived of a functional Law Library by the state and federal government the entire time he was located in the Washington and Dodge County Jails in 2013. Witzlib was

9 of 191.

deliberately placed in specific housing locations by the government that was in control of his body at that time.

21. On May 30th, 2013, a “Trial Scheduling Order” is set by the District Court, before Judge J.P. Stadtmueller, scheduling trial for July 29th, 2013. Q.13 and R.4.

22. On June 1st, 2013, Witzlib received a copy of the “Pre-trial Service Report” written by federal probation officer Mott. The report is predominantly false, painting Witzlib’s character in a false light. Mott’s report is filled with false information and distorted information and fails to include numerous facts that were favorable to Witzlib and the perception of Witzlib’s character to any person who may examine the report or court official who may examine the report and use the report to make and justify decisions made which could negatively or positively impact Witzlib’s present or future for years to come. Mott’s inaccurate and false report further damaged Witzlib’s case and hopes to clear his name. After receiving Mott’s inaccurate report, negatively and falsely portraying Witzlib’s character in a negative and false light, Witzlib immediately wrote a statement for the record correcting Mott’s inaccurate report. Witzlib submitted the correction to Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph via the U.S. Mail on June 1st, 2013. Q.14 Ten page typed letter to Nancy Joseph.

23. The first week of June, 2013, Witzlib informs Cohn via U.S. Mail, and verbally over the phone, that Witzlib is no longer interested in Cohn’s counsel. Since Cohn only appeared 1 day in court and refused to challenge the evidence against Witzlib or take any other legal action on Witzlib’s behalf, and since Cohn was advising Witzlib to plead mental illness when Witzlib’s mind was solid, clear, and sound, Witzlib told Cohn that he would be representing himself. Witzlib requested to know how much of the $5,000.00 Witzlib would get back out of the retainer. Cohn told Witzlib, over a telephone conversation from the Dodge County Jail that Conn would make out a bill and tell Witzlib the following week, which would have been the second week in June of 2013. The next week, again over the phone (which was scheduled by the jail and took place in the “C” block teleconference area near the Law Library computer), Cohn told Witzlib that this bill stood at $6,100.00! Witzlib asked Cohn how his bill could be so much? Cohn stated that he charged $300.00/hr. Up until this point Cohn never stated at any time that he was charging $300.00/hr. Witzlib requested a portion of the retainer refunded $1,500.00 and Cohn refused. Cohn and kept the full $5,000.00.

24. On June 9th, 2013, Witzlib submitted a two page letter to Assistant U.S. Attorney Tracy Johnson. Q.15.

25. HEARING: On June 11th, 2013, Witzlib is never notified or brought to court by the Dodge County transport staff or the U.S. Marshals. Cohn appears at the hearing (after being fired by Witzlib) and slanders Witzlib in open court, telling the court that Witzlib has mental issues. Cohn, who is a federal panel attorney,

10 of 191.

seeks to be appointed as counsel through the federal defenders service official Dan Stiller. R.8.

26. On June 13th, 2013, Witzlib submits a letter regarding the case to Tracy Johnson. Q.16.

27. On June 17th, 2013, Witzlib allegedly submitted documents sealed by the court. R.9.

28. The Dodge County Jail and Federal Holding facility has a policy that all incoming inmates receive a “check up” by jail medical staff within the first two weeks of being booked into the facility. At Witzlib’s initial check up from the jail nurse, Witzlib informed the medical staff that he had been feeling physically unwell for some time. Witzlib told the medical staff that he had pain in his chest and esophagus area amongst other symptoms and signs of disease. Witzlib’s medical records had been forwarded to the Dodge County Jail medical staff by the U.S. Marshals who obtained Witzlib’s records from the Washington County Jail medical staff, S. Waldhart and P. Cornelius. In Washington County, Witzlib was tested for Hepatitis A, B and C and for HIV and was allegedly negative. Witzlib had complained of the same signs and symptoms in the Washington County Jail to the medical staff. Witzlib was misdiagnosed with heartburn by the Washington County Jail medical staff and was prescribed a prescription strength acid reflux drug. Witzlib has never suffered from “heartburn” at any time. Witzlib took the heartburn drug prescribed to him by the Washington County Jail medical staff and Witzlib’s condition did not improve. Witzlib never gave consent or signed anything allowing Washington County to release Witzlib’s medical records to the U.S. Marshals service and every subsequent government facility that Witzlib was confined in. The “copout” heartburn misdiagnosis, which is a very convenient condition and affordable condition to treat by jail medical staffs, has been perpetuated by the U.S. Marshal’s service and every subsequent federal holding facility since May of 2013, despite overwhelming concrete evidence, signs and symptoms of physical disease, that points to a chronic serious physical medical condition affecting Witzlib’s health. At the initial nurse visit with Dodge County federal holding facility medical staff, the Dodge County mail nurse “Austin” ignored and disregarded obvious signs of physical illness and Witzlib’s concerns and complaints of pain.

29. On June 17th, 2013, Witzlib submits a letter to Nancy Joseph. Q.17.

30. On June 26th, 2013, Cohn moves to withdraw as counsel. Q.19 and R.11.

31. On June 27th, 2013, Witzlib submits a letter to the court stating he wishes to represent himself at trial. R.12.

32. On June 28th, 2013, Witzlib submits several documents to the district court in defense of his character. R.14.

11 of 191.

33. HEARING: On July 2nd, 2013, at a hearing at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin, the court grants state licensed federal panel attorney M. Cohn’s request to withdraw and allows Witzlib to represent himself under pro se status moving forward. Q.20 and R.15.

34. On July 12th, 2013, Witzlib submits letters to J.P. Stadtmueller concerning the case. Q.21 and 22.

35. On July 15th, 2013, Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Kwaterski files a “Notice of Appearance.” R.18.

36. On July 16th, 2013, Witzlib submits a letter to Tracy Johnson concerning the case. Q.24.

37. On July 16th, 2013, Witzlib submits a “Motion to Adjourn” the pending trial scheduled for July 29th, 2013. Q.30 and R.19.

38. On July 17th, 2013, Witzlib receives discovery trial documents. Q.25, 26 and R.21. Witzlib discovers after examining discovery materials sent to him by federal prosecutors, that contained in discovery are hundreds of pieces of alien information that the government computer technician allegedly extracted from Witzlib’s computer. The vast majority of this material Witzlib had never seen before in his entire life. Some entity within the federal government, who had access to the discovery and to Witzlib’s Gateway computer, injected a massive amount of alien discovery evidence into the discovery “thumbnails” that was never on Witzlib’s computer and that Witzlib had never seen before or read before in his entire life. Injecting false materials into discovery is unlawful. In addition to the vast amounts of miscellaneous alien discovery, Witzlib discovered that 2 of the discovery C.D.’s which contained video footage of the search warrant and of Witzlib allegedly producing fireworks in his basement were not able to be viewed by Witzlib because the C.D.’s mailed to Witzlib were not compatible with the Dodge County federal holding facility computers.

39. On July 17th, 2013, federal government officials J.P. Stadtmueller and federal prosecutors deny Witzlib’s adjournment motion. Q.28 and R.22. Witzlib subsequently, immediately, on the same day, after learning that he was being forced into a trial by the federal government with only two weeks to prepare, and not being afforded the opportunity and right to examine the complete discovery or complete a full and thorough investigation (something federal panel attorney Cohn neglected to do), Witzlib hastefully, without putting much, if any, thought into it, writes a series of motions and immediately submits them to the district court for the sole purpose of securing adjournment. Witzlib submits the series of motions, which were typed and printed from the “C” block computer in the Dodge County federal holding facility over the course of about an hour. Witzlib submits the series of motions only after the unfair, unlawful, and unreasonable denial of Witzlib’s adjournment motion, by the Eastern District of Wisconsin

12 of 191.

Federal Governmental Institution federal government officials, including the district court and the U.S. attorney’s office. Q.29-36 and R.28-35.

40. On July 18th, 2013, Stadtmueller recuses himself. R.24.

41. On July 18th, 2013, Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Kanter files a “Notice of Appearance.” R.23.

42. On July 18th, 2013, Witzlib submits a letter to the University of Wisconsin. Q.37.

43. On July 18th, 2013, “Joint” final pretrial report. R.24. The U.S. Attorney’s Office and attorneys James Santelle, Tracy Johnson, Paul Kanter and Laura Kwaterski never wrote Witzlib a single letter in correspondence. Witzlib was completely stonewalled from communication with the court and federal prosecutors and was not recognized as a legitimate member of the courtroom workgroup despite being granted pro se status by the court.

44. On July 18th, 2013, “Scheduling Order.” Case reassigned to Lynn Adelman Easter District of Wisconsin Milwaukee Federal Judge. Q.38 and R.25.

45. On July 19th, 2013, Witzlib submits demand for full discovery. Q.39 and R.27.

46. HEARING: On July 23, 2013, at a status hearing at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin before Federal Judge Lynn Adelman, under direct pressure from the court, Witzlib agrees to accept court appointed counsel. Q.41 and R.36. Status hearing is set for August 27th, 2013.

47. The third to fourth week of July 2013, Witzlib is moved out of “C” block in the Dodge Co. Jail to “A” pod, an “administrative segregation” area at that time. Witzlib alerted jail staff that he feared for his safety after several inmates, for no reason, became hostile to Witzlib, who had done nothing or said anything to incite hostility. Two of these inmates had the first names of “Miguel” and “Jason.” The Dodge County Jail also continued to deny Witzlib medical care at that time. Witzlib suffered losses of privileges due to the move to the restricted “A” pod area and loss full access to the Law Library and full access to the rec area exercise. While in “A” pod, bottom level, Witzlib was confronted by yet another hostile inmate who allegedly had the first name of “Tom.” This inmate harassed Witzlib continually for no reason at all, kicking the outside of Witzlib’s cell door and pounding on the glass window of Witzlib’s cell as Witzlib was quietly concentrating on drawings and patent inventions and minding his own business. This inmate, whom the guards referred to as “Tom”, told Witzlib that he was going to “testify” against Witzlib which led Witzlib to believe that he was informing and cooperating with the federal government, including the U.S. Marshals service and federal prosecutors of the U.S. attorney’s office; who had developed a pattern of using false testimony of jailhouse informants as a manipulative unlawful legal maneuver to gain power and control over Witzlib’s case; obtain the upper hand and weaken Witzlib’s chances to clear his name.

13 of 191.

Witzlib suspects that the inmates harassing him deliberately were government informants and federal entities.

48. On July 26th, 2013, federal panel attorney Thomas Wilmouth, who lived in Chicago Illinois, was specifically selected to represent Witzlib by Dan Stiller of the Federal Defenders Office under the order of Federal Judge Lynn Adelman. R.37. State licensed federal panel attorney Thomas Wilmouth files a “Notice of Appearance” on July 26th, 2013, with the district court.

49. On July 27th, 2013, Witzlib submits two 4 page letters to federal judges Adelman and Stadtmueller. These letters included inventions Witzlib intended to patent (“Gasinator” portable fuel container and “Mechanical Pipe Hanger” plumbing supply item). Q.42 and 43.

50. On July 27th, 2013, Witzlib submits “Motion for Internal Investigation.” Q.44 and R.40.

51. On July 28th, 2013, Witzlib submits motion to be present at jury screening. Q.45 and R.39.

52. On July 30th, 2013, “Ruth Witzlib Affidavit” is filed into the defense records. Q.46.

53. On July 30th, 2013, “Night Owls” chronology timeline is filed into defense records. Q.47.

54. On August 1st, 2013, state licensed federal panel attorney, selected by federal defender Dan Stiller, Thomas Wilmouth, appears at the Dodge County Federal Holding Facility to meet with Witzlib regarding case 13-CR-99. Wilmouth shows up to meet with Witzlib at approximately 8:00 p.m. Wilmouth behaves very strangely and makes numerous bizarre off handed comments that put up red flags. Wilmouth tells Witzlib that he can’t begin work on Witzlib’s case for 3 weeks because Wilmouth claimed he was swamped with cases and that Witzlib’s case was his “8th” case that Wilmouth was involved in at that time. Wilmouth promises Witzlib that he will not take on any more cases. Wilmouth tells Witzlib that he wants to “retire up north” and tells Witzlib that Adelman is a liberal judge who doesn’t throw the book at people and that Adelman wrote an opinion that was published where Adelman sympathized with pedophiles and sexual deviants. Wilmouth made all sorts of off handed statements that had nothing to do with Witzlib’s case. Furthermore, Wilmouth appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance. Wilmouth talked very fast, he was sweating, he seemed nervous, he interrupted Witzlib and became agitated when Witzlib attempted to release a large number of case folders to him that Witzlib brought along to the visit, in the upstairs visiting area of “A” pod. The meeting between Witzlib and Wilmouth, on Thursday August 1st, 2013, lasted until after 9:00 p.m. Immediately after the meeting, Witzlib wrote letters to Adelman and the federal prosecutors declaring independence from court appointed counsel and stating that Witzlib

14 of 191.

would be representing himself pro se. R.42 and 45. Witzlib specifically told U.S. Attorney Johnson that Wilmouth did not represent him in any way and was not his attorney. Witzlib told Johnson not to release information or evidence to Wilmouth and not to discuss details of the case with Wilmouth. See August 1st, 2013, letter and Q.50.

55. On August 5th, 2013, district judge Adelman ordered Wilmouth to remain on Witzlib’s case. R.43.

56. Adelman refused to recognize Witzlib’s declaration of independence from state licensed federal panel attorney Wilmouth.

57. Witzlib submitted letters to federal prosecutor Johnson throughout the entire month of August 2013. Once again, Johnson and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Wisconsin refused to correspond with Witzlib or acknowledge a single letter. Federal prosecutors, not only discussed confidential case information with Wilmouth regarding Witzlib’s case, federal prosecutors, under the policies of the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. Attorney’s Office, released discovery evidence to Wilmouth and released Witzlib’s personal property to Wilmouth (Gateway computer) after Witzlib specifically told them not to. Q.50, 52 and 53.

58. Nearly the entire month of August 2013, Witzlib is confined in the “A” pod administrative segregation area of the Dodge County federal holding facility. Witzlib attempts to receive medical care and is denied. Witzlib discovers his outgoing and incoming mail is being opened, delayed, obstructed and tampered with by the “programs” officers of the Dodge County Jail, functioning jointly and in concert with the U.S. Marshal’s service and the federal prosecutors of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Kevin Carr, James Santelle, Tracy Johnson, Laura Kwaterski, and Paul Kanter. Witzlib learns that confidential legal documents, medical records and inventions in the blueprint stage were seized by Dodge County Jail Staff. After jail staff (Jailer Ronge) inspected Witzlib’s outgoing mail and the Ronge clearly saw that there was no contraband contained and the folder, Ronge told Witzlib that he could seal the folder as outgoing mail. Witzlib sealed his outgoing mail after inspection by jail staff and then jail staff ripped open Witzlib’s outgoing mail after they had inspected it for contraband and determined that there was not any contraband contained in Witzlib’s outgoing mail, only medical, and legal records and drawings. Witzlib’s mail was stopped from going out and seized by the Dodge County Jail for over a day and was eventually returned to Witzlib ripped open by Officer Riter. The Dodge County Jail, allegedly functioning under the power and authority of the U.S. Marshals service, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution, was continually opening and examining Witzlib’s mail, incoming and outgoing, legal and non-legal. Contra, U.S. Code and federal case law; Wisconsin State Law and established state case law. This policy and these unlawful actions continued the entire month of August 2013.

15 of 191.

59. On August 6th, 2013, Witzlib submits yet another letter to the court and federal prosecutors stating that Wilmouth does not represent Witzlib in any way. Q.48 and R.46.

60. On August 9th, 2013, Witzlib submits letters to Eastern District of Wisconsin Clerk of Court Jon Sanfilippo and federal prosecutor Johnson stating again that Wilmouth does not represent Witzlib. Q.49.

61. On August 9th, 2013, Witzlib submits a notice of “Grievance of Detainment Conditions” to the court. Q.51 and R.47.

62. The entire month of August, 2013, Wilmouth refuses to answer phone calls from Witzlib. Wilmouth told Witzlib at the August 1st, 2013, meeting, that Wilmouth had set up a phone account with $50.00 for phone calls regarding the case. Wilmouth refused to answer calls the entire month of August. See Dodge County phone records. Witzlib is essentially and effectively “STONEWALLED” from accessing the court by state licensed federal panel attorney Wilmouth, the Dodge County Sheriff’s Department and Jail Administration and the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution.

63. On August 11th, 2013, Witzlib submits two, 2 page letters to federal prosecutor Johnson regarding Wilmouth and the ongoing case. Q.53. No response from Johnson or the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

64. On August 13th, 2013, Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph, officially assigns Wilmouth onto Witzlib’s case as court appointed counsel. R.48.

65. On an unknown date, the second or third week of August, the U.S. Attorney’s Office releases Witzlib’s Gateway computer to state licensed federal panel attorney Thomas Wilmouth.

66. On August 18th, 2013, Witzlib submits a grievance letter to U.S. Marshal Carr. Q.54.

67. On Sunday August 18th, 2013, in the “A” block segregation area of the Dodge County Jail, after consuming a dinner meal tray served by jail inmate trustee and federal inmate “Sam” accompanied by second shift jail officer Stelter, Witzlib develops a severe pounding migraine headache that lasted from approximately 7:00 p.m. on Sunday night until approximately 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday night. Over the course of that time Witzlib did not eat or sleep. Witzlib did not consume another crum of toxic Dodge County Jail food from August 19th, 2013 until August 27th, 2013.

68. On August 21st, 2013, Witzlib submits a letter to Adelman. Q.58 and R.49.

69. On August 22nd, 2013, Witzlib submits a 4 page letter to Adelman with attached picture of Exhibit #8. Witzlib draws the courts attention to the fact that cash

16 of 191.

money, seen in the evidence picture, was never listed anywhere in any of the police reports yet can be plainly seen in the evidence picture and was missing after the raid. A total of approximately $635.00 of cash was take off of Witzlib’s desktop area and never listed anywhere in any of the police reports or inventory lists. The case can actually be seen in the evidence picture, reference Exhibit #8. Witzlib also brings to Adelman’s attention the fact that two book manuscripts can be clearly seen on the desktop of Witzlib’s computer in the police photograph, however this evidence and information was nowhere to be found in the discovery evidence sent to Witzlib by the prosecution. Witzlib told Adelman that these files contained material evidence. The government sent Witzlib hundreds and hundreds of pieces of alien discovery data that never was on Witzlib’s computer, yet refused to give Witzlib access to information and data that could be plainly seen on the desktop of Witzlib’s computer in the police evidence photo. The Exhibit #8 photo provides visual proof of missing evidence (THEFT) and the deliberate concealment of evidence by the government. Q.59 and R.52-53.

70. On August 22nd, 2013, Witzlib submits a 4 page letter to Eastern District of Wisconsin Clerk of Court Sanfilippo. Q.60.

71. On August 23rd, 2013, Witzlib submits a 5 page letter to U.S. Marshal Carr. Q.61.

72. On August 24th, 2013, Witzlib submits a grievance letter to Dodge County Sheriff Patricia Ninnman. Q.62.

73. On August 26th, 2013, Monday morning, Witzlib is weighed in the “A” pod cell area and weights approximately 143 lbs. 57 lbs. less than his normal weight on the day of the incident April 30th, 2013. Witzlib had not eaten since the traumatic headache on August 19th, 2013.

74. HEARING: On August 27th, 2013, Witzlib is transported from the Dodge County Jail to the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse by Dodge County Transport Deputies. All of Witzlib’s personal property, legal records, medical records, drawings and personal letters, including the original police incident reports are left behind at the Dodge County Jail, notwithstanding one package containing approximately 250 pages of legal and medical documents and a few drawings that Witzlib put together to brief a new attorney that Witzlib’s family members had told him that they would attempt to retain. Dodge County never told Witzlib that he would not be returning to the facility so Witzlib did not bring all of his property to court on the morning of August 27th, 2013. All of Witzlib’s property is seized by the government; Dodge County Jail Administration; U.S. Marshal’s service; U.S. Attorney’s and state licensed federal panel attorney Wilmouth. This property included the original police reports from May of 2013. Before the status hearing on August 27th, Witzlib meets with federal panel attorney Wilmouth, who had refused to answer phone calls the entire month of August from Witzlib. Wilmouth informs Witzlib that he is moving to have Witzlib committed for a competency evaluation. Wilmouth tells Witzlib that Witzlib is being committed and that there is nothing Witzlib can do about it. Wilmouth tells Witzlib that Witzlib is not

17 of 191.

competent enough to fire him. Witzlib tells Wilmouth that he wants to exercise his right to a jury trial under the Sixth and Seventh Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. A short time later, in the middle of the August 27th, 2013 hearing, Wilmouth blurts out in the middle of the status hearing “this is not a trial case.” Wilmouth then moved to have Witzlib committed and the district judge Adelman granted Wilmouth’s request and ordered that Witzlib be committed for 6 months. Immediately after ordering the 6 month commitment, the deputy clerk Dietrich stood up and turned around and said something to Adelman, Adelman then changed the order to a 30 day commitment. Q.63 and R.50. See also Transcript. After the hearing concluded, Witzlib gave the 250 page brief that he prepared to his mom. The package had sat on the defense table for the entire duration of the court hearing. After the hearing, the deputy Marshals allowed Witzlib to give the sealed package, containing the brief intended for the attorney that Witzlib’s family planned to retain to replace Wilmouth, to Witzlib’s mom who attended the hearing. Witzlib’s mom planned on making copies of the lengthy brief and sending the copies to Milwaukee area private attorneys in an attempt to secure competent professional counsel. The brief was approximately 250 pages and contained legal documents, medical documents, drawings and other intellectual property. The package, that was addressed to Witzlib’s mom and return addressed to Witzlib, was sealed with postage. The package contained a brief outlining the procedural history of the case including correspondences between Witzlib’s first two attorney’s Perez and Cohn that were not contained in the docket. After Witzlib gave the package to his mom, the deputy Marshals handcuffed Witzlib and led Witzlib back down into the federal inmate holding area located in the bowels of the federal courthouse. After Witzlib was out of sight, Wilmouth seized the package/brief from Witzlib’s mom, took the package back to his office and opened it. The brief had rested on the defense table the entire duration of the status hearing. Wilmouth was aware the brief was not intended for him to have or possess or read or review or examine and Wilmouth was aware that Witzlib had attempted to fire him and remove him as counsel the entire month of August 2013. Witzlib could have handed the package to Wilmouth at any time if it was Witzlib’s will for Wilmouth to have the package. Witzlib prepared the brief for Wilmouth’s replacement. Nowhere on the package was the name “Thomas Wilmouth.” But Thomas Wilmouth seized the package, took it back to his office and opened it. A state and federal crime and a violation of rules of professional attorney conduct. Wilmouth was cooperating with the federal government and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants in a concerted effort to prosecute Witzlib at this point in time. All of Witzlib’s legal records, medical records and personal property, including the original police incident reports from May of 2013, were seized by the government on August 27th, 2013.

75. After the hearing Wilmouth seized Witzlib’s brief/sealed outgoing mail/package against Witzlib’s will.

76. On August 27th, 2013, Witzlib was transferred directly to the Kenosha County Jail and Federal Holding Facility from the federal inmate holding area in the bowels

18 of 191.

of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin after the scheduled status hearing. Q.65. Witzlib is transported and then booked into the Kenosha County Main Jail. Q.66.

77. On August 28th, 2013, Witzlib is transferred from the Kenosha County Main Jail to the Kenosha County Detention Center (KCDC) facility across town. Q.67. Witzlib discovers, in the KCDC federal holding facility, what fully functional Law Library actually is. Up until this point, Witzlib was oblivious, completely ignorant to the fact that the Dodge County Jail’s Law Library was void of standard case law databases. Witzlib, along with all the rest of the federal inmates, had been deprived of standard Law Library resources from May through August of 2013.

78. On September 3rd, 2013, Wilmouth submits a motion to the court which discredits Witzlib’s series of motions and basically states that Witzlib is incompetent. R.55. The only purpose of Witzlib’s series of motions was to secure adjournment after the federal government, Eastern District of Wisconsin, was attempting to push him into a trial with only two weeks to prepare.

79. On September 4th, 2013, Witzlib writes a letter to the district court requesting that any attempted court actions made by Wilmouth not be recognized pending the results of Witzlib’s competency evaluation. R.56.

80. On September 5th, 2013, Thursday, Wilmouth appeared at the KCDC facility in a conference room area to meet with Witzlib. The meeting took place face without any glass separating Witzlib and Wilmouth. Q.68. Wilmouth verbally attacks Witzlib with nothing short of abusive attorney misconduct. Wilmouth calls Witzlib names including “p***k”, “paranoid schizophrenic” and tells Witzlib the he is stupid and that Witzlib should stick to laboring. Wilmouth attacks Witzlib, accusing Witzlib of stealing $5,000.00 from his mom, the cost of retaining the first federal panel attorney Cohn. Wilmouth accuses Witzlib of trying to break up the informant’s marriage. Wilmouth tells Witzlib that Wilmouth is going to see to it that Witzlib is put in federal prison where Witzlib can no longer “manipulate” people, which according to Wilmouth, is what Witzlib was trying to do (vicious unfounded allegations which were 100% false; Witzlib was robbed by the first attorney who did absolutely not legal work and failed to take basic legal actions on Witzlib’s behalf; and Witzlib could care less about the inf0rmant’s marriage and had not communicated in any way with the informant’s since they went to the cops and spewed numerous lies on video tape). Witzlib had made efforts to remove Wilmouth from case 13-CR-99 for the entire month of August 2013 by writing several letters to Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Wilmouth resented Witzlib at this time and was functioning jointly and in concert with defendants in efforts to prosecute Witzlib. Wilmouth did not have Witzlib’s best interest in mind at this time and was not loyal to Witzlib his client. Again, at the September 5th, 2013, meeting, Witzlib told Wilmouth that he was not his attorney and did not represent him in any way. Witzlib again attempted to fire Wilmouth face to face by assertively stating “you

19 of 191.

are not my attorney” and “you’re fired.” Wilmouth told Witzlib, “You can’t fire me!” At the September 5th, 2013, meeting, Wilmouth informed Witzlib that he had seized Witzlib’s 250 page legal brief after the August 27th, 2013, status hearing at the federal courthouse. Wilmouth admitted to opening Witzlib’s sealed mail back at his “office” and examining the contents. Wilmouth told Witzlib not to “worry” because Wilmouth assured Witzlib that he would “send it back” to Witzlib’s mom, the original intended recipient. At the September 5th, 2013, meeting with Wilmouth, Wilmouth told Witzlib that the federal prosecutors had released Witzlib’s Gateway computer to him and that Wilmouth intended to or had already dropped Witzlib’s computer off back at Witzlib’s grandmother’s house where the computer was seized by government officials after the warrantless search of Witzlib’s home after Witzlib asserted his Constitutional Rights. Wilmouth told Witzlib that federal prosecutor Johnson of the U.S. Attorney’s office had proximately facilitated the release of Witzlib’s computer to Wilmouth. At the September 5th, 2013, meeting at the KCDC facility, Wilmouth was extremely hostile to Witzlib. Wilmouth stated that he read Witzlib’s autobiography (unedited version) and “hated it.” Even though Wilmouth was fully aware that it was a conflict of interest for him to remain on the case, Wilmouth refused to get off the case for his own selfish reasons. Again, at the September 5th, 2013, meeting with Wilmouth, Wilmouth appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance. Wilmouth talked very fast, was sweating, was wearing a strange purple suit, had glossy eyeballs, was extremely confident, outspoken, hostile and aggressive (Wilmouth told Witzlib that a good defense attorney must “command the courtroom” and then Wilmouth clinched his fist and waived it in the air in front of Witzlib as Witzlib sat there in unbelief at the spectacle unfolding before his eyes). Wilmouth told Witzlib that somebody gave him “something” and that it made him “feel better.” Wilmouth was a loose cannon and he was under the influence of a controlled substance that was affecting his behavior for the worse, at the expense of Witzlib’s best interests and future.

81. On September 5th, 2013, Witzlib submits yet another letter to Adelman stating that Wilmouth does not represent him. Q.69.

82. In the days and weeks following the September 5th, 2013, meeting with hostile and verbally abusive federal panel attorney Wilmouth, Witzlib suffered from hopelessness, depression, anxiety, nightmares, migraine headaches, insomnia, uncertainty, extreme emotional distress, hair loss, weight loss, mental anguish and pounding his head against the wall. In the weeks following the September 5th, 2013, meeting with Wilmouth, Witzlib wrote several letters to the court demanding that Wilmouth be taken off the case. Letters Witzlib wrote at that time never were entered into the court docket by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Witzlib felt as though he was in some kind of nightmare having Wilmouth forced upon him by the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. See infra Caption.

20 of 191.

83. On or about September 16th, 2013, Witzlib is transferred from the KCDC federal holding facility to the MCC Federal Prison in Chicago Illinois to undergo the court ordered competency evaluation. Q.70.

84. From approximately September 16th, 2013, until November 26th, 2013, Witzlib is confined in the MCC Federal Prison undergoing the court ordered competency evaluation ordered by federal judge Adelman at the August 27th, 2013, status hearing. Witzlib discovers the MCC federal prison to be a relatively comfortable living environment in comparison to the county jail settings Witzlib had been confined in since April 30th, 2013. At the MCC there was actually enough food to fill you up and there were regular exercise opportunities in areas where you could actually run and break a sweat, hot water and affordable phone calls. The MCC also provided a fully functional Law Library and regular Library. Witzlib was unable to obtain an accurate diagnosis for his physical medical condition at the MCC, however the opportunities to exercise and the reasonable living conditions of the MCC mitigated the symptoms of the physical condition Witzlib was suffering from at that time.

85. On October 9th, 2013, Witzlib submits a letter to the Eastern District Court grieving Wilmouth’s counsel.

86. On October 20th, 2013, Witzlib learns through a correspondence letter Wilmouth mailed him, that Wilmouth somehow obtained Witzlib’s medical records and psychiatric report from Shawano County Court records. Witzlib never authorized Wilmouth to be given access to his medical records or signed any disclosure form. Somehow Wilmouth obtained Witzlib’s confidential medical records from Shawano County. Q.73 and 74.

87. On November 20th, 2013, clinical forensic psychologist Dr. Ron Nieberding completed the competency evaluation of Witzlib and authors a report stating his opinion and findings.

88. On November 26th, 2013, Witzlib is transferred to the Kenosha County Main Jail.

89. On November 27th, 2013, Witzlib is transferred from Kenosha County Main Jail to the KCDC facility across town.

90. On December 1st, 2013, Witzlib submits a “Motion for Substitution of Counsel”, again trying to remove Wilmouth from case 13-CR-99. Witzlib received the template structure of the motion from a federal inmate in the MCC who had access to legal documents. Q.77 and R.63.

91. On December 3rd, 2013, Witzlib submits a 7 page letter to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Court addressed to Adelman regarding the ongoing case. Q.78.

21 of 191.

92. On December 5th, 2013, Witzlib submits a letter to the Federal Court and to the Federal Clerk of Court, Adelman and Sanfilippo, attempting to remove Wilmouth and requesting a civil action “1983” form. R.61 and 62.

93. The entire month of December 2013, Witzlib requests and seeks to receive medical care from Kenosha County Main Jail, KCDC, the Sheriff of Kenosha County D. Beth, the KCDC medical staff, U.S. Marshal Carr and the Marshal’s service and the KCDC federal holding facility administration. Witzlib even showed a KCDC guard a bloody stool to prove that something was indeed physically wrong with him. Witzlib exhausted every possible attempt to receive the appropriate medical care for the physical condition that was causing him pain and damaging his body internally from the authorities that were in control of Witzlib’s body and access to healthcare resources. The Kenosha County medical staff received Witzlib’s medical records from the U.S. Marshal’s service when Witzlib was transferred between facilities. The original misdiagnosis was being perpetuated by the government. Witzlib did not have heartburn. Witzlib’s medical records were forwarded by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendant’s each time Witzlib was transferred from one facility to the next, with or without Witzlib’s permission or consent; deliberately.

94. On December 11th, 2013, Wilmouth moves to withdraw as counsel in light of Dr. Ron Nieberding's November 20th, 2013, competency evaluation which found Witzlib to be sane, intelligent and competent. R.65.

95. On December 15th, 2013, KCDC is formally grieved by Witzlib who alleges that KCDC is denying him medical care, housing him with hostile gang inmates and tampering with Witzlib’s incoming and outgoing legal and personal mail amongst other grievances. Witzlib submits the grievance to D. Beth and the KCDC Jail Administration.

96. On December 17th, 2013, Witzlib submits a grievance to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Court regarding the counsel of Thomas Wilmouth and conditions of confinement. R.66.

97. HEARING: On December 20th, 2013, Witzlib is transported from the KCDC facility to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin to attend a scheduled status hearing. The hearing is scheduled for the morning, however, Wilmouth does not show up for court so defendant Adelman postpones the hearing till later that afternoon. Witzlib is led by deputy Marshals back down to the holding cell area of the federal courthouse. That afternoon, the deputy Marshals take Witzlib back upstairs to attend court. This time Wilmouth is present in the courtroom and seated at the defense table in the chair nearest to the jury box. Wilmouth tells Witzlib, at this time, that he can get Witzlib out of jail and again requests to stay on the case. Witzlib, quite frankly, does not believe a single word Wilmouth says. When the hearing begins, Wilmouth moves to withdraw and Adelman grants Wilmouth’s motion and

22 of 191.

relieves Wilmouth of his court appointment. The court makes no mention of Witzlib’s “Motion for Substitution of Counsel” at any time. Adelman finds Witzlib competent in light of Dr. Nieberding’s report and allows Witzlib to proceed under pro se status without counsel. Q.79, R.64 and 68. After the hearing on December 20th, Witzlib is transported back to the KCDC facility.

98. On December 21st, 2013, Witzlib submits 1st request to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution for the complete district court docket. Q.80.

99. On December 22nd, 2013, Witzlib submits letters to the U.S. Marshals and the Kenosha County Sheriff Beth grieving conditions of confinement. Q.81 and 82.

100. On December 23rd, 2013, letter from Wilmouth is inserted into district court docket. Witzlib alleges letter was inserted into docket for the purpose of “cooking the books” and manipulating the record of the docket. R.67.

101. On December 26th, 2013, Witzlib submits grievance to Kenosha County Sheriff Beth. Q.83. Witzlib also submits letter to Adelman. R.69.

102. On January 2nd, 2014, Witzlib submits 2nd request for complete district court docket. Q.84.

103. On January 5th, 2014, Witzlib is transferred from the KCDC federal holding facility to the Kenosha County Main Jail. Q.85.

104. On January 5th, 2014, Witzlib submits a grievance letter to the Wisconsin Bar Association Milwaukee office, grieving attorney Wilmouth. Q.86.

105. On January 6th, 2014, Witzlib submits letter to the district court that is filed into the docket. See infra #113.

106. On January 8th, 2014, at 1:00 o’clock in the morning, Witzlib is awoke out of sleep by a Kenosha County Main Jail third shift guard in cell W-2 of the Kenosha County Main Jail isolated cell block. Witzlib is startled when the guard plops down a “plea agreement” onto his mattress through the bars. Witzlib is set to appear in court that same day, January 8th, 2014. Witzlib skims through the agreement and discovers prosecutors attached a statement to the plea agreement of Lawrence Arnold. Up until that time, Witzlib had no idea the fraudulent statement existed or that the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants were using the statement as a manipulative tool to unlawfully gain power and legal leverage over the case and attack Witzlib’s good character and efforts to ultimately clear his name. The Arnold statement was 100% false. The statement was never disclosed in discovery evidence to the defense when all of the pretrial evidence was disclosed weeks before the scheduled trial set for July 29th, 2013. See infra #20. A few hours after the third shift Kenosha County Main Jail guard delivered Witzlib the government’s plea

23 of 191.

offer, at 1:00 a.m., Witzlib was again awoke out of sleep at approximately 4:30 a.m. by the jail staff who told Witzlib to get ready for court because he was scheduled for a January 8th, 2014, court appearance. Q.87 and R.68.

107. HEARING: On January 8th, 2014, Witzlib was transported from the Kenosha County Main Jail to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin. Witzlib is accompanied by approximately four or five other federal inmates or immigration detainees headed for court in Milwaukee. The morning of January 8th, 2014, at approximately 6:00 a.m. is frigid with sub-zero temperatures. The transport officers fail to warm up the transport van. The record will show that the morning of January 8th, 2014, was frigid. Witzlib, immediately told the transport deputies that engines are supposed to be started and warmed up before driving in such freezing cold temperatures. Witzlib and the other inmates had only t-shirts and socks on and jail clothes that inmates wear in the room temperature of the jail environment. Jail guards disregarded Witzlib’s instructions and verbal complaints. Witzlib waited for court all day and was told that court had been cancelled. Witzlib never went to court on January 8th, 2014. After all of the other federal inmates attended their hearings, Witzlib was transported back to the Kenosha County Main Jail with the other inmates. Transport arrived back at the main jail between approximately 5:00-6:00 p.m. Witzlib told the guards in the booking area of the Kenosha County Main Jail that he felt physically ill and was exhausted, in part due to the fact that Witzlib was kept up all night by the third shift Kenosha guards and had been feeling physically unwell for some time. Witzlib reminded the booking staff that he did not require booking and that he had a cell in W-2 block and only required that an officer walk him back to the cell. In spite of Witzlib’s requests, the Kenosha County Main Jail Booking Staff forced Witzlib to sit in the booking area late into the evening after 9:30 p.m. The jail booking staff booked in every single new arrival and took all the other inmates back to their cell blocks, moving Witzlib back to cell dead last. After Witzlib realized that he was being abused by the Kenosha County Jail Staff he assertively expressed his discontent and requested to be taken back upstairs to his cell. Witzlib was mentally and physically exhausted at this point in time and was being spitefully and deliberately abused by jail booking guards who were mean, malicious and on power trips. When Witzlib finally made it back to his cell, W-2, around 10:00 p.m., an exhausted Witzlib briefly looked through his records and discovered missing artwork and poems. Witzlib had no time to review the plea agreement thrown into his cell at 1:00 a.m. that morning. Q.87.

108. HEARING: On January 9th, 2014, Witzlib is awoke by third shift Kenosha County Jail staff at approximately 4:30 a.m. Witzlib is again transported to Milwaukee and again the transport van was not warmed up. The record will show the temperatures were sub-zero and that government officials will not take instructions or directions from inmates even if common sense, common courtesy, the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article One section Six of the Wisconsin Constitution dictates that they should. This is the attitude of the government employees and it should be noted that Witzlib paid taxes all his adult

24 of 191.

life, both income and sales. Frostbite on toes with no shoes and intentional inducement of the beginning stage of hypothermia is cruel and unusual. Couple this with the strange and unusual sleep deprivation of Witzlib who was completely exhausted and again all indications point to bad faith and deliberate mistreatment. At the January 9th, 2014, status hearing, Witzlib tells the court that he needs to complete the investigation he began back in July of 2013, when the federal prosecutors mailed him “case-in-chief” material discovery evidence videos that could not be played, viewed and examined on Dodge County computers. At that time, Witzlib was investigating the case under pro se status after state licensed federal panel attorney Cohn withdrew from the case after slandering Witzlib in open court after Cohn was fired and refused to return any of Witzlib’s $5,000.00 retainer. Witzlib explained to the court that he intended to fully examine all of the evidence before making a decision on whether or not to accept the lengthy plea agreement being offered by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. The government objected to Witzlib’s request for time to complete the investigation but at the same time refused to disclose material evidence. Federal prosecutor Johnson pushed for a trial date to be scheduled (exemplifying and reaffirming the unlawful policy of unreasonableness demonstrated by the government back in July when defendants attempted to push Witzlib into trial with only two weeks to prepare while depriving Witzlib of material evidence at the same time). On January 9th Johnson stated false facts slandering Witzlib’s character and prejudicing the court and the court record by stating in open court during the hearing that Witzlib became hostile the day before after arriving back at the Kenosha County Jail and needed to be restrained by corrections staff in the administrative segregation area of the main jail. The fact was, at that time, Witzlib had been in administrative segregation, W-2, the entire time he was confined in the Kenosha County Main Jail at his own request after fearing for his safety due to being placed in close quarters with hostile gang members. At the time Johnson slandered Witzlib in open court with false information, Witzlib had not received a single jail rule violation write up at the Kenosha County Main Jail. Furthermore, Johnson slandered Witzlib by falsely stating that Witzlib was disruptive in the holding cell area of the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse earlier that morning. Witzlib did demand deputy Marshals return property, drawings and artwork that Witzlib possessed in his property folders when he came to court the day before on January the 8th, 2014, and that Witzlib discovered was missing (THEFT) after Witzlib made it back to his cell at 10:00 p.m. the night of January 8th, 2014. When Witzlib became angry at the Marshal deputies unlawful seizure of his property (THEFT), deputy Marshals rushed into the bullpen area of the inmate federal holding facility where Witzlib was sitting and forced Witzlib to stand up, threatened Witzlib with an electric high voltage tazor, pushed Witzlib up against a wall, manacled Witzlib and placed Witzlib in the small interview room away from the other inmates. So the Marshal’s STEAL Witzlib’s drawings and poems, then when Witzlib verbally expresses his discontent for the THEFT, Witzlib is manacled by deputy Marshals; finally federal prosecutor Johnson slanders Witzlib in open court with false information stating that Witzlib needed to be restrained by the Marshals because he was allegedly disruptive. At the end of the

25 of 191.

hearing, after Witzlib requested time to complete a thorough investigation and examine all of the evidence and after Witzlib was slandered with two separate false statements by federal prosecutor Johnson, Witzlib is led back down to the federal inmate bullpen holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse. Before the hearing concludes, Adelman sets another hearing date for January 21st, 2014. Q.88-90 and R.71. Witzlib is not given an opportunity to respond to Johnson’s malicious and untrue slander at the hearing on January 9th. Witzlib, with the small window of opportunity to address the court, made the conscience decision to stay focused on gaining access to evidence being withheld by the federal prosecutors and on completing the defense’s investigation. After court, an exhausted Witzlib is transported back to the Kenosha County Main Jail. A status hearing is set for January 21st, 2014 (incorrect dates in the district court docket).

109. On January 10th, 2014, Witzlib submits 3rd request for complete district court docket; submitting the request to Adelman and Sanfilippo. Q.91 and R.72.

110. On January 12th, 2014, Witzlib submits an “Adjournment Motion” to the district court, requesting adjournment of the January 21st, 2014, scheduled status hearing. Q.92 and R.74.

111. On January 15th, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to Dr. Ron Nieberding requesting release of medical records and details of Witzlib’s competency evaluation. Q.93. No response from Dr. Nieberding? It’s uncertain if Dr. Nieberding ever received the correspondence from Witzlib because Witzlib’s incoming and outgoing mail was being opened and tampered with by the government.

112. Witzlib was placed in cell W-2 of cell block “W” in the main jail on Sunday January 5th, 2014. Witzlib learned that the jail policy at that time only allowed inmates 4 hours per week in the Law Library. Witzlib submitted numerous grievances with the court, the jail administration and directly to the Kenosha County Sheriff. Eventually the jail policy was changed to 10 hours per week which is one quarter of a 40 hour work week opposed to one tenth of a 40 hour work week. Witzlib learned from one of the guards that very few inmates actually used the Law Library resource and that he Law Library was usually empty. There was no reason for Witzlib to be denied access to the Law Library but he was nonetheless.

113. On January 15th, 2014, Witzlib submits 4th request for complete district court docket. Q.94.

114. On January 15th, 2014, Witzlib submits a “status update brief” letter to Adelman. Q.95 and R.77.

115. On January 17th, 2014, Witzlib receives a large stack of paperwork from the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants which was allegedly the “complete” discovery in paper format. It’s unclear exactly when the discovery materials actually arrived at the jail. Jail staff told Witzlib at

26 of 191.

this time that federal prosecutors included 4 discovery C.D.’s with discovery evidence video contained on them. Witzlib had not had access to discovery evidence since the limited and incomplete discovery provided to him by federal prosecutors in the Dodge County Jail in July and August of 2013. When Witzlib was transported out of the Dodge County federal holding facility on August 27th, 2013, all of Witzlib property and discovery and original police reports were seized by government employees and paid state actors and entities functioning jointly and in synergenic cooperation with those government officials. Witzlib reviews the discovery sent to him by the federal prosecutors in January of 2014 and learns the original police reports are missing or had been altered and revised from their original contexts. The original P. Schmitt incident report summarizing the first informant’s statement had been revised, altered, changed and/or amended from its original version. In the original report, officer Schmitt of the Germantown Police Department QUOTED informant number one as stating that Witzlib was QUOTE “off his medications.” Schmitt’s original report summarizing her encounter with informant number one, was less than a single page in length. Three or four paragraphs at the most and less than a page. The quote “off his medications” stood out like a sore thumb because it was the only statement quoted by Schmitt in the incident report and because it was a flat out lie (under Wisconsin case law precedent, witnesses and informants are only entitled to immunity if the information they provide is true, if they LIE, and have ulterior motives and reasons, those informants are not entitled to immunity under Wisconsin Case Law precedent). Witzlib wrote a letter to federal prosecutors demanding the original report. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants did not respond. Witzlib also demanded the original officer D. Moschea incident report. Federal Prosecutors Santelle, Johnson, Kanter, and Kwaterski did not respond or give a reason for the absence of the original report written by Schmitt or the absence of a Moschea incident report. What Witzlib received from Kenosha County Jail staff, who intern received from the aforementioned defendants, was false, fraudulent documents. Witzlib immediately sent a letter to state licensed federal panel attorney Cohn (paid federal government entity), requesting that Cohn send Witzlib the original Schmitt police incident reports. Approximately a week and a half later, Witzlib receives documents in the mail from federal panel attorney Cohn. Cohn sent Witzlib the exact same fraudulent documents that the federal prosecutors sent Witzlib. Witzlib mailed a letter to the Washington County Clerk of Court and State Prosecutors requesting the original reports. Washington County officials did not respond. Witzlib wrote grievances t0 the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights division in Washington D.C. to grieve the corruption and illegal practices of the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution and Witzlib wrote grievances to the Wisconsin Bar Association and to the newspapers and media outlets. No one responded. Witzlib does not even know if his mail ever reached its destinations because the Kenosha County Jail was opening and tampering with Witzlib’s incoming and outgoing mail at that time. At this point, after receiving the second set of fraudulent documents from federal panel attorney Cohn, Witzlib knew beyond any doubt that he was the victim of unlawful malicious prosecution by defendants and Witzlib knew his Constitutional Rights

27 of 191.

were being violated by the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution.

116. On January 16th, 2014, Witzlib submits grievance of appointed counsel Wilmouth. Q.95 and R.77.

117. On January 19th, 2014, Witzlib submits 5th request for complete district court docket. Q.97.

118. On January 19th, 2014, Witzlib submits 1st request for district court transcripts, specifying that Witzlib sought court transcripts of the August 27th, 2013, status hearing, the December 20th, 2013, status hearing, and the January 9th, 2014, status hearing. Q.98 and R.80.

119. On January 20th, 2014, Witzlib is brought to the Law Library in the morning at approximately 9:00 a.m. There, Witzlib is handed discovery C.D.’s that were sent along with the rest of the paper format discovery to the Kenosha County Jail. Under jail policy, inmates are not allowed to keep C.D.’s in their cells. The jail administration holds the C.D.’s and the inmate must request to examine them at a specific time. Witzlib attempts to review and examine the 4 discovery C.D.’s. Only 2 out of the 4 C.D.’s are compatible with Kenosha County Jail computers. Witzlib is unable to view 2 of the C.D.’s that contained video footage of the alleged “search warrant” and of Witzlib allegedly “producing fireworks” at the workbench in his basement. Interestingly, the exact same 2 C.D.’s (that were material evidence, listed in federal prosecutors ‘case-in-chief’) that did not work on Dodge County Jail computers back in July of 2013, were the exact same 2 C.D. videos that did not work on Kenosha County Jail computers in January of 2014. Shortly after Witzlib attempted to access the 2 C.D.’s containing the material discovery evidence that Witzlib had not had the opportunity to examine or review up until that point in time, Kenosha County Jailers Moth and Molitor told Witzlib that he must go back to his jail cell and was going to be disciplined. Witzlib had placed a password on his jail folder to protect his legal documents from being accessed by other inmate who used the jail computers. Nowhere in the jail rule book did it say that protecting your legal work with a password on the computer was against jail rules. Witzlib was ushered back to his cell by Moth and Molitor around 9:30 a.m. Jail guards told Witzlib that he was being punished for “damaging” the computer even though the computer was not damaged and Witzlib was using the computer the exact way it was designed to be used. Witzlib explained to the hostile jail guards that Witzlib would never damage the computer because the Law Library and the computer was Witzlib only lifeline to freedom. Moth and Molitor escorted Witzlib back to his cell in W-2 at approximately 9:30 a.m. then they left. About 5 minutes later Moth and Molitor reappeared outside the bars of Witzlib’s cell. Witzlib was quietly working on his case. Moth and Molitor ordered Witzlib to stand up and put his hands through the bars to be handcuffed. Witzlib refused and requested to know why he must be handcuffed if he was already in a single person small isolation cell and wasn’t causing any problems whatsoever. Witzlib requested to know what rule he had

28 of 191.

broken? The officer “Moth” (name may not be spelled correctly), pulled out a can of pepper spray and pointed it at Witzlib’s face. Witzlib was sitting on his mattress with papers in his lap. Moth threatened to pepper spray Witzlib if he did not put his hands through the bars by the count of three. Then Moth started counting….1….2…… then Witzlib put his hands through the bars to avoid any further escalation of the situation even though Witzlib had done nothing wrong and had not broken any jail rule. Moth and Molitor moved handcuffed Witzlib to cell W-4, two cells down from W-2. Molitor and Moth then seized all of Witzlib’s legal and medical records, discovery materials, and personal property (letters from family). Everything. Moth and Molitor told Witzlib that he would get all of his property back after he was punished for “damaging” the jail computer. The jail allowed Witzlib a pen for 1 hour per day and no access to Law Library for the next two weeks as punishment. During the 1 hour that Witzlib was allowed access to a pen, Witzlib wrote a letter to the federal prosecutors telling them that only 2 out of the 4 C.D.’s were compatible with Kenosha County computers. Witzlib specified that the exact same 2 C.D.’s and the exact same evidence that Witzlib was unable to examine in the Dodge County facility were the exact same evidence that Witzlib was unable to be examine and review in the Kenosha County facility. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants do not respond. Witzlib remained on discipline status for over a week, the entire time Witzlib was denied access to the Law Library and Witzlib was denied access to his legal and medical records and personal property. Q.99.

120. On January 21st, 2014, the date Adelman set for status hearing on January 9th, 2014, Adelman grants Witzlib’s Adjournment Motion, setting the next status hearing for February 25th, 2014. Q.100 and R.75.

121. On January 21st, 2014, federal prosecutors file a six page “Objection to Motion to Adjourn.” Q.101 and R.76. Witzlib is only allowed a pen for 1 hour per day so Witzlib is unable to respond immediately to federal prosecutors Motion and Witzlib is attempting to recover all of his legal and medical records and personal property from the Kenosha County Jail administration and U.S. Marshals.

122. From January 5th, 2014, through approximately February 11th, 2014, Witzlib is held in the Kenosha County Main Jail. Over that time period, Witzlib is given no access to exercise or rec areas whatsoever; no sunlight and cleaning supplies twice over a 5 week time period. The cell is below 66 degrees fairenheight (checked by laser thermometer), only accesses the shower twice in 5 weeks and is denied medical care and denied access to the Law Library and had all of his property seized.

123. On January 22nd, 2014, Witzlib submits a grievance letter of Wilmouth to the Office of Lawyer Regulation. Q.102.

124. On January 22nd, 2014, Witzlib submits a grievance regarding Law Library access to the court. R.81.

29 of 191.

125. On January 22nd, 2014, Witzlib submits a grievance of confinement conditions to Sheriff Beth. Q.103.

126. On January 23rd, 2014, Witzlib submits a grievance of confinement conditions to Sheriff Beth. Q.104.

127. On January 23rd, 2014, Witzlib submits a grievance of confinement conditions to U.S. Marshals. Q.105.

128. On January 25th, 2014, Witzlib submits a grievance of confinement conditions to Sheriff Beth. Q.106.

129. On January 30th, 2014, Witzlib submits “Response” to federal prosecutors “Objection.” Q.108 and R.82. Witzlib points out to the court that federal prosecutors of the U.S. Attorney’s Office are deliberately withholding evidence and obstructing Witzlib from completing his investigation (computer, police incident reports and written statements). See R.82 and 83.

130. On January 31st, 2014, Witzlib submits grievance to the court regarding Law Library. Q.109 and R.85.

131. On February 1st, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to the court directly responding to federal prosecutor Johnson’s slander attack at the January 9th, 2014, status hearing. Witzlib points out that Johnson’s slander statement was false information because at that time, on January 9th, 2014, Witzlib had no received a single jail disciplinary write-up and did not have to be placed in solitary confinement for disruptive behavior. Witzlib was in solitary out of fear for his safety and life due to hostile gang members in the Kenosha County main jail and KCDC facility who were all in the same gang and who all communicated with one another by word of mouth, visits and letters, and through the grapevine. This gang called themselves the “G.D.” Witzlib told them that G.D. stood for “Garbage Disposal.” The gang members became hostile to Witzlib and Witzlib requested a safe housing location. The Kenosha County main jail moved Witzlib to “administrative Segregation” at Witzlib’s own re3quest, not due to disruptive behavior. Johnson’s false statement at the January 9th, 2014, status hearing prejudiced the court and painted Witzlib’s character in a false light before the court. Witzlib brought all of this information to the attention of Adelman district judge in the February 1st, 2014, letter. Q.110.

132. On February 2nd, 2014, Witzlib submits a “Motion to Inspect and Examine Physical Evidence” under the United States Code Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16 and under Brady v. Maryland, (1963). Q.111 and R.83.

133. On February 3rd, 2014, Witzlib submits grievance to the court regarding unlawful actions and policies of the Kenosha County Jail staff and administration including; tampered with, obstructed, intercepted, opened, seized and denied legal mail; government’s denial of access to discovery evidence; seizure by the

30 of 191.

government (Kenosha County Jail and U.S. Marshal’s) of Witzlib’s legal and medical records; denial of medical care; and other unlawful actions and policies of the government. Q.112 and R.86.

134. On February 3rd, 2014, Witzlib submits grievance letter to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution court and defendants, grieving the fraudulent police incident reports Witzlib received in the discovery evidence from federal prosecutors and from federal panel attorney and paid governmental entity Cohn. Q.113 (uncertain if R.85 document relates to this issue)

135. On February 3rd, 2014, Witzlib submits grievance to the court. Unreasonable 50 cent legal copies. Q.114 and R.84.

136. On February 4th, 2014, Witzlib submits 6th request for complete district court docket. Q.115.

137. On February 5th, 2014, Witzlib submits 7th request for complete district court docket. Q.116.

138. On February 5th, 2014, Witzlib submits 2nd request for district court transcripts. Q.117.

139. See infra JANUARY 19th

140. On February 6th, 2014, Witzlib submits 8th request for complete district court docket. Q.118.

141. On February 7th, 2014, Witzlib submits request to Dodge County Federal Holding Facility for the phone records from the month of August, 2013. Witzlib submits the request under the Freedom of Information Act; Wisconsin Open Records Law; U.S. Code Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16; and under Brady v. Maryland, (1963). Q119. Witzlib is denied the phone records.

142. On February 9th, 2014 Witzlib mails a letter to federal prosecutors again stating that discovery C.D.’s are incompatible with Kenosha County Jail computers. Witzlib includes with the letter all 4 C.D.’s sent to him by federal prosecutors. Witzlib “specifies” which C.D.’s were in fact incompatible and requests that federal prosecutors re-format the C.D.’s or provide the defense, Witzlib, with C.D.’s that are compatible with Kenosha County Jail computers so Witzlib can review discovery evidence and complete the defense investigation. Witzlib mails a letter and all 4 C.D.’s back to federal prosecutors. Q.120. Federal prosecutors do not respond to Witzlib’s letter.

143. On or about February 11th, 2014, Witzlib is transferred from the Kenosha County Main Jail back to the KCDC federal holding facility across town. Witzlib is transferred from one 23 hour per day lockdown administrative segregation cell in the main jail to another 23 hour per day lockdown administrative segregation cell across town. Witzlib had not seen sunlight in approximately 4 weeks,

31 of 191.

notwithstanding a few seconds of daylight in a walk to see the jail nurse. After being transferred back to the KCDC federal facility, Witzlib had gone through the booking area of the Kenosha County Jail a total of 6 times going one way or the other. Q.122.

144. On February 15th, 2014, Witzlib submits 9th request for complete district court docket. Q.124.

145. On February 16th, 2014, Witzlib submits 10th request for complete district court docket. Q.125.

146. On February 17th, 2014, Witzlib submits 11th request for complete district court docket. Q.126.

147. On February 17th, 2014, Witzlib submits 3rd request for district court transcripts. Q.127 and R.89.

148. On February 17th, 2014, Witzlib submits a second “Adjournment Motion” to the court, attempting to adjourn the status hearing set for February 25th, 2014. Witzlib seeks adjournment because he has not reviewed or examined material discovery evidence because the federal prosecutors, in synergenic cooperation with the U.S. Marshals and Eastern District of Wisconsin federal holding facilities, are systematically obstructing Witzlib from discovery evidence and from completing his investigation. Included, “written into” the February 17th, 2014, “Adjournment Motion” submitted to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Court by Witzlib, is a “Defense Docket” (Q.1-Q.130). Witzlib established/created the “Defense Docket” from the defense records of case 13-CR-99. Witzlib was forced to create an alternative docket for referencing purposes due to the fact that Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, Adelman, Sanfilippo and Dietrich, were steadfastly refusing to disclose the docket to Witzlib; denying Witzlib access to the district court docket for case 13-CR-99, United States v. Bodie Witzlib. Defendant refused to correspond with Witzlib in any way and never even responded to any of Witzlib’s requests. Q.128 and R.90.

149. On February 18th, 2014, Witzlib submits 12th request for complete district court docket. Q.129 and R.93.

150. On February 18th, 2014, federal prosecutors file a “Response” to the July 2013 series of motions submitted to the court by Witzlib in an effort to secure adjournment when the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants were attempting to force Witzlib into a trial situation with only two weeks to prepare and refusing to adjourn the court date scheduled for July 29th, 2013. Witzlib, at this point in time, had not knowledge that the series of motions were still a factor because the court refused to disclose the district court docket. At the September 5th, 2013, meeting with hostile federal panel attorney Wilmouth, Wilmouth had threatened to “strike” all of the motions Witzlib submitted under pro se status in July of 2013. Witzlib was essentially in the dark

32 of 191.

with respect to all court actions taken by Wilmouth or by the government because Adelman, Sanfilippo and Dietrich were systematically denying Witzlib access to the district court docket (December 21st, 2013 through March 12th, 2014). Within the context of the federal prosecutors February 18th, 2014, “Response to Pending Pro Se Motions”, federal prosecutors outline their positions on numerous issues related to case 13-Cr-99 and state the government’s general theory which was fundamentally flawed from beginning to end. See “Appellate Brief, IV.” In the government’s “Response”, federal prosecutors unlawfully justify denying Witzlib access to the Law Library and discovery evidence. Q.129 and R.88.

151. On February 20th, 2014, Thursday morning, KCDC guards tell Witzlib to pack up all of his property, legal and medical records and personal mail, because Witzlib is being transferred out of the KCDC federal holding facility. Witzlib is transferred to the federal holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee by the Kenosha County transport deputies and from there to the Ozaukee County Jail and federal holding facility, Tier 5, by the Ozaukee County transport deputies. While at the KCDC facility in H-West area, Witzlib was finally given full access to the Law Library, the first time Witzlib had full access since his incarceration began on April 30th, 2013. This full access was short lived, lasting approximately one week, or two 8 hour sessions, as Witzlib was plucked out of the KCDC facility and transferred to Tier 5 of the Ozaukee County Jail. Witzlib Law Library access went from approximately one 8 hour session every 3 days in block H-West of the KCDC facility, to about 2 hours per week in the Ozaukee County Jail. Witzlib was forced by the Marshals service to start all over putting in grievances to the Ozaukee County Jail administration and Ozaukee County Sheriff Straub in order to gain sufficient access that would allow Witzlib to effectively represent himself. As soon as Witzlib began gaining momentum and accomplishing work with respect to his case, with full access to the Law Library, Witzlib was placed into another highly restricted area with very minimal access to legal resources, courtesy of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants.

152. On February 20th, 2014, Witzlib submitted a letter to the Eastern District court titled “Status Update Brief.” Q.131 and R.91.

153. On February 21st, 2014, Witzlib submits 4th request for district court transcripts. Q.132.

154. On February 21st, 2014, Witzlib submits a complaint in pleading format of federal panel attorney Thomas Wilmouth. Q.133.

155. On February 23rd, 2014, Witzlib submits a “Motion to Withdraw Pending Pro Se Motions” to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Court. Witzlib would have withdrawn the motions in December. Witzlib still at this time did not have access to the district docket and/or any knowledge of procedural court actions of Witzlib previous attorneys or by the government. By denying Witzlib access to the docket, the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants

33 of 191.

were keeping Witzlib in the dark, essentially blindfolded and handicapped; silenced. By denying Witzlib the docket, federal officials were obstructing and slowing down Witzlib’s ability to clear his name, investigate the case and move forward. The Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendant were ultimately forcing Witzlib to remain in the physically and mentally unhealthy environment of the county jail settings; deliberately prolonging the adjudication process by denying Witzlib efforts to complete the investigation of his case by withholding critical material evidence and other unlawful devious tactics of prosecution. Q.134 and R.92.

156. HEARING: On February 25th, 2014, Witzlib is transported from the Ozaukee County Jail to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin by the Ozaukee County transport deputies. Witzlib attends court, the scheduled status hearing. Adelman denies Witzlib access to his Gateway computer free of federal government oversight and re-seizure of the computer. Adelman states that the government is not “in control” of Witzlib’s computer because Adelman states that the computer is in possession of Witzlib’s relatives. Witzlib argues that the Government is still in “control” of the computer because the government is denying Witzlib access to the computer and refusing to allow Witzlib access to the information contained on the computer and refusing to allow Witzlib to inspect and examine the computer without another re-seizure of the computer. Witzlib argues that if he was “in control” of the computer, he would not have had to file a “Motion to Inspect and Examine Physical Evidence” and that this would be a non-issue because Witzlib would have already examined the computer if the government had allowed him to do so. Adelman sides with the government and denies Witzlib access to the computer unless Witzlib agrees to another government seizure. At the hearing, federal prosecutor Johnson again hands Witzlib the exact same 4 C.D.’s that Witzlib sent her back, two of which were incompatible with Microsoft computer software in the Dodge and Kenosha County Jails. Johnson assures Witzlib that all of the C.D.’s will be accessible and reviewable on the Ozaukee County Jail computers and tells Witzlib that she called the Ozaukee County Jail and verified that the C.D.’s would be compatible with the Ozaukee County Jail system and the Witzlib would finally be able to access discovery evidence that he had been denied access to since July of 2013 (search warrant video and video of Witzlib allegedly producing fireworks in his basement). Witzlib is very skeptical at this point, however, takes the 4 C.D.’s back from Johnson because what other choice does Witzlib have. Witzlib told the deputy federal Marshals that federal prosecutors and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants were playing cruel and unlawful mind games with Witzlib and abusing their power and intentionally and deliberately prolonging the adjudication process and at the same time obstructing Witzlib from completing the investigation of the case. R.94. Adelman sets a status hearing for April 11th, 2014, allegedly providing Witzlib “time” to complete the investigation (access to Gateway computer and review of discovery C.D.’s). Q.135 and R.94.

34 of 191.

157. On February 26th, 2014, Witzlib submits 5th request for district court transcripts. Q.137 and R.96.

158. On February 27th, 2014, Witzlib submits 13th request for the district court docket. Q.138.

159. On March 1st, 2014, Witzlib submits grievance letter to Ozaukee County Sheriff Maury Straub. Q.139. (Law Library access, medical care and legal resources).

160. On March 1st, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Court amending and updating the “Defense Docket”, established February 17th, 2014. Q.140 and R.95.

161. On March 4th, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to Washington County District Attorney Mark Bensen. Q.141.

162. On March 5th, 2014, Witzlib receives “witness statement” affidavit signed by Dennis Witzlib informant number two. Dennis Witzlib admits to lending Witzlib tools and assisting in the production of fireworks. Statement is signed on 2/29/2014. Q.142.

163. On March 5th, 2014, Witzlib submits a 4 page letter to computer technician Greg Cain, with Exhibit #8 photo attached (showing image of desktop icons in police photo before computer was seized by the government). Q.144.

164. On March 6th, 2014, Witzlib is examined by Ozaukee County Jail Doctor Perez. Q.145.

165. On March 7th, 2014, Witzlib submits “Status Update Brief” to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Court. Q.146 and R.99.

166. On March 8th, 2014, Witzlib submits 6th request for district court transcripts. Q.147 and R.98.

167. On March 9th, 2014, Witzlib submits “Grievance of Detainment Conditions” letter to U.S. Marshal Carr and Ozaukee County Sheriff Maury Straub. Q.148.

168. On March 10th, 2014, Witzlib submits letter to U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Q.149.

169. On March 11th, 2014, Witzlib submits “weight chart” (visual graph) to Ozaukee County Jail medical staff. Q.150.

170. On March 12th, 2014, Witzlib receives the district court docket for case 13-CR-99 United States v. Bodie Witzlib from the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Q.151 and R.97.

35 of 191.

171. On March 15th, 2014, Witzlib submits letter to federal prosecutor Santelle. Q.154 and R.103.

172. On March 15th, 2014, Witzlib submits letter to federal judge Adelman with attachments A, B, C and D. Q.155 and R.105.

173. On March 27th, 2014, Witzlib submits a “Notice to Admit” to federal prosecutors and to the court. R.102. Witzlib requests federal prosecutors “Admit” to the existence of missing evidence that can be plainly seen in evidence photos however was nowhere to be found in any inventory lists of evidence recovered from the alleged incident scene and raid of Witzlib’s home.

174. The entire month of March 2014, Witzlib continues his efforts to receive medical care by submitting grievances and medical request forms to the Ozaukee County Jail Administration and medical staff, the U.S. Marshals service and the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Court.

175. At some point in March, Witzlib discovers that the same two C.D.’s of discovery evidence (search warrant video and video of alleged firework production) that were not compatible with Dodge or Kenosha County Jail computer were again not compatible with Ozaukee County Jail computers. Witzlib is unable to review the material evidence, examine the material evidence or complete his investigation. Witzlib has no clue as to what is on these videos, only that they are listed in the prosecutions “case-in-chief” and that they will be used against Witzlib should the case go to trial. Witzlib is unable to move forward without examining the material evidence set to be used against him by the government at trial and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants are well aware of this fact. Witzlib knows that under the law he has the right to inspect and examine the evidence being withheld from him by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Witzlib cannot complete his investigation without inspecting and reviewing the information contained on his Gateway computer and the material evidence (videos) which Witzlib is being deliberately denied access to. The federal prosecutors know that Witzlib is desperately trying to complete the investigation and move forward. Witzlib has written numerous letters and stated in open court the he is being denied medical care in the county jail federal holding facility settings. The Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants were aware of Witzlib’s grievances and concerns.

176. At the beginning of March 2014, Witzlib begins working on a “Motion to Suppress Evidence”, using knowledge Witzlib acquired doing research in the Kenosha County Jail Law Libraries. Witzlib conducted extensive in depth research in the Kenosha County Law Library and was using the information he acquired (case law quotes, case precedent and code information) to put together a “Motion to Suppress Evidence.” The federal panel attorneys refused to even attempt to challenge the federal government or the evidence obtained by the government through an unwarranted search of Witzlib’s home, after Witzlib

36 of 191.

asserted his Constitutional Rights. Witzlib works on the “Motion to Suppress Evidence” the entire month of March, 2014.

177. On March 27th, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to the court requesting discovery. R.106.

178. On April 3rd, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to federal prosecutor Johnson. R.107.

179. On April 4th (“free at last, they took your life”), 2014, Friday morning at approximately 9:00 a.m., officers working the Tier 5 area of the Ozaukee County Jail and federal holding facility, told Witzlib to pack up all of his property because Witzlib was being transferred out of the Ozaukee County Jail. The move caught Witzlib off guard because Witzlib was not scheduled for his next court status hearing until April 11th, 2014, exactly one week later. Officers “Geirke” and “Schmit” were the guards on duty the morning of April 4th, 2014, at the Ozaukee County facility. Witzlib had been working feverishly in the Ozaukee County Jail Law Library during the minimal amount of time he was afforded to work on his case by the jail policy and corrections staff. Witzlib painstakingly worked on his “Motion to Suppress Evidence.” The Ozaukee County Jail policy allowed Witzlib to save work he accomplished on the computer on a flash drive provided to inmates by the pod officer on duty and kept in the officer’s station. This policy allowed Witzlib to pick up right where he left off and enabled Witzlib to save lengthy documents that would could not printout (32 page Motion to Suppress Evidence (typed)). After over 5 weeks of working in the Ozaukee County Jail Law Library, Witzlib had accumulated a substantial amount of legal documents, finished, and unfinished “works in progress”, that were saved on the Ozaukee County flash drive which was possessed by government officials. On the morning of April 4th, 2014, Witzlib told officers on duty, that he needed his legal records saved on the computer flash drive before being transferred out of the facility. The officers knew exactly where the flash drive was located in the officer’s station because the flash drive was always kept in the exact same place. Witzlib told the officers that he had over 5 weeks of records and legal work stored on the flash drive. The information included Witzlib’s “Motion to Suppress Evidence” which Witzlib was approximately halfway through typing. Ozaukee County federal holding center officials refused to printout Witzlib’s legal records and told Witzlib that he needed to contact the “Jail Administrator” in order to obtain his legal records (which also included medical records and grievances). Witzlib specifically told officers, after demanding the records and being denied, not to delete, damage or destroy his records that Witzlib spent the last 5 weeks working on. Witzlib told the officers that he would have one of his family members come to the Ozaukee County Jail and recover his records with a blank flash drive to transfer the data with the click of a button or pay to have the Ozaukee County Jail staff printout Witzlib’s records, over 200 pages of records and documents.

180. On April 4th, 2014, Witzlib is transported by Ozaukee County transport deputies (two old guys); minus his legal records on the jail flash drive, to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee

37 of 191.

Wisconsin. From there, Witzlib is transported by two U.S. deputy Marshals to the Milwaukee County Jail and federal holding facility a couple blocks from the courthouse. Milwaukee County Jail booking policy allows transfer inmates to bring all of their paperwork legal and medical records into the facility after being thoroughly inspected for contraband. Milwaukee County booking officers checked Witzlib’s property and placed it all in one big plastic bag. Witzlib was assigned to intake block “A” cell number 44, second tier, almost directly across from the entry door slider and behind the inmate request table on the bottom level. Witzlib, upon entering the Milwaukee County booking area, on April 4th, immediately contacted his mom Susan Witzlib and respectfully requested that she call up the Ozaukee County Jail and attempt to recover his legal records. See Milwaukee County phone records. Witzlib’s mom, immediately contacted the Ozaukee County Jail and attempted to recover Witzlib’s records. Ozaukee County officials gave Witzlib’s mom the run around and told her to call back the next day and said that they would not delete Witzlib’s records. Ms. Witzlib called back the next day, Saturday, as instructed to do so by Ozaukee County Jail officials. Again, Ozaukee County Jail officials gave Ms. Witzlib the run around and told her to call back on Monday, April 7th, 2014. Witzlib’s mother called back again on April 7th, 2014, and Ozaukee County Jail Administration officials, who functioned jointly and in concert with federal defendants of the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution, told Witzlib’s mom that Witzlib’s legal records saved on the jail flash drive had been deleted. Witzlib lost 5 weeks of records saved on the Ozaukee County Jail flash drive. Witzlib lost a “Motion to Suppress Evidence” that he was approximately halfway through typing up on the Ozaukee County Jail computers. Witzlib lost records of letters regarding legal matters and medical records. Witzlib wrote grievance letters immediately in pencil and paper because Milwaukee County did not provide inmates with a Law Library or any computer access whatsoever. Witzlib’s records were not seized, Witzlib’s records were stolen by unlawful government entities. At this point in time, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and entities functioning jointly and in concert with defendants, were doing everything in their power to obstruct and stop pro se Witzlib from both completing his investigation and from authoring his Motion to Suppress Evidence. At this point in time, federal prosecutors and other government entities were attempting to collect damning evidence to use against Witzlib in their concerted efforts to prosecute and convict Witzlib. There is no way that any evidence would be “deleted.” Unless the evidence and legal work was favorable to the defense and unfavorable to the federal prosecutors.

181. On April 5th, 6th, or 7th, 2014, Witzlib submitted two letters to defendants Adelman and Carr grieving the specific circumstances of the transfer, including the fact that Milwaukee County Jail had NO LAW LIBRARY OR COMPUTER ACCESS AT ALL! R.109 and 110.

182. On April 8th, 2014, Witzlib submits 7th request for district court transcripts. R.108.

38 of 191.

183. On April 11th, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to the Eastern District court. R.111.

184. HEARING: On April 11th, 2014, Witzlib is transported from the Milwaukee County Jail to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin via deputy U.S. Marshals. Witzlib is instructed by Milwaukee County Jail staff to pack up all his property because he would not be returning to block “A” of the Milwaukee County Jail. Witzlib quietly co-existed with all of the inmates, approximately 50, in general population without incident. At the status hearing before federal judge Adelman, Witzlib told the court that the prosecutions “C.D.’s” were not accessible for review once again in the Ozaukee County Jail. Witzlib explained to the court that he had paid an expert computer technician (Greg Cain) to extract information off of Witzlib’s Gateway computer and transfer the information to a disk or flash drive so Witzlib would have access indirectly to the Gateway computer data evidence that Witzlib was deliberately being denied access to by the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants; which were purposely obstructing Witzlib’s investigation and prolonging the already drawn out adjudication of case 13-CR-99; in so doing affecting Witzlib’s physical health for the worse. Witzlib tell Adelman his is awaiting the results of the private computer technicians report so Witzlib can finally complete the investigation. Witzlib also tells the court by letter and verbally that he has not viewed the search warrant video and the video of Witzlib allegedly producing fireworks at the workbench contained on the 2 C.D.’s that have been incompatible on the Dodge County Jail computers in July of 2013, the Kenosha County Jail computers in January of 2014, the Ozaukee County Jail computers in March of 2014 and of which Witzlib had not yet examined or reviewed as of that time, April 11th, 2014 (again, this evidence was “material” by the federal prosecutors own admission being listed as evidence which was set to be used against Witzlib at trial in the federal prosecutors “case-in-chief”). Adelman orders another status hearing date to be scheduled and the clerk schedules a day for May 9th, 2014. R.113. U.S. Marshals go through Witzlib’s notes and legal records again at this court date, collecting information.

185. On April 11th, 2014, after the status hearing, Witzlib is transferred to the Waukesha County Jail by Waukesha County transport deputies. Witzlib is held in the booking area of the Waukesha County Jail and federal holding facility for hours. The booking officers seize all of Witzlib’s legal and medical records. Even after booking officers searched Witzlib’s paperwork and records and determined that there was no contraband, officers still seize all of Witzlib’s records. Booking officers tell Witzlib that Waukesha Jail policy dictates that all of Witzlib’s records be seized by booking staff, even if there is no contraband, to be inspected and examined and cleared by the Waukesha “property clerk” who only works Monday through Friday. Witzlib’s records are not returned until Wednesday or Thursday the next week and when Witzlib’s records are finally returned, only half of them are returned at a time. Witzlib submits grievances grieving the seizure of all his records yet again by the government. Witzlib is separated from his legal and medical records by the Waukesha County Jail functioning jointly and in concert with federal Marshals and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental

39 of 191.

Institution defendants for approximately one week. Witzlib learns from jail guards that Waukesha County does not have a Law Library area available for federal inmates; none whatsoever. Despite being a federal holding facility and housing a relatively large number of federal inmates compared to Milwaukee and Ozaukee Counties. Waukesha County has a contract with the federal government and is the wealthiest county in the state of Wisconsin and Waukesha does not provide inmates with a Law Library, copies of legal documents or any access to recreational exercise. Witzlib is deprived of the aforementioned resources by the Waukesha County Jail and federal Marshals for approximately 8 weeks. U.S. Marshals intentionally and deliberately placed Witzlib in a facility with no Law Library even after knowing full well that Witzlib was a pro se defendant and required a Law Library and basic legal resources to effectively represent himself. Witzlib grieved either extremely limited access to Law Libraries or no access to Law Libraries in numerous letters to Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Defendants were well aware of the fact that Witzlib needed access to a Law Library and was representing himself. Witzlib immediately submitted grievances to defendants and the Sheriff of Waukesha County grieving the seizure of his legal and medical records and grieving absolutely no access to a Law Library whatsoever. Waukesha also placed Witzlib in the maximum security area after Witzlib refused to sign the medical release form presented to him by the booking staff. Witzlib, who was in jail for petty fireworks, most half the size of your index finger, was placed in the maximum security section of the Waukesha facility with violent criminals who were on heavy dosages of psychiatric drugs and who’s offenses were as serious as homicide. Witzlib had not been in a single physical fight or caught any new charges since being locked up for nearly a year with hostile and angry criminals who had little or no regard for the law. Witzlib co-existed with general population inmates in Milwaukee County without incident and had managed to stay out of physical altercations with hostile individuals. Waukesha had no justification to place Witzlib in the maximum security area while at the same time moving other inmates directly to level orange or yellow. Witzlib submitted grievances to the U.S. Marshals, court and Waukesha County Jail administrators.

186. On April 14th, 2014, an inmate in the maximum security pod intruded into Witzlib’s cell and attacked him while Witzlib was laying on his bunk with the door closed. Witzlib alerted jail staff by pushing the panic button in his cell after the hostile inmate intruded into his cell.

187. On April 18th, 2014, Witzlib’s legal and medical records were returned to him.

188. On April 29th, 2014, Witzlib submitted a letter to the Eastern District court grieving detainment conditions of the Waukesha County federal holding facility. No Law Library whatsoever and no rec exercise whatsoever were major issues of concern. R.114.

189. The entire month of April 2014, Witzlib continued to painstakingly work on the Motion to Suppress Evidence and Witzlib’s efforts to complete the investigation

40 of 191.

of case 13-CR-99 which he had not yet completed due to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants deliberate, synergenic and systematic obstructions. On April 30th, 2014, Witzlib had been in jail for a year and had still not been given access to the search warrant video, the video of Witzlib allegedly producing fireworks at the workbench in his basement, or access to Witzlib’s Gateway computer that contained material evidence and which the government had access to since day one, when Witzlib’s house was raided.

190. HEARING: On May 9th, 2014, Witzlib is transported from the Waukesha County Jail to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin via Waukesha County transport deputies. Before the hearing scheduled for that afternoon, Witzlib meets with federal prosecutor Johnson in a meeting room where Witzlib is allowed to examine and review expert computer technician Greg Cain’s report and findings, which were extracted off of Witzlib’s Gateway computer and mailed to Witzlib on a flash drive by Mr. Cain. Witzlib’s mom paid Mr. Cain over $150.00 to extract material evidence and other evidence off of Witzlib’s Gateway computer and transfer the data to a flash drive because of the fact that Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants were systematically denying Witzlib access to his computer which they had the luxury of having access to since day one. Witzlib examined the contents of the flash drive in a meeting room area of the federal courthouse before the scheduled status hearing. Witzlib printed out documents that were material evidence that Witzlib had been denied access to up until that point in time. R.115. At the hearing, Adelman ordered another hearing to be scheduled and the clerk scheduled the next status hearing for May 22nd, 2014. Witzlib had not yet completed the investigation of his case because defendants were still refusing to disclose material evidence which was under their control (search warrant video and video of Witzlib allegedly producing fireworks at the workbench in his basement). Prosecutor Johnson assures Witzlib that before the status hearing scheduled for May 22nd, 2014, Witzlib will be given access to the evidence that Witzlib had been denied access to up until that point in time; but only in the presence of federal officials.

191. On May 13th, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to federal officials Sanfilippo, Dietrich and Adelman. R.116.

192. On May 14th, 2014, Witzlib submits grievance letters to federal judge Adelman. R.117.

193. On May 15th, 2014, Witzlib finishes a handwritten version of Witzlib’s “Motion to Suppress Evidence” which he had began working on in Kenosha County Jail, continued to work on and type in the Ozaukee County Jail, was seized by the government on April 4th, 2014, and then seized again by Waukesha County Jail on April 11th, 2014. Despite the fact that Waukesha County did not provide inmates’ access to a Law Library or basic legal resources of any kind, including a computer to type out official legal documents, Witzlib penned the Motion to Suppress Evidence by hand. The government completely deprived Witzlib of any

41 of 191.

legal resources whatsoever from April 4th, 2014, through June 5th, 2014. Witzlib mails the handwritten version of the Motion to Suppress to his mom to make copies of along with the reference exhibits attached to the Motion.

194. On May 22nd, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to the Eastern District of Wisconsin court. R.118.

195. HEARING: On May 22nd, 2014, Witzlib is transported from the Waukesha County Jail to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin by Waukesha County transport deputies. Federal prosecutor Johnson appears in the morning and informs Witzlib that he will be given the opportunity to view the search warrant video and the video of Witzlib allegedly producing fireworks at the workbench. Johnson informs Witzlib that federal ATF agent Keeku was in possession of the video evidence and that if Witzlib wanted to examine the evidence he must do so in the presence of ATF agent Keeku. Nearly a year and a month after the incident and approximately 11 months after being mailed discovery evidence in July of 2013 and C.D.’s which were incompatible with Dodge, Kenosha, and Ozaukee County computers, Witzlib was finally given access to the material evidence set to be used against him be the government at trial; but only in the presence of ATF agent Keeku. Again the federal government was dictating and in total control of Witzlib and Witzlib’s access to material evidence. Witzlib did not want to associate with “Keeku” the federal officer who disregarded Witzlib’s Constitutional Rights and entered his home without a warrant and subsequently raided Witzlib home, however, the federal prosecutors were forcing Witzlib to be in the presence of Keeku OR ELSE denying Witzlib access to discovery. Witzlib was not about to refuse or turn down the opportunity to examine the discovery evidence after his approximate yearlong effort to gain access to the evidence. Witzlib was led by deputy Marshals from the holding area of the federal courthouse to a small meeting room area where a computer was set up. Federal ATF officer Keeku referred to the computer as “my computer” which led Witzlib to believe the computer was her personal computer in some capacity. Witzlib discovered that all of his private family pictures, private photography and other intellectual property that belonged to Witzlib was on Keeku’s computer. Property and information that had absolutely nothing to do with fireworks or the ongoing court case 13-CR-99. Over a year later, why was this federal officer still in possession of Witzlib’s personal and private property? The property was stolen. Witzlib was the victim of thieves who raided his house and helped themselves to his priceless intellectual property (pictures, poems, short stories, original unique ideas, writings, college essays, and family photos). Witzlib did not make an issue of the violation of his privacy and rights by Keeku at that time due to staying focused on the task at hand, which was examining the evidence videos and taking notes. Federal prosecutor Johnson also made a brief appearance at this meeting. Witzlib, prior to Johnsons brief appearance, engaged Keeku in small talk and brought up the day of the incident. Keeku stated that aluminum powder is not an “explosive material.” Keeku also stated “you (Witzlib) didn’t say anything” outside of your house in the driveway. Keeku was lying right to Witzlib’s face

42 of 191.

because she knew that there was a lengthy exchange of words in the driveway of Witzlib’s home on the day of the incident. Keeku must be a pathological liar or something to tell Witzlib that there was nothing said outside of his residence. Witzlib did not respond to Keeku’s dishonesty and distractions at the May 22nd, 2014, meeting between the parties. Witzlib stayed focused on the task at hand, examining the discovery evidence which he had been denied access to for nearly a year by the government. Furthermore, Witzlib’s grandmother Ruth was looking out the window while Witzlib and the police were standing out in the driveway and Witzlib was asserting his knowledge of the law and telling police that it was against his will for police to enter his house. Witzlib reviewed the evidence videos in about 2 hours of time. Witzlib discovered that the “search warrant” video was actually taken after Witzlib’s property was collected by the government. Witzlib also learned the missing cash that was on his desk before the police raided his home, that was never listed anywhere in police inventory, was gone at the time the “search warrant” video was taken. The entire operation was crooked. The operation was not a lawful warranted search and seizure, the police operation was an unlawful unwarranted search and raid. After Witzlib completed viewing the video footage and taking notes, Witzlib was led back down to the inmate holding area by deputy Marshals.

196. After the meeting with corrupt federal officer “Keeku” on May 22nd, 2014, Witzlib was taken to court later that afternoon by deputy Marshal “Burton” (tall black guy with a shaved head). R.119. Witzlib moved to “withdraw” the July, 2013, series of motions, re-asserting Witzlib’s “Motion to Withdraw” submitted to the court back in February, 2014. The court ordered Witzlib’s series of motions withdrawn. R.92 and 119. Federal Judge Adelman orders another status hearing and clerk Dietrich sets the date for June 5th, 2014. R.119. Witzlib is transported back to Waukesha County after the status hearing.

197. On May 28th, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to the court regarding possibly obtaining a court appointed attorney. Witzlib has been pro se since December 20th, 2013, and is reluctant to accept court appointed counsel from the federal defender’s office after being burned by two federal panel attorneys Cohn and Wilmouth. R.120.

198. On June 3rd, 2014, Witzlib’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and supporting reference exhibits are filed with the court along with a cover letter citing each document as an individual attachment. Witzlib actually submitted the package of documents on May 26th, 2014, via certified mail through the U.S. Postal Service. However, the documents were not filed by the court until June 3rd. R.121-27. Motions and documents were handwritten due to no computer access for federal inmates in the Waukesha County federal holding facility.

199. HEARING: On June 5th, 2014, Witzlib is transported from the Waukesha County Jail to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin by Waukesha County transport deputies.

43 of 191.

Witzlib is instructed to pack up all of his property because Waukesha County Jail staff told Witzlib that Marshals had told them that Witzlib would not be returning to the Waukesha facility after the scheduled court hearing. Witzlib appears at the status hearing. Witzlib complains to the court about being denied access to basic legal resources for the last 2 months. From April 4th, 2014, through June 5th, 2014, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants systematically and deliberately obstructed Witzlib’s investigation and efforts to effectively represent himself and Witzlib’s efforts to move forward through the adjudication process. Witzlib tells the court that he is trying to find an attorney and doesn’t want to get burned again by another federal panel attorney who is loyal to Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants who are providing that attorney with a paycheck. During the hearing, Adelman states “you never should have fired [state licensed federal panel attorney] Wilmouth.” R.128. Adelman states the he will allow Witzlib to attempt to find a private attorney not affiliated with the federal defenders service or the federal government. Adelman orders a status hearing for approximately two weeks and the clerk schedules a hearing for June 23rd, 2014.

200. After the status hearing, in the holding cell area of the federal courthouse, Witzlib is informed by federal deputy Marshals that he is being transferred back to the Dodge County Jail and federal holding facility in Juneau Wisconsin. Juneau is approximately an hour drive north of Milwaukee. Witzlib, at that time, told federal Marshals that he feared for his life and safety in the Dodge County facility and that Witzlib had a scheduled doctor’s appointment that was scheduled by the Waukesha County medical staff who was actually taking steps to diagnose Witzlib’s physical condition by ordering further testing and by determining that Witzlib was not suffering from heartburn. Now, Witzlib found himself being transferred out of a facility whose medical staff seemed to be competent and who was actively attempting to reach a diagnosis of Witzlib’s physical condition, to a medical staff that steadfastly denied Witzlib the appropriate medical care for his condition and refused to even investigate Witzlib’s symptoms and signs of disease. Witzlib told deputy Marshals that he feared for his life and safety in Dodge County and did not want to go back there. Witzlib requested to be moved somewhere else with a Law Library besides Dodge County. Marshals tell Witzlib that he is going to Dodge County and Marshals tell Witzlib that they will notify Dodge County and inform them of Witzlib’s scheduled doctor’s appointment.

201. Witzlib is booked into Dodge County Jail and federal holding facility for the second time on June 5th, 2014. Witzlib is moved to “A” pod lower level and then a couple days later moved to the upper level, both restricted areas holding a maximum of 6 inmates. Dodge County restricts Witzlib’s access to the Law Library to 2 hours every 3-4 days for the first 3 weeks Witzlib is housed in “A” pod. Witzlib submits grievances grieving the restricted Law Library access and the jail responds by telling Witzlib that there are lots of inmates that need to use the Law Library and that he Law Library is always full (Dodge County has 5 separate Law Library areas). Witzlib learns that Dodge County began paying for the regular access subscription to the Lois Law internet program and now

44 of 191.

actually has a functional Law Library and access to case law researching capabilities and a case law data base of state and federal case law. Witzlib submits numerous grievances at this time of his restricted access to rec exercise and Law Library resources and requests to move back to general population where inmates enjoy full access to rec exercise and full access to the Law Library. Dodge County administration refuses to move Witzlib back into general population “C” or “D” dorms. Witzlib used all of his time in the Law Library to type up the handwritten versions of his Motion to Suppress Evidence and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. Witzlib uses the rec area resource every single time the officers allow or offer it. Witzlib was deprived of appropriate exercise to stay physically healthy from November 26th, 2013, through June 5th, 2014, by the housing placements and restrictive actions of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning jointly and in concert with state facilities and actors. Witzlib did exercise in his cell but never had an opportunity to run around or move around since being in the MCC in Chicago back in November of 2013.

202. On June 12th and 17th, 2014, Witzlib submits letters to the Eastern District of Wisconsin court. R.129 and 130. In one of these letters, Witzlib requests that Adelman recuse himself from further proceedings in case

203. 13-CR-99 because Witzlib perceives, through various statements and actions of Judge Adelman, that Adelman is bias and prejudice in favor of the government; federal prosecutors; local police; and other government entities that have cooperated with one another to unfairly and unlawfully prosecute Witzlib and unlawfully deprive Witzlib of Liberty.

204. HEARING: On June 23rd, 2014, Witzlib is transferred from the Dodge County Jail to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin by Dodge County transport deputies. In light of Witzlib’s “Motion to Suppress Evidence”, the federal prosecutors present Witzlib with a modified plea agreement where they agree to recommend a 24 month sentence instead of a 36 month sentence which was their original plea offer. Witzlib’s main focus is on clearing his name and bringing the violations of his Constitutional Rights to light and having the evidence derived from the unwarranted search of his home, suppressed. Witzlib requests that he be given the chance to consult with an attorney regarding the revised plea off of the government. R.131. Witzlib’s goal is to clear his name.

205. Adelman states at the hearing on June 23rd that he is not bias or prejudice and refuses to recuse himself. R.131. Adelman orders a status hearing and Dietrich schedules the hearing for July 14th, 2014. Witzlib is transported back to the Dodge County facility after the hearing by Dodge County transport deputies.

206. On July 2nd, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to the Eastern District of Wisconsin federal court. R.134. Attached to this letter are typed versions of Witzlib’s motions filed by the court on June 3rd, 2014. R.135, 136 and 137. Typed. Witzlib points out that the Dodge County facility moved Witzlib from “A” pod to “B” pod

45 of 191.

and that “A” pod computer had Microsoft Word 2007 while the “B” pod computer had Microsoft Office 2010 and that the setting were all different on the programs. For this reason the text structure of Witzlib’s Motion to Suppress Evidence typed version changes within the motion. See defense’s Motion to Suppress Evidence at 26-27 (abnormal text spacing). This was yet another deliberate maneuver by the government to obstruct and discredit Witzlib’s Motion to Suppress Evidence and make the Motion appear to be sloppily put together.

207. Witzlib’s efforts to receive medical care and efforts to get to the bottom of the pain in his chest and abdomen area of his body and other areas continue in the Dodge County facility. However, the Dodge County Jail’s medical staff and jail administration’s attitude towards Witzlib’s physical medical issues has not changed since the first time Witzlib was imprisoned in the Dodge County facility from May 29th, through August 27th, 2013. Witzlib’s condition has progressively gotten worse and his body has incurred damage and further deterioration since Witzlib’s August 9th, 2013, “Grievance of Detainment Conditions” that was submitted to the Dodge County Jail Administration, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin federal court. Witzlib’s efforts to receive medical care continue and the Dodge County Jail medical staff and jail administration continue their concerted effort to deny Witzlib medical care and pretend that there is nothing physically wrong with Witzlib.

208. Witzlib was recommended to receive a CT scan by two different doctors, Chen Noto and Vijayapal of the Waukesha County medical staff. Vijayapal also suggested that Witzlib be examined by an infectious disease specialist. Dodge County Jail medical staff, jail administration, Sheriff, and the Marshals service has refused to acknowledge these doctors recommendations or follow through with them.

209. On July 3rd, 2014, Witzlib submits a grievance letter to Eastern District of Wisconsin federal government officials Carr and Adelman. R.133

210. On July 8th, 2014, Witzlib submits a “Polygraph Affidavit” to the court in defense of his character and to support his side of the story and to attack the false statements being used against him, including the false police report incident affidavits. R.138. Federal prosecutors object to Witzlib’s attempt to take a polygraph test, however, still continue to use the false statements against Witzlib to maliciously prosecute him.

211. On July 9th, 2014, Witzlib submits a grievance to the Eastern District of Wisconsin federal court, grieving the false “Pretrial Service Report” written by federal probation officer Mott and filed into the docket on May 29th, 2013. R.140. Witzlib also submits letter to Adelman. R.139. Witzlib also submits letter to the court grieving the federal defenders office and Dan Stiller. R.141. Witzlib also submitted, on July 9th, 2014, a grievance of detainment conditions. R.142.

212. On July 11th, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to Adelman regarding the case. R.143.

46 of 191.

213. HEARING: On July 14th, 2014, Witzlib is transported from the Dodge County facility to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin by Dodge County transport deputies. Immediately, upon arriving at the federal courthouse, Witzlib hands the deputy Marshals court documents to be delivered to the Eastern District of Wisconsin court. Witzlib did not have time to mail the documents into the court and barely finished the documents in time and was unable to complete a thorough type up due to time restrictions in the Law Library and constantly being cut off when Witzlib was in the middle of typing up legal documents by Dodge County Jail staff. Witzlib submits several documents to the court at this time which included: “Amendment to Motion for Evidentiary Hearing” R.144; “Amendment of Motion to Suppress Evidence” R.145; “Grievance of Detainment Conditions” R.147; and “Motion for Deposition” R.148. All of these documents submitted in person to the court and to federal prosecutors prior to the July 14th, 2014, status hearing.

214. At the hearing, Witzlib requests that Adelman make a ruling on the Motions Witzlib submitted. Adelman questions Witzlib about facts and regarding details of Witzlib’s motions and reasons for why Witzlib thought the court should grant the motions and on what grounds.

215. Witzlib clearly stated to the court at this time, that the police incident reports were false. Witzlib stated that if the police incident affidavits were false, then the warrant secured by government officials from a magistrate judge who relied on the false reports to support the issuance of the search warrant, was invalid. Witzlib stated that if the warrant was invalid, then the evidence obtained from the unlawful seizure was inadmissible to the grand jury and the indictment was invalid. Witzlib clearly asserted that whether or not the police incident reports were true or false was an issue of disputed material fact. R.150 Tr.

216. Witzlib clearly stated to the court at this time, that there was no proof of any explosives because all of the fireworks could have been “duds.” Witzlib clearly asserted that whether or not Witzlib’s alleged fireworks were actually “explosive devices” or not was an issue of disputed material fact. R.150 Tr. The prosecutions entire theory that the warrantless search was justified by the existence of “explosive devices.” R.88. Here, Witzlib asserts that there was no proof at the time and still no proof at the present time, of the existence of “explosive devices” because all of the fireworks could have been “duds.” Witzlib clearly and assertively stated this issue of disputed material fact in open court at the July 14th, 2014, status hearing when specifically questioned by the Judge Adelman to state a disputed issue of material fact.

217. Witzlib clearly stated to the court at this time, following the aforementioned statements, that the federal prosecutors and government, were unlawfully using evidence derived from an unwarranted, unlawful search, to justify the search itself. R.150 Tr.

47 of 191.

218. Witzlib made each of these significant, specific, verbal statements at the July 14th, 2014, status hearing. Witzlib specified exact issues of disputed material facts. See infra . . .

219. Adelman subsequently, near the end of the hearing, states that he will write an opinion on Witzlib’s motions. Adelman orders another status hearing to be set and clerk Dietrich schedules another hearing for July 29th, 2014. After the hearing Witzlib is transported back to the Dodge County facility by Dodge County transport deputies.

220. On July 15th, 2014, two different officers at the Dodge County facility told Witzlib that he could have been out of jail yesterday July 14th, 2014, if Witzlib would have requested bond from the court. Dodge County officers “Gabel” and “Riter” both told Witzlib that it was his fault that Witzlib was in jail because he never requested bond at the July 14th, 2014, status hearing. Witzlib has no idea how these state corrections officers, “Riter” and “Gabel”, who were not at the status hearing, had the knowledge that if Witzlib would have requested bond he allegedly would have received bond? All Witzlib knows is that both “Gabel” and “Riter”, on July 15th, 2014, in the Dodge County facility, verbally told Witzlib that he should have requested bond because he would have been out of jail.

221. A total of 4 different government officials; “Burton”, “Doug” (deputy Marshals) and “Gabel”, “Riter” (Dodge County jailers); told Witzlib that if Witzlib requested bond from the Eastern District of Wisconsin court, Witzlib would be released.

222. On July 17th, 2014, Witzlib notifies the Dodge County Sheriff Pat Ninnman, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Adelman, Sanfilippo, Carr, Santelle, Kanter, Johnson, Kwaterski and Ruth Witzlib of a scheduled deposition, approximately 3 weeks from July 17th, 2014. Witzlib scheduled the deposition and notified all parties in accordance with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that outline proper procedure with respect to depositions in the U.S. Code. R.151. Witzlib states that the deposition is required and legal under the U.S. Code due to the age and illness of Witzlib’s material eyewitness who was at the scene of the incident on the day and time the incident took place, April 30th, 2013. Ms. Witzlib, 85 years old and suffering from chronic COPD was physically unable to appear in court.

223. On July 18th, 2014, Witzlib receives a letter from federal prosecutor Johnson, dictating that Witzlib should not be allowed to depose witness Ruth Witzlib at her residence. Johnson asserts in this letter to Witzlib that it is “unreasonable” to for Witzlib to be transported to a deposition by the government. Contra U.S. Code.

224. On July 18th, 2014, federal prosecutors file a “Response” to Witzlib’s “Motion for Polygraph Examination” R.152. Federal prosecutor state that Witzlib should not be given the opportunity to take a polygraph examination to defend his character, his side of the story, and to attack the false statements being used by federal prosecutors to prosecute him maliciously. In particular the 3 false police reports

48 of 191.

and the FALSE “Lawrence Arnold” statement. Federal prosecutors tell the court to deny Witzlib’s motion for polygraph examination but still continue to use the false statements and false affidavits against Witzlib in their efforts to prosecute and convict Witzlib.

225. On July 21st, 2014, Eastern District of Wisconsin federal judge Adelman files a “Decision and Order” with the court into the docket, ruling on Witzlib’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, Motion to Amend Motion to Suppress Evidence, Motion to Amend Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Motion for Polygraph Examination. R.153 and 154. Adelman denies Witzlib’s amended versions of Witzlib’s Motion to Suppress Evidence and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Motion for Polygraph Examination.

226. Adelman states in his ruling that Witzlib did not specify an issue of disputed material fact in Witzlib’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing which was a false statement by Adelman. Witzlib specified in his motion to suppress, motion for evidentiary hearing and verbally in court at the July 14th, 2014, status hearing disputed issues of material fact. R.150 Tr. See infra . . . See also “Appellate Brief section IV.”

227. Adelman accuses Witzlib of making vague and conclusory statements in Witzlib’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. R.153. Witzlib specified directly to Adelman’s face in open court and specified in Witzlib’s 32 page Motion to Suppress Evidence typed version specific issues of disputed material facts. Witzlib was never given the opportunity by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants to meet with federal prosecutors to discuss disputed issues of material fact. Contra Local Rule 12 (c). The record will show that Witzlib made numerous attempts to correspond with Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and Witzlib was not recognized as a legitimate member of the courtroom workgroup and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants failed to correspond with Witzlib or answer Witzlib’s letters.

228. Witzlib met the requirements set forth by Eastern District Local Rule 12 (c). The government failed to comply with Local Rule 12 (c) and Adelman unlawfully denied Witzlib’s motion for an Evidentiary Hearing.

229. Under the United States Constitution, protecting Americans rights to due process of law and protecting all citizens who are accused of crimes, and under the U.S. Code, and under Local Rule 12 (c), and under Franks v. Delaware, an evidentiary hearing was required by law. See “Appellate Brief section IV.”

230. Witzlib, after reading Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order”, in its full context and in the greater context of the decisions Adelman had made throughout the adjudication of case 13-CR-99 at that point in time, determined that Adelman was clearly bias and prejudice in favor of the government. See R.153 at 11 n.10. See also “Appellate Brief section IV.”

49 of 191.

231. On July 22nd, 2014, Witzlib’s “Motion for Deposition” is entered into the docket. R.155.

232. On July 22nd, 2014, Witzlib submits grievances to the Eastern District of Wisconsin court grieving the abusive federal panel attorneys that were appointed and selected deliberately by the federal defenders office. R.156.

233. On July 25th, 2014, Witzlib submits a “Response in Opposition” to Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order.” R.157.

234. On July 28th, 2014, Witzlib submits 8th request for district court transcripts to Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants.

235. On July 29th, 2014, Witzlib submits “Motion for Reconsideration” to the Eastern District of Wisconsin court. R.159.

236. On July 29th, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Court Requesting bail/bond in writing with a “visualization chart.” R.160.

237. HEARING: On July 29th, 2014, Witzlib is transported from the Dodge County facility to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin by Dodge County transport deputies. Witzlib appears for his court hearing and is pressured to sign a plea agreement by federal prosecutor Johnson. Witzlib tells Johnson he will plead nolo contendere because all of the fireworks could have been “duds” and he doesn’t know if he is actually guilty of possessing “explosive devices.” Witzlib requests that a condition of the plea agreement, allows Witzlib to retain the right to appeal the Adelman “Decision and Order” denying Witzlib motions to suppress and for evidentiary hearing. Johnson becomes agitated by Witzlib’s reasonable requests which are well within the confines of the U.S. Code and appropriate under the U.S. Constitution.

238. In the July 21st, 2014, ruling, Adelman states that there is “no way of knowing” if the fireworks Witzlib allegedly possessed were “duds” or not.

239. Since, by the courts own admission that there is “no way of knowing” if Witzlib actually possessed “explosive devices” because all of the fireworks could have been “duds”, Witzlib’s good faith offer to plead nolo contendere (no contest) and to be found guilty by the court was more than reasonable. Johnson becomes agitated and angry at Witzlib’s legitimate offer and tells Witzlib that federal prosecutors will not agree to allow Witzlib to plead nolo contendere or reserve the right to challenge the July 21st, 2014, Adelman “Decision and Order” under a conditional plea agreement.

240. During the July 29th, 2014, status hearing, Adelman engages in plea negotiations and tells Witzlib that Witzlib’s requests that charges be dropped to

50 of 191.

misdemeanors as part of a proposed plea agreement by the defense is “not gonna happen” and Adelman states “forget about it.”

241. During the July 29th, 2014, status hearing Adelman becomes visibly agitated by Witzlib’s refusal to plead guilty outright and Adelman begins meandering around the bench near the deputy clerk.

242. During the July 29th, 2014, status hearing, the deputy clerk interrupts the proceedings two separate times by turning around and standing up then making statements to Adelman off the record.

243. During the July 29th, 2014, status hearing, prosecutor Johnson requests a fifteen minute recess interlude to discuss the plea agreement with Witzlib. Adelman and the deputy clerk retreat to Adelman’s chambers while Johnson pressures Witzlib to take the agreement but at the same time refuses to accept any of Witzlib’s reasonable terms.

244. During the July 29th, 2014, status hearing, at some point in time, federal prosecutor Johnson walks back into the Adelman’s chambers and where deputy clerk Dietrich and Adelman are holed up, leaving Witzlib alone in the courtroom with only the bailiff and deputy U.S. Marshals.

245. During the July 29th, 2014, status hearing, after Johnson, Adelman and Dietrich emerge from Adelman’s chambers, Adelman tells Witzlib that conditional pleas are “unheard of.” Adelman appears to be visibly agitated at this point in time. Adelman, after emerging from the judges’ chambers, where he, Johnson and Dietrich had gathered and conversed off the record, reads an inaccurate statement against Witzlib containing false facts that negatively portrayed Witzlib’s character in a false light. After Adelman reads the negative statement against Witzlib, Adelman denies Witzlib’s request for bond/bail. See Transcript.

246. During the July 29th, 2014, status hearing, Adelman also denies Witzlib’s “Motion for Reconsideration” without giving a reason. R.161. Adelman orders the deputy clerk to set a date for trial and the deputy clerk sets a date for trial on August 19th, 2014. After the hearing Witzlib is transported back to the Dodge County facility.

247. On July 29th, 2014, Witzlib submits a “Notice of Appeal” of the July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order.” R.153 and 163.

248. On July 30th, 2014, the Eastern District of Wisconsin federal court changes the August 19th, 2014, “TRIAL” date, to a “FINAL STATUS PRE-TRIAL” hearing. R.158. The Eastern District of Wisconsin federal court never notifies Witzlib of the change. No letter, nothing.

249. On July 30th, 2014, Witzlib submits a grievance to the Eastern District of Wisconsin court regarding conditions of confinement and the ongoing case. R.162.

51 of 191.

250. On August 1st, 2014, Witzlib’s “Notice of Appeal” is filed with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and with the Eastern District of Wisconsin court. R.164-67.

251. On August 1st, 2014, unknowing that the “TRIAL” date had been changed by the court to a “PRE-TRIAL” hearing, Witzlib moved for appointment of stand-by counsel because he knew he would need assistance at trial. R.168. Witzlib specifies in letters to Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants that he is interested in only “standby counsel.”

252. On August 1st, 2014, the Eastern District of Wisconsin court grants Witzlib’s motion for standby counsel. R.169.

253. On August 2nd, 2014, Witzlib submits letter to Eastern District Clerk of Court Sanfilippo with attachment documents A-H. No response by Sanfilippo.

254. On August 2nd, 2014, Witzlib submits 9th request for district court transcripts.

255. On August 4th, 2014, Witzlib receives a letter from federal panel attorney Wilmouth. Wilmouth informs Witzlib that he is back on the case and that he is not obligated to submit a “Motion to Withdraw” as counsel. Witzlib immediately writes Wilmouth and demands that Wilmouth get off the case and stay off the case. Wilmouth made the outrageous statement to Witzlib that Wilmouth was going to see to it that Witzlib was sent to federal prison where Witzlib couldn’t “manipulate” people anymore, which is what Witzlib was allegedly doing according to Wilmouth. Witzlib was not manipulating anyone at anytime. Witzlib was working his tail off at studying and school and after Witzlib’s arrest, Witzlib got burned and robbed by devious federal panel attorneys who did no legal work and ineffectively represented Witzlib. Wilmouth’s false statements and verbal attacks on Witzlib’s character and integrity were outrageous and unfounded. The first federal panel attorney took $5,000.oo from Witzlib that he did not earn and refused to take basic legal steps on Witzlib’s behalf. The informants lied to police several times and police searched Witzlib’s home without a warrant. Jailhouse rats wrote 100% false statements against Witzlib and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants used the false statements as weapons to maliciously prosecute Witzlib and gain the upper hand in the case. Wilmouth was hostile, outspokenly hostile, to Witzlib’s best interests at the September 5th, 2013, meeting between parties and now again Wilmouth was back on the case and refusing to get off. Witzlib was in some type of reoccurring nightmare. Wilmouth was a wart and the wart kept popping up.

256. On August 5th, 2014, Witzlib submits an “Adjournment Motion” to the Eastern District of Wisconsin court, moving for adjournment of the August 19th, 2014, “TRIAL” date. At that time, Witzlib was again being kept in the dark to court activities and court actions of District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Adelman, Sanfilippo, Dietrich, Santelle, Kanter, Johnson, and Kwaterski neglect to keep Witzlib informed to recent court activity and court

52 of 191.

actions. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants continue their course of conduct of neglecting to send Witzlib updated court information and at the same time refusing to recognized pro se Witzlib as a legitimate member of the courtroom workgroup. R.170.

257. On August 5th, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to Sanfilippo concerning missing docket documents, inaccuracies and inconsistencies within the district court docket. Sanfilippo does not respond.

258. On August 5th, 2014, Witzlib submits a “Motion for Extension of Time”, requesting that the time to file an appeal of the July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order” and submit an “Appellate Brief” be extended due to the restrictions of Law Library and computer access placed on pro se Witzlib by the government.

259. On August 6th, 2014, Witzlib submits a “Notice of Appeal” to the Eastern District of Wisconsin court clerk Sanfilippo. The “Notice” is properly notarized pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Appellate Procedure Rule 4 (c). R.172.

260. On August 6th, 2014, Witzlib submits “Motion to Appeal In Forma Pauperis Status”, with attached affidavit. R.173-84.

261. On August 7th, 2014, the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants systematically deny Witzlib the right to depose material eye witness Ruth Witzlib at the properly scheduled August 7th, 2014, deposition. The Eastern District of Wisconsin Marshals service, in cooperation with the Dodge County Sheriff’s Department, refuse to transport Witzlib to the deposition. The U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Marshals service and Eastern District of Wisconsin court, including Judge Adelman, do not only violate Witzlib’s rights by denying the deposition of a key defense witness, District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants don’t even have the common courtesy to notify Ruth Witzlib that they have cancelled the scheduled deposition. Ruth Witzlib sat waiting and expecting to be deposed on August 7th, 2014. Ruth Witzlib had planned her day around the scheduled deposition. Ruth Witzlib could pass on any day, she is in her mid eighties and in poor health. Witzlib followed all of the proper procedures specified in the United States Code. The Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants violated Witzlib’s right to due process by systematically denying Witzlib the right to depose a key material eye witness.

262. On August 8th, 2014, Witzlib submits letters to the Eastern District of Wisconsin court. R.185-87.

263. On August 11th, 2014, Witzlib submits a “Motion to Withdraw Motion for Appointment of Counsel.” R.188. Witzlib submits the motion after learning that hostile Wilmouth was back on his case.

53 of 191.

264. On August 11th, 2014, Witzlib submits a “Motion for Substitution of Counsel” to both the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Eastern District of Wisconsin court. R.189. Again, Witzlib finds himself wasting precious Law Library time and energy in yet another desperate attempt to remove hostile state licensed federal panel attorney Wilmouth from the case.

265. On August 12th, 2014, Witzlib is called out of cell E152-H in H block of the Dodge County facility to meet with the third federal panel attorney recently appointed by the court. The panel attorney introduces himself as Edward Hunt. Witzlib informed Hunt that Witzlib is only sought standby counsel and not full representation. Hunt told Witzlib that he is not a “standby” counsel attorney and only represents clients if Hunt has full authority. Witzlib asks Hunt to withdraw and Hunt says that he will withdraw. Before coming to the understanding with Hunt that Hunt would not be representing Witzlib on the case moving forward, Witzlib briefed Hunt on the case. Witzlib told Hunt that the defense theory was that all of the fireworks were “duds.” Hunt immediately told Witzlib that Witzlib’s theory would not work because the government could “cut open” the fireworks and find powder inside. Hunt then told Witzlib that Witzlib should lie! Hunt suggested that Witzlib claim that he was intentionally producing “dud” fireworks and that he was planning on ripping everyone off and selling useless fireworks. Hunt told Witzlib that Witzlib should claim to be a “fraud” and a “con.” At that point Witzlib knew he was appointed another bad federal panel attorney. Witzlib told Hunt that the defense theory was not going to change because the defense theory was solid and established long before Hunt was ever on the case and Witzlib told Hunt that he did not need to lie to win the case and that there was no way the government could ever prove that the fireworks were not all “duds” because the government destroyed all the evidence and stated in writing that they destroyed all the evidence. At the end of Witzlib’s meeting with Hunt, Witzlib was under the impression that he and Hunt had came to an understanding that Hunt would not be representing Witzlib and would withdraw from the case.

266. On August 14th, 2014, Witzlib received a letter from Adelman stating that Wilmouth was not on the case, contrary to what Wilmouth’s letter stated that Wilmouth sent Witzlib (Witzlib still has the letter) stating that Wilmouth was officially back on the case. R.190.

267. On August 14th, 2014, federal magistrate judge Duffin signs Hunt onto the case. R.191.

268. On August 16th, 2014, Witzlib writes Hunt and respectfully informs Hunt that Witzlib will not require Hunt’s services.

269. The entire month of August, 2014, Witzlib focuses on authoring an Appellate Brief, appealing Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order.” Witzlib follows the requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the rules specified in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Local Rules. The structure of Witzlib’s Appellate Brief is in accordance with the specifications set forth in the

54 of 191.

U.S. Code. Witzlib carefully followed all of the instructions, notwithstanding the double spacing due to the cost of copies. Witzlib used the research documents and case law that he had been acquiring and studying in Kenosha, Ozaukee, and Dodge County Jail Law Libraries for over 6 months. Witzlib is quite proud of his Appellate Brief and believes his argument is solid, based on established precedent.

270. On August 18th, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to the Eastern District of Wisconsin court. Witzlib requests that Adelman recuse himself for the second time. Witzlib specifies reasons why recusal is appropriate; “A-U.” R.192.

271. HEARING: On August 19th, 2014, Witzlib is transported from the Dodge County facility to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin by Dodge County transport deputies. Hunt briefly meets with Witzlib before the hearing in the attorney room meeting area attached to the holding cell area.

272. During the August 19th, status hearing, Witzlib specifies that he only was interested in standby counsel. Adelman states that Hunt will serve only as standby counsel.

273. During the August 19th, status hearing, Adelman states that he is not bias or prejudice and refuses to recuse himself a second time.

274. During the August 19th, status hearing, Hunt stands up and requests to remain on the case as “standby” counsel. Hunt requests 45 days to review the case and request that the next hearing be scheduled for about 45 days into the future. The next status hearing date is scheduled by clerk Dietrich for September 4th, 2014. R.193. After the status hearing Witzlib is transported back to the Dodge County facility by Dodge County transport deputies.

275. On August 21st, 2014, Witzlib submits a “Client Attorney Trust” agreement and cover letter requesting that Hunt sign the agreement in a show of good faith. Witzlib had already been burned by two different federal panel attorneys at this point in time.

276. On August 21st, 2014, Witzlib submits a letter to federal prosecutor Johnson. Witzlib request’s that federal prosecutor Johnson amend the plea agreement to specifically state that Witzlib is reserving and retaining the right to appeal the July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order” in its entirety, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2) and (3).

277. In the August 21st, 2014, letter to Johnson, Witzlib asserts his belief that a “nolo contendere” plea is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances of the case. Johnson or any other federal prosecutor does not respond.

55 of 191.

278. On August 26th, 2014, federal panel attorney Hunt appears at the Dodge County facility where Witzlib is being held to meet with Witzlib and discuss the case. Hunt delivers to Witzlib in person a letter Hunt has written on Hunt’s personal company letterhead. In the letter, Hunt aligns himself with district judge Adelman, federal prosecutors and federal panel attorneys. In the letter, Hunt aligns himself with Adelman who is clearly bias in favor of the government, federal prosecutors, police and new age ideology of disregarding the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution via questionable and unreasonable clauses in freak legal cases that were exceptions to the rule. Witzlib’s case does not fall under the definition of one of those cases yet District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and now Witzlib’s federal panel attorney Hunt, are attempting to twist the truth and facts of Witzlib’s case to force the case under the freak clauses thus justifying unlawful police and prosecutorial misconduct; violations of Witzlib’s Constitutional Rights. Hunt tells Witzlib that Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, ruling was legally correct according to precedent and under the United States Constitution. Hunt defends Adelman’s unlawful ruling and threatens Witzlib, telling Witzlib that if Witzlib attempts to appeal Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order”, Hunt will respond by writing an “Anders Brief” to discredit and derail Witzlib’s attempts to appeal Adelman’s unlawful ruling. If case 13-CR-99 was a boxing match, Hunt would be in the government’s corner, not Witzlib’s. Once again Witzlib finds himself with yet another federal panel attorney hostile to his best interests, “Edward (I kiss the government’s a*s because they give me a paycheck) Hunt.”

279. At the August 26th, 2014, meeting with Hunt, after Hunt refuses to sign the C.A.T. agreement and after Hunt expresses his alliance with the powers and ideology Witzlib is fighting against to clear his name, Witzlib again requests that Hunt withdraw from case 13-CR-99. Witzlib makes it very clear to Hunt that Witzlib is not interested in Hunt’s services and again Witzlib is under the impression the he and Hunt had reached an understanding that Hunt would withdraw from the case at the next status hearing. At the conclusion of the meeting with Hunt, Witzlib was under the impression that he and Hunt had reached a mutual understanding that Hunt would not be representing Witzlib in any capacity moving forward in Witzlib’s case 13-CR-99. Witzlib was under the impression that Hunt would be moving to withdraw based on conflicts of interest and based on Hunt’s expressed loyalties with the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants.

280. On August 28th, 2014, Witzlib submits a grievance letter of Hunt’s counsel and conduct (threatening to discredit and derail Witzlib’s appeal effort and telling Witzlib to lie and claim that he was producing dud fireworks and trying to rip people off) to the Office of Lawyer Regulation in Madison Wisconsin.

281. On August 28th, 2014, Witzlib submits a grievance letter of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution federal prosecutors Santelle, Kanter, Kwaterski and Johnson to the Wisconsin Bar, the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee, the Office of Lawyer Regulation in

56 of 191.

Madison and the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division in Washington D.C.

282. On a date sometime in the first two weeks of August, 2014, Witzlib is called out of his cell by the Dodge County federal holding facility nurse. At this time, Witzlib’s efforts to receive medical care from the Dodge County facility medical staff, Dodge County Sheriff, Dodge County facility administration and U.S. Marshals service, was ongoing. The jail nurse told Witzlib that Witzlib was scheduled for a “blood draw” that was ordered by the jail doctor to test for “inflammation.” Witzlib requested that the Dodge County facility and medical staff follow through with the orders and recommendations of Waukesha County physicians Chen Noto and Vijayapal. However, Witzlib was not going to refuse to take the blood draw because he was feeling physically unwell. Witzlib held out hope that the blood draw would turn up evidence of physical disease so Witzlib could be treated appropriately and finally receive an accurate diagnosis of the physical condition causing him pain. So Witzlib consented to the blood draw. At the blood draw, which took place in the conference room computer area of the Dodge County facility, the jail nurse “Austin”, poked Witzlib with the syringe 5 separate times trying to hit Witzlib’s vein; 2 times in the right arm and 3 times in the left arm. On the fifth attempt in Witzlib’s left arm, the jail nurse finally hit the vein and then said “you have small veins.” Witzlib has had blood drawn several times in his life and never has the nurse ever taken more than two tries to hit the vein. Not only did Witzlib suffer 5 puncture wounds, the nurse actually was poking the needle around under the skin trying to hit the vein so the carnage was much worse than just the appearance of 5 red pokes on Witzlib’s inner arms. The next day Witzlib’s arms were black and blue and anyone could clearly see 5 red puncture wounds on Witzlib’s arms and Witzlib’s cellmate (who claimed he was innocent) witnessed the injury and signed a statement. Witzlib submitted grievances to the Dodge County Jail Administration, the Dodge County Jail Sheriff Ninnman, the U.S. Marshals and Witzlib told the Judge in open court and in a letter to the court. Witzlib feared for his life, health and safety before ever being moved into the Dodge County Jail and feared even more so after the traumatic poking incident that left Witzlib literally even more physically and mentally injured while trying to obtain medical care than not trying to obtain medical care. Witzlib never contacted the Dodge County medical staff again for the rest of his stay for fear of further injury.

283. On September 1st, 2014, Witzlib completes and has notarized an “Appellate Brief.” Witzlib worked the entire month of August 2014 authoring the Brief which appealed Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order.” Witzlib sought to submit the appeal of Adelman’s ruling to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago Illinois. R.200.

284. On September 1st, 2014, Witzlib submits a “Motion to Relieve District Judge” and a “Motion to Relieve Standby Counsel” to the Eastern District of Wisconsin federal court. R.195 and 196.

57 of 191.

285. HEARING: On September 4th, 2014, Witzlib is transported from the Dodge County facility to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin by Dodge County transport deputies. Witzlib appears for the scheduled status hearing. State licensed federal panel attorney Hunt is present and is seated next to Witzlib during the hearing. A view times during the hearing Hunt leans over and hits the mute button on Witzlib’s microphone silencing Witzlib from corresponding with the court. At this time, Adelman has had the opportunity to review Witzlib’s motions to relieve counsel and relieve judge. During the hearing Witzlib reasserted the motions verbally and provided facts to support the motions. Like the fact that Hunt threatened to write an “Anders Brief” in an attempt to nullify and discredit Witzlib’s efforts to appeal the unconstitutional July 21st, 2014, ruling. Adelman denies both of Witzlib’s motions and forces Witzlib to retain counsel that is outspokenly hostile to Witzlib’s best interests and outspokenly aligned and loyal to Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Adelman refuses to take Hunt off the case and Hunt does not keep his word and move to withdraw as he told Witzlib he was going to do at that time. Adelman does not remove Hunt from the case despite Hunt’s outspoken hostility towards Witzlib, loyalty to the federal government and refusal to challenge Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order” which is unconstitutional with respect to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and established case precedent. See “Appellate Brief section IV.” Federal judge Adelman has ruled against Witzlib with respect to every single critical defense motion (motion to inspect physical evidence, motion to suppress, motion for polygraph, motion for evidentiary hearing, motion to depose critical defense witness, motion to relieve hostile counsel, motion to relieve prejudice judge, motion for reconsideration, and denied Witzlib bail). Adelman is not neutral. Adelman is bias and prejudiced in favor of the government. Adelman is functioning in cooperation with federal prosecutors to prosecute Witzlib, unlawfully. Federal panel Attorney Hunt is not only failing to fight for Witzlib’s best interests, Hunt is actually assisting the federal prosecutors with the prosecution of Witzlib; by both refusing to fight for Witzlib’s Constitutional Rights, by telling Witzlib to lie, and by threatening to discredit and derail Witzlib’s “Appellate Brief” and efforts to appeal Adelman’s unconstitutional July 21st, 2014, ruling. Hunt is not trying to help Witzlib to clear his name, Hunt is trying to help federal prosecutors secure a conviction and put Witzlib’s case behind them. Hunt’s outspoken threats to deprive Witzlib of his rights to appeal, essentially deprive Witzlib of due process are unlawful and in violation of rules of professional attorney conduct. It is clearly a conflict of interest for Hunt to remain on the case. Adelman denies both Witzlib’s motion to relieve judge and counsel and Hunt refuses to submit a motion to withdraw. After the hearing, Witzlib tells Hunt, who has no belief in Witzlib’s defense theory or ideology and who has outspokenly in writing aligned himself with Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, that Hunt is not his attorney. After the status hearing, before Witzlib is transported back the Dodge County facility, Hunt attempts to meet with Witzlib and Witzlib declines. Witzlib has no further conversations or correspondences with Hunt.

58 of 191.

286. On September 23rd, 2014, Witzlib submits a “plea offer” to the Eastern District of Wisconsin court and the federal prosecutors. Witzlib’s offer is signed and notarized. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants do not respond to Witzlib’s offer. Witzlib’s terms are nearly identical to the terms proposed by the government, notwithstanding Witzlib’s offer to plead “nolo contendere” instead of “guilty” because the court has stated that there is “no way of knowing” if the fireworks were duds or not, therefore, there is “no way of knowing” if Witzlib was actually guilty or not. Federal prosecutors refuse to respond. R.198.

287. On September 24th, 2014, Witzlib submits a “Grievance of Detainment Conditions” to Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and Sheriff Ninnman, Wisconsin Attorney General Van Hollen and the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division in Washington D.C. R.200.

288. On September 28th, 2014, Witzlib submits a grievance of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution federal prosecutors alleging unreasonableness and malicious and unlawful prosecution.

289. On September 30th, 2014, state licensed federal panel attorney Hunt attempts to make contact with Witzlib at the Dodge County federal holding facility. Witzlib does not meet with Hunt due to Hunt’s outspoken hostility to Witzlib’s best interests.

290. On October 1st, 2014, Witzlib submits his 20th request for transfer out of the Dodge County facility to the U.S. Marshals. Witzlib has been steadily requesting to be transferred since being forced into highly restricted status by Dodge County administrators that denied to place Witzlib in general population and were denying Witzlib access to medical care.

291. On October 4th, 2014, Witzlib agrees to plead guilty after realizing that he was in hopeless situation and after realizing that he could not win against the corruptness of the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Witzlib signs the plea agreement and mails it into the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants against his will and better judgment and against what he believes and knows to be true in his mind and in his heart; that there is absolutely no way of knowing if he was actually guilty or not because all of the fireworks could have been duds.

292. On October 5th, 2014, Witzlib is returning from using the Law Library in H-block and officer “Gabel” is at the officer’s station. Witzlib states to Gabel, “remember when you told me to request bail? I did and the judge denied it.” Gabel responded to Witzlib, “You waited too long.”

293. HEARING: On October 21st, 2014, Witzlib is transported from the Dodge County facility to the federal inmate holding area in the bowels of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin by Dodge County transport deputies. Witzlib

59 of 191.

attends the hearing. Hunt is also present and seated in the gallery area. Witzlib pleads guilty. Adelman finds Witzlib guilty, despite Adelman’s statement in the July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order” where Adelman states that there is “no way of knowing” if the fireworks were “duds” or not. Despite the fact that Adelman has admitted that there is “no way of knowing” if Witzlib was actually guilty, Adelman finds Witzlib guilty on October 21st, 2014, and sets a sentencing date for January 9th, 2015. After being found guilty, Witzlib makes a request to Adelman to be released on bail pending sentencing. At the July 29th, 2014, hearing, federal prosecutors told Witzlib that if he pled guilty they would not object to Witzlib being released on bail. After Witzlib pleads guilty on October 21st, 2014, federal prosecutor Johnson does not object to Witzlib being released on bail, and despite the fact that none of the circumstances have changed from what they were at the July 29th, 2013, hearing, notwithstanding the Witzlib’s plea of guilt, Witzlib is allowed out on a signature bond pending sentencing on January 9th, 2014. At this time, as pro se plaintiff Witzlib writes the foregoing complaint, the actual date is November 2nd, 2014, and Witzlib is on electronic monitoring living with his mom and grandmother.

COUNT I.

State Law Fraud Claim.

294. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-294 above.

A.

Fraudulent Affidavit #1.

295. Federal prosecutors James Santelle, Laura Kwaterski, Tracy Johnson and Paul Kanter intentionally altered a police incident report affidavit authored by Germantown Police Officer Penny Schmitt, from its original version and original context, and then used the fraudulent affidavit in their continuing efforts to prosecute plaintiff Bodie Witzlib in the adjudication of case 13-CR-99.

See infra 7-10, 74, and 115.

296. Federal prosecutors created the fraudulent affidavit for the purpose of obstructing Witzlib from challenging false evidence and from having the ability to impeach false evidence that was used to secure the search warrant which was used by government officials to justify the search and seizure of material evidence within Witzlib’s home on May 1st, 2013. The aforementioned Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants deliberately created the fraudulent affidavit with complete knowledge and understanding that the misrepresentation of material facts they were setting forth in the false untrue incident affidavit, which they created, would deceive any future examiner or reviewer of the false incident report affidavit in present, subsequent, and future

60 of 191.

criminal and civil proceedings. Federal prosecutors deliberately created the false affidavit with knowledge that doing so would deny plaintiff of due process and deprive plaintiff of a protected interest in Liberty.

297. In plaintiff’s pending case, 13-CR-99, United States v. Bodie Witzlib, both of the government’s main informant witnesses lied to police in bad faith to effectuate an unlawful warrantless search and arrest (removal) of plaintiff from his home of several years. Officer Schmitt quoted one of the informants’ numerous lies in one of the original police incident report affidavits. Schmitt quoted informant number one as stating that plaintiff was quote “off his medications.” Plaintiff does not take “medications” and did not take “medications” at the time of the incident or at any time. The deliberate malicious LIE told by informant number one was a manipulative tactic by the informant to falsely imply an immediate false sense of imminent danger that actually did not exist. Instead of some guy making 2” long fireworks in his basement next door, now there was, some guy “off his medications” making explosives in the basement of the house next door. Informant number one also lied and claimed that the plaintiff was anti- government. The plaintiff is not “anti-government” the plaintiff is “pro-freedom.” The deception and manipulation by informant number one is clear.

298. At the time of the incident, April 30th, 2013, and for years leading up to the incident, it was no secret that the informants held a resentful vindictive attitude towards plaintiff and had outspokenly desired to have plaintiff removed from his residence. Not by the will of the homeowner, but by their own.

299. In the original Schmitt incident report affidavit, the false “off his medications” statement is in quotation marks. The original affidavit containing one of the informants’ numerous lies, portrays plaintiff’s character in a false light and is a slanderous statement. The informants lie was dispersed to numerous people and the public in the incident reports, satisfying the publicity element of a slander or defamation of character civil claim under Wisconsin State Law. Under Wisconsin State Law, “whistleblowers” or “informants” are only protected when the information they provide is true, if they LIE, and have devious ulterior motives, in bad faith, they are not immune from liability and civil action. See, Kreig v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 104 Wis.2d 455 (1981) (informers are immune from civil liability “so long as they act honestly”)(citing) Tarantino v. Griebel, 9 Wis.2d at 40). The “off his medications” lie, was just one of the numerous lies told to police by the informants on April 30th, 2013. See Ex. 9, 10, and 11.

300. The original Schmitt incident report affidavit was unlawfully revised from its original version with the “off his medications” quote edited out. Federal prosecutors created a fraudulent affidavit document from an affidavit which was false to begin with; thus rendering all of the government’s evidence legally vulnerable. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants conveniently edited out the “off his medications” quote to protect both the informants who lied from tort liability and to prevent Witzlib from impeaching evidence derived as a result of those lies. Federal prosecutors

61 of 191.

fabricated the false, fraudulent affidavit, absent the “off his medications” quote, with the intent to deceive and mislead any future examiner of the affidavit and deprive any future examiner of the affidavit of the knowledge and context of the actual original affidavit, including the false “off his medications” statement by informant number one which was quoted by officer Schmitt who interviewed informant number one and wrote the report documenting the interview shortly after conducting the interview. When Schmitt wrote the report, on the day of the incident, shortly after conducting the interview with informant number one, the interview was fresh in the officer’s mind.

301. By altering, revising, and changing, the context and wording of the original incident affidavit from its original form, to a form and context more suitable to the government’s interest in prosecuting plaintiff, federal prosecutors simultaneously covered up unlawful police conduct and shielded informants who lied from civil liability. Federal prosecutors intentionally and willfully fabricated evidence and fraudulently concealed an existing fact, material to two separate cases; plaintiff’s ongoing criminal case which had not been adjudicated and which plaintiff had pled “not guilty” and was actively trying to clear his name, and a state law civil tort claim. By revising the original Schmitt incident affidavit and editing out the false “off his medications” quote, federal prosecutors essentially were killing two birds with one stone, unlawfully, and in violation of the United States Constitution.

302. The misrepresentation created by federal prosecutors was false. The misrepresentation of fact in the form of a revised incident report affidavit was a deliberate action by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ executed for the purpose of deceiving future responsible authorities and examiners of the fraudulent affidavit and was executed against plaintiff specifically to intentionally and maliciously deprive Witzlib of due process and of Liberty.

303. The fraudulent affidavit created by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants was created for the purpose of prosecuting plaintiff by any means necessary. Defendants’ denied plaintiff due process and deprived plaintiff of an interest in Liberty. Defendants’ deprived plaintiff of the lawful legal ability and means (supporting tangible evidence) to assert civil legal action against those private individuals and individuals within the government who slandered and defamated plaintiff’s character and good name with lies and false statements and who used false statements to justify an unwarranted search and subsequent raid of plaintiff’s home.

304. By the removal of the “off his medications” lie, quoted by Schmitt in the original incident affidavit, Witzlib lost the ability to challenge the truthfulness of the original affidavit and impeach the document on the grounds that the original affidavit was false and untrue. The original police report incident affidavit was used by the government to obtain a search warrant and to search and seize evidence out of Witzlib’s home on April 30th, and May 1st of 2013. The false

62 of 191.

affidavit was also used to justify the unwarranted search of Witzlib’s home by police on the day of the incident. The original false affidavit was material in two separate cases, one being adjudicated at the time and one realized.

305. The revised original version of the original affidavit which was fabricated by federal prosecutors was entered into evidence by federal prosecutors and was used to prosecute plaintiff throughout the adjudication of case 13-CR-99 and is still being used by federal prosecutors at this time. The fraudulent affidavit created by federal prosecutors, where federal prosecutors intentionally misrepresent material facts, has undermined plaintiff’s right to compulsory process and denied plaintiff due process, thus depriving plaintiff of Liberty.

306. Police conducted an unwarranted search and subsequent raid of plaintiff’s home based on hearsay and lies from vindictive and resentful informants with a laundry list of outspoken ulterior reasons for requesting the removal of plaintiff from his home that had nothing to do with criminal activity.

307. The fraudulent affidavit created by federal prosecutors was disseminated to numerous outlets including federal panel attorneys, judges, and as an incident report of the case was made available to public record. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants intentionally misrepresented material facts by revising the original report.

308. Under Wisconsin law, slander and defamation of character claims require specification of the exact untrue slanderous or defamatory words in order to properly state a claim. In the original Schmitt police report, Schmitt quotes the informants false defamatory statement which falsely and maliciously portrayed Witzlib’s character in a false light before more than two people; “off his medications.” By removing the quoted false defamatory statement, and creating false fraudulent affidavit documents, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants have unlawfully deprived plaintiff of due process protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions in two separate cases, one civil and one criminal; thus depriving plaintiff of Liberty.

309. Plaintiff was in possession of the original Schmitt police incident report affidavits from on or about May 15th, 2013, through August 27th, 2013. On August 27th, 2013, plaintiff was transported out of the Dodge County federal holding facility. Most of plaintiff’s legal records, medical records and personal property was left in the Dodge County facility because Dodge County Jailers did not inform plaintiff that he would not be returning to the Dodge County facility after plaintiff’s scheduled status hearing on August 27th, 2013. See infra 74.

310. On August 27th, 2013, Dodge County Jail Administration, U.S. Federal Marshals and a state licensed federal panel attorney Thomas Wilmouth, simultaneously seized, over the course of the day, ALL of plaintiff’s records and personal property. When plaintiff woke up the morning of August 27th, 2013, he was in possession of all of his legal and medical records and personal property and when

63 of 191.

plaintiff went to sleep that night in a different federal holding facility, the Kenosha County Jail, plaintiff had nothing. All of plaintiff’s property was seized on August 27th, 2013, by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning jointly and in concert with state actors. Plaintiff never saw the original police report incident affidavits again.

311. From August 28th, 2013, through December 20th, 2013, plaintiff was forced by the Eastern District of Wisconsin court to remain under the counsel and authority of state licensed federal panel attorney Thomas Wilmouth who was outspokenly hostile to both plaintiff himself and to plaintiff’s best interests. For approximately 4 months plaintiff was denied access to legal records and denied the opportunity to investigate the case.

312. In January of 2014, after Wilmouth was finally removed from the case, plaintiff picked up the investigation where plaintiff left off back in July of 2013. Plaintiff demanded full discovery under Brady v. Maryland, (1963), and under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16. When plaintiff finally obtained selected discovery from federal prosecutors, in January of 2014, and plaintiff began his efforts to complete the investigation of case 13-CR-99 that plaintiff began in July of 2013, plaintiff discovered that the original police incident reports were missing and had been replaced with revised versions that contained wording which had been changed and altered from the original context. See infra 115.

313. The specific fraudulent affidavit that was fabricated by federal prosecutors, and then subsequently forwarded to, and perpetuated by, federal panel attorneys, denied plaintiff due process in two separate cases. The fraudulent affidavit obstructed and denied plaintiff normal adjudication of case 13-CR-99 and deprived plaintiff of due process protected under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and protected under Article One, sections One, Seven and Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution with respect to plaintiff’s Constitutional Right to take civil legal action against individuals that lied to slander and defamate plaintiff’s character with false statements and lies.

314. The fraudulent affidavit, deliberately, willfully, intentionally, and maliciously fabricated by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with one another and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of state law or under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, with the intent to deceive and in bad faith, ultimately deprived plaintiff of a protected interest in Liberty and continues to unlawfully deprive plaintiff of Liberty at this time.

315. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants are guilty of committing “fraud” as known, defined, and understood under Wisconsin State Law. The defendants resorted to fraud in their concerted efforts to cover up police negligence and misconduct, cover up informant dishonesty, and in a concerted malicious effort to prosecute the plaintiff and obtain a conviction, by any means necessary.

64 of 191.

316. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants deliberate, intentional, willful, mean, devious, deceptive, malicious, unlawful and unconstitutional actions taken against plaintiff, denied plaintiff due process and deprived plaintiff of Liberty. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants caused plaintiff to suffer losses of time, health, opportunities, due process, Liberty, and caused plaintiff extreme emotional distress, hopelessness, and mental anguish and violated Wisconsin State Law and the Wisconsin State Constitution. Plaintiff seeks relief at this time.

B.

Fraudulent “Pretrial Service Report.”

317. On May 29th, 2013, federal pretrial officer Stephanie Mott interviewed plaintiff Bodie Witzlib in the federal inmate single room visiting area in the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin. Mott took information from Witzlib through the interview process and used that information to write a “Pretrial Service Report” that was entered into the district court docket under federal clerk Jon Sanfilippo, on May 29th, 2013. R.2. The report written by defendant Mott was predominantly false from start to finish; containing inaccuracies, false facts and false information, fabricated facts, misrepresented facts and information, and was absent information and facts favorable to plaintiff which were deliberately concealed by Mott. See and compare Q.12 and Q.14. (specific quotes omitted) Federal officer Mott deliberately, intentionally, willfully and with malice, authored an inaccurate fraudulent pretrial service report for the specific purpose of portraying plaintiff’s character in a false light and assisting federal prosecutors in their efforts to prosecute and convict plaintiff. Federal officer Mott possessed full knowledge and understanding that the false report she created would be used to prosecute plaintiff and that the false information and statements found in the report were favorable to Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants prosecuting plaintiff at the time Mott created the fraudulent report containing false misrepresented facts, concealed material facts, and false statements. Mott created the report while functioning under the colors of the United States federal government and jointly in concert with Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. The act of creating a fraudulent report was executed in bad faith for the purpose of prosecuting plaintiff by any means necessary. Mott deliberately created the report with the intent to deceive any future examiner of the report and with malicious intent to enable and effectuate the malicious prosecution of plaintiff and allow the malicious prosecution of plaintiff to be perpetuated by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and justified, based on false facts set forth by Mott in the fraudulent pretrial service report. Federal prosecutors and federal judicial officials used the false facts set forth by Mott in the fraudulent pretrial service report to justify unfavorable decisions and actions taken against plaintiff and against the best interests of plaintiff throughout the subsequent adjudication of case 13-CR-99. Mott had full

65 of 191.

knowledge that at least one federal judge would review the report that she unlawfully fabricated deliberately portraying plaintiff’s character in a false light. Mott had full knowledge that federal prosecutors and at least one federal judge would review the fraudulent report she created and use the false information and misrepresented facts that she injected into the report to make decisions and justify those decisions, based in part on the fraudulent report she was providing to the court. Mott knew that Witzlib’s present and future would be negatively damaged by the false report that she was submitting to the court at that time. Mott knew that the court would use the report in deciding the issue of bail and bond and if Witzlib would be released pending trial or sentencing. The false pretrial service report was material. (specific false facts omitted—see and compare Q.12 and Q.14.).

318. On May 29th, 2013, Witzlib received a copy of Mott’s report from federal panel attorney Cohn. After reviewing Mott’s report, plaintiff Witzlib informed federal panel attorney Cohn that the “Pretrial Service Report” was false, containing false misrepresented facts and distorted information that inaccurately and unlawfully portrayed plaintiff’s character in a false light before the court and in the court record. See and compare Q.12 and Q.14. Federal panel attorney Cohn ignored and disregarded plaintiff’s assertion and insistence that Mott’s pretrial service report was fraudulent. Federal panel attorney Cohn refused to take any legal action on behalf of plaintiff his client in response to the fraudulent pretrial service report. Plaintiff informed federal panel attorney Cohn that Mott’s report left out information and material facts that plaintiff had disclosed to Mott which were favorable to the defense of plaintiff and relevant to the purpose of the report which was to inform and brief the court on facts of plaintiff’s current and past life situations and contacts with government. Plaintiff informed federal panel attorney Cohn that Mott left out material facts and that Mott selectively chose what information to include in the pretrial service report and what information to leave out of the pretrial service report. Federal panel attorney Cohn refused to take any action to attack the false misrepresented facts set forth by Mott in the pretrial service report.

319. On June 11th, 2013, at a status hearing at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin, instead of fighting for plaintiff’s good name and good reputation of being a high scoring student and caretaker of both his elderly grandmothers for several years, Cohn appears in court and slanders plaintiff Witzlib, telling the court that Witzlib has mental issues.

320. Federal officer Mott authored the fraudulent “Pretrial Service Report” with knowledge the report was false, with malicious intent, and with intent to deceive any future examiner or reviewer of the report, and with the intent and knowledge that the fraudulent report would assist Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants with the prosecution of plaintiff. The fraudulent report deprived Witzlib of equal protection; denied and deprived plaintiff Witzlib of the right to fair and lawful due process, protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions; and deprived Witzlib of Liberty.

66 of 191.

321. Federal officer Mott’s unlawful, intentional, willful and malicious actions against plaintiff, damaged plaintiff’s life. Plaintiff suffered loss of Liberty, health, time and freedom, and opportunities to clear his name and be released on bond caused by Mott’s unlawful deliberate actions against plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, being forced to live in unhealthy atmospheres and living conditions of county jail settings with hostile criminals and without appropriate medical care. Plaintiff suffered mental anguish caused by Mott’s unlawful actions, at the time the fraudulent report was written and throughout the entire adjudication of case 13-CR-99 while Mott’s report remained in the record. Mott’s report unlawfully distorted how plaintiff’s character was perceived by any examiner of the report, including federal judges. Plaintiff was denied bail and bond by the court. Plaintiff suffered emotional distress and mental anguish at the time Mott’s fraudulent report was interjected into case 13-CR-99 on May 29th, 2013 and in the days, weeks, and months following, and to this day; as a consequence of Mott’s unlawful actions. Mott’s false report was taken into consideration by the district court when making a consideration regarding a decision on whether or not to grant Witzlib bail. Plaintiff Witzlib was denied bail and Mott’s report was a factor and was a material document within the official district court docket. R.2.

322. Mott’s fraudulent report remains in the district court docket and Witzlib was never granted bail by the court and was subsequently forced into accepting an unreasonable plea agreement due to the extreme corrupt actions of Mott and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with Mott throughout the entire adjudication of case 13-CR-99.

323. Under Wisconsin state law and under federal law, such devious unlawful acts committed against plaintiff by defendants Mott and federal government officials functioning in synergenic cooperation with Mott, orchestrated to ultimately reach the same end, to maliciously prosecute and convict plaintiff by any means necessary, are actionable. Mott’s unlawful actions caused plaintiff to suffer injuries and losses. Plaintiff has the right to seek relief and does so at this time.

C.

Fraudulent Concealment of Material Docket Evidence.

324. On June 1st, 2013, plaintiff had completed thoroughly reviewing the fraudulent pretrial service report written by federal officer Mott, which was littered with misrepresented facts and false statements for the purpose of portraying plaintiff’s character in a false light before the court and assisting Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants with the prosecution of plaintiff. After thorough review of the service report, and after immediately realizing that the report was factually false and fraudulent, and absent material facts, and after informing state licensed federal panel attorney Cohn that the

67 of 191.

report was fraudulent, and after federal panel attorney Cohn refused to take any legal action to legally counter or respond to the false report, plaintiff Witzlib authored a 10 page letter to the court addressed to Nancy Joseph federal judge, and submitted the letter to the court. Federal clerk of court Sanfilippo, federal deputy clerk Dietrich and possibly other unknown deputy clerks, failed to enter Witzlib’s 10 page letter, which was true and factual material evidence supporting the defense of plaintiff, and plaintiff’s efforts to clear his name, into the district docket of case 13-CR-99, United States v. Bodie Witzlib.

325. Federal district clerk Sanfilippo deliberately neglected to enter plaintiff’s lengthy detailed response letter, responding to the fraudulent pretrial service report of Mott, into the district court docket, and in a timely manner, essentially, depriving plaintiff of free speech, of access to the courts, of rights of the accused, and of plaintiff’s right to have a voice of some kind speaking on his behalf in the courtroom because federal panel attorney Cohn refused to be that voice or take any action to defend plaintiff’s good name, good character, and best interests whatsoever; in the face of the fraudulent pretrial service report and attack on plaintiff’s character by federal officer Mott.

326. Federal district clerks Sanfilippo and Dietrich and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants deliberately concealed material evidence that they had a duty to record into the docket the first week of June, 2013.

327. Again, in the months of September and October of 2013, plaintiff wrote several letters on yellow legal paper to district judge Adelman grieving Thomas Wilmouth’s counsel and in general regards to case 13-CR-99. Plaintiff submitted letters in the months of September and October, addressed to federal judge Adelman, which were never entered into the district court docket by defendants Adelman, Dietrich and Sanfilippo.

328. Adelman, Sanfilippo and Dietrich willingly, intentionally and maliciously committed fraud, as recognized and understood under Wisconsin State Law by deliberately concealing material evidence; court documents, including formal letters written by plaintiff to federal district judge Adelman in September and October of 2013.

329. Defendants unlawful and deliberate concealment of official documents which they had a duty to disclose and a duty to enter into the court record via the district court docket, deprived plaintiff of Liberty and was a violation of Wisconsin State Law, Federal Law and Rules of Professional Conduct.

330. Between December 21st, 2013, and March 12th, 2014, plaintiff submitted 13 requests to Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants for the district court docket for case 13-CR-99. Adelman and Sanfilippo refused to disclose the official docket to plaintiff despite 13 formal requests spanning a near 3 month period of time. Defendants deliberate

68 of 191.

concealment of the district docket, and refusal to disclose the docket to plaintiff, left pro se plaintiff Witzlib completely in the dark regarding the procedural history of the case and recent and past court activity by both federal prosecutors and federal panel attorneys who were allegedly representing plaintiff before plaintiff took over the case and investigation on December 20th, 2013, by court order.

331. Defendants Adelman, Dietrich and Sanfilippo and other Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution employees deliberately concealed material evidence for nearly 3 months that they had a duty to disclose.

332. The concealment of material evidence, the district court docket, amounts to fraud as known and understood under Wisconsin law. The acts of deliberately and unlawfully concealing material evidence and standard court documents by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants were intentional, willful, malicious, and were deliberately orchestrated in a concerted effort to obstruct pro se plaintiff from thoroughly investigating case 13-CR-99 and systematically executed for the purpose of denying plaintiff the ability to effectively represent himself and to once again force plaintiff under the power and authority of a federal panel attorney hostile to plaintiff’s best interest. The concealment of the district court docket for nearly 3 months by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants was unconstitutional and deliberate and effectively denied pro se plaintiff due process and deprived plaintiff of Liberty protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions.

333. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants deliberately concealed the docket and refused to turn over the docket or disclose the docket to plaintiff because defendants had unlawfully manipulated, changed, altered, tampered with, and destroyed material evidence within the docket itself and defendants had removed and manipulated docket entries to accommodate unlawful procedural actions and unlawful district court activities of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants.

334. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants unlawful actions of manipulating the district court docket, and fraudulently concealing, altering, and destroying material court documents, were willful, intentional, and malicious, and were deliberately conducted with the intent to deceive both the plaintiff and any responsible authorities who may examine or review the docket in the future. Defendants unlawful actions and deception through fraud, unlawfully deprived plaintiff of Liberty protected under Wisconsin State Law, Federal Law and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses directly caused by defendants’ unlawful actions against him. Plaintiff seeks relief at this time.

69 of 191.

D.

Fraudulent Affidavit #2.

335. The entire month of May, 2013, plaintiff was confined in the Washington County Jail segregation block D-2, despite not having violated any jail rules. Plaintiff’s case was widely publicized in the local area on television and in the local newspapers. All of the inmates confined in the six man cell block area, in close quarters with plaintiff, viewed plaintiff’s case on the news and had full knowledge of plaintiff’s alleged crime, including Lawrence Arnold.

336. Arnold was located in the cell two cells down from plaintiff the month of May, 2013.

337. Arnold was arrested a few days prior to plaintiff after a local manhunt had been launched to apprehend him. Arnold is a registered sex offender and has been in and out of prison his entire adult life. Arnold is also an outspoken illegal drug user and a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. The entire month of May, 2013, Arnold was on heavy dosages of psychotrophic drugs. Arnold admitted to “hearing voices.”

338. Plaintiff Witzlib told Arnold that he was a published author (Brain Storm 2011 (unedited version)) and in Witzlib’s literary work, Witzlib asserted the opinion that all sexual predators should be castrated for the health, wellness, and protection of society. Arnold, a convicted and registered sex offender, resented plaintiff Witzlib and held ill will towards plaintiff after learning of plaintiff’s outspoken point of view.

339. On or about May 29th, 2013, Arnold authored a statement on a Washington County Jail inmate request form, where he accused Witzlib of making false threatening comments that plaintiff Witzlib never made and never would make.

340. Specifically, Arnold alleged Witzlib stated that Witzlib was going to “bomb churches” in the Germantown area.

341. No one in their right mind who was facing fireworks charges and who was actively trying to clear their name and who pled “not guilty” would ever make such an outrageous statement. The statement was obviously false.

342. Jailhouse rat Arnold’s vicious and malicious lie, was intentionally spewed to government officials in a wicked and malicious attempt to discredit, disrupt, and slander Witzlib, and to destroy Witzlib’s life, future, and any and all attempts Witzlib was making to clear his name.

343. Arnold’s statement was written on an official Washington County Jail “Inmate Request” form. This statement became an affidavit when federal prosecutors entered the statement into evidence and began using the fraudulent statement as

70 of 191.

a manipulative weapon to unlawfully gain power over plaintiff Witzlib and the upper hand moving forward throughout the adjudication of case 13-CR-99. Federal prosecutors concealed the existence of the false statement from the defense which denied plaintiff the opportunity to attack the false statement and deny the false statement.

344. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants had full knowledge Arnold’s outrageous statement was a lie, but used the fraudulent affidavit anyway to prosecute plaintiff and to unlawfully provide Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants extra leverage in their efforts to prosecute and convict plaintiff by any means necessary. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants used the fraudulent Arnold affidavit throughout the adjudication of case 13-CR-99.

345. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants knowingly and maliciously used Arnold’s false statement to justify unlawful procedural actions against Witzlib and unlawful tactics of malicious prosecution. Defendants, through the use of misrepresented evidence and fraudulent evidence against plaintiff, deprived plaintiff of Liberty.

346. Defendants’ willfully, knowingly, intentionally, and maliciously, used the fraudulent informant affidavit against plaintiff, even after defendants knew the statement was false, in a concerted effort to prosecute plaintiff (because the fraudulent affidavit was highly favorable to the government’s efforts to prosecute and gain power or plaintiff) maliciously.

347. Through the fabrication and use of the fraudulent Arnold affidavit, defendants violated plaintiff’s rights to fair and lawful due process of law and right to lawful procedural due process. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants used the false Arnold affidavit to gain the upper hand and as a manipulative tool to gain power over plaintiff Witzlib and an unfair and unlawful upper hand in the adjudication process and with the court.

348. Defendants used the fraudulent Arnold statement to unlawfully deprive plaintiff of a reasonable bail and bond, to justify housing plaintiff in hostile surroundings, and to intentionally portray plaintiff’s character in a false light before the court. Defendants used the false Arnold statement to justify the denial of bail and the push for excessive unreasonable lengthy sentencing and above all to deprive plaintiff of Liberty with respect to lawful due process.

349. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants used fraud to effectuate the unlawful malicious prosecution of plaintiff.

350. Plaintiff was deprived of Liberty by defendants’ unlawful deception and manipulation and unlawful use and subsequent perpetuation of fraud in their malicious attempts to convict plaintiff by any means necessary.

71 of 191.

351. Plaintiff suffered injury and losses directly caused by defendant’s unlawful, intentional acts against him. Plaintiff suffered humiliation, loss of Liberty, loss of health, time, freedom, opportunities and reputation resulting from defendants’ unlawful actions against him. Plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress, nightmares, and mental anguish, caused by defendants. Plaintiff has the right under the law to seek relief against defendants and does so at this time.

E.

Fraudulent Police Incident Affidavits.

352. On April 30th, 2013, plaintiff Witzlib was arrested for allegedly possessing and producing approximately 1,000, 2” long fireworks in his basement, which under state and federal law can fall under the definition of “explosive devices.” Officers P. Schmitt and J. Keeku, after plaintiff’s arrest, authored false, fraudulent police incident report affidavits. See Exhibit 27; contradiction chart. Officer D. Moschea, who was at the very heart of the incident, failed to author any report at all, despite the fact that he had a duty to do so.

353. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Santelle, Johnson, Kwaterski and Kanter have used the false, fraudulent affidavits created by Schmitt and Keeku, with full knowledge the reports contradicted themselves and were fraudulent, to maliciously prosecute plaintiff, unlawfully.

354. Defendants used the fraudulent reports, and are still using the fraudulent affidavits, to both secure an indictment and in their ongoing efforts of prosecuting plaintiff; unlawfully.

355. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants knowingly and maliciously used misrepresented facts, in the form of false untrue police incident affidavits, to unlawfully prosecute plaintiff. Defendants deceived both the plaintiff and the court with the use of the fraudulent police incident reports and misrepresented facts set forth before the plaintiff and the district court contained in those fraudulent reports.

356. Plaintiff was essentially forced into relying on the misrepresented facts which were set forth by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants to a certain extent because the fraudulent reports were being used to prosecute plaintiff.

357. Defendants’ use of the misrepresented facts in the false affidavits authored by Schmitt and Keeku (and the material evidence concealed by Moschea) damaged plaintiff’s life, chance at clearing his name and receiving fair justice, and caused plaintiff injury and losses.

72 of 191.

358. Plaintiff was denied and deprived of rights to lawful due process, rights of the accused, the right to be free of malicious prosecution tactics and plaintiff was deprived of Liberty protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions by defendants’ unlawful actions of knowingly using misrepresented facts to prosecute plaintiff and convict plaintiff, by any means necessary.

359. On December 20th, 2013, before a scheduled status hearing in the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin, plaintiff told defendant federal prosecutor Johnson that police lied to him at the front door of his house by telling plaintiff that police were investigating a “hit and run” car accident. Johnson replied, “They were doing their job.” Johnson gives us insight into the attitude and mentality of federal prosecutors and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, and the knowledge they possess with this five word statement, replying to plaintiff’s statement. Prosecutors admit that they are aware that police lied and constructed a devious scheme to enter plaintiff’s residence without a warrant, after the police actually took steps to obtain a warrant and did not obtain one. Here, federal prosecutor Johnson attempts to rationalize and justify police actions taken against plaintiff that were outside the boundaries of police officers Schmitt and Keeku’s lawful authority on the day of the incident. Furthermore, with this statement, Johnson clearly acknowledges her knowledge and federal prosecutors knowledge that police did in fact lie to plaintiff at plaintiff’s front door.

360. Plaintiff alleges that the police incident report affidavits were predominantly false, untrue documents, littered with numerous misrepresentations of material fact. Nowhere, in any of the police incident reports, do police document the lies they told plaintiff and other questionable actions of police conduct.

361. The question of whether or not police had the right to lie to plaintiff at his front door and subsequently intrude into plaintiff’s home against plaintiff’s will and without a warrant is a matter of law. In this pleading, plaintiff does not argue or contest the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the unwarranted search and police actions of April 30th, 2013, rather, plaintiff alleges that police lied throughout not only the actual incident itself, but throughout the documentation of the incident and that the incident report affidavits authored by police were false and were littered with numerous misrepresentations of material facts and were absent material facts that were deliberately concealed by police. Federal prosecutor Johnson, on December 20th, 2013, acknowledged that defendants were aware that the police reports contained misrepresented facts, thus rendering them fraudulent. Despite knowing that the police incident affidavits were fraudulent, and contradicted each other, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants continued to prosecute plaintiff with the fraudulent affidavits maliciously, in bad faith, with the attitude and mentality of “convict by any means necessary.”

362. Government officials, including defendants involved in plaintiff’s prosecution, used the fraudulent incident affidavits from April 30th, 2013, until October 21st,

73 of 191.

2014, to unlawfully and maliciously prosecute plaintiff. Defendants willfully, intentionally and maliciously used the incident reports which were littered with false misrepresentations of fact, to manipulate and unlawfully obtain power over the plaintiff and unlawfully and unfairly deprive plaintiff of protected rights in so doing; rights of the accused, rights to due process, and rights not to be deprived of Liberty by the use of unlawful tactics of prosecution and by the use of misrepresented facts and false facts and concealed material facts.

363. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, with clear and certain knowledge the Schmitt and Keeku affidavits contained misrepresented material facts, perpetuated the fraud by deliberately using the fraudulent affidavits against the plaintiff throughout the adjudication of case 13-CR-99. Defendants’ used the false reports to justify denying plaintiff’s requests for bail. The use of the fraudulent reports by defendants denied plaintiff the right to due process and were used to unlawfully imply that plaintiff was more dangerous than he actually was. Defendants deliberately portrayed plaintiff’s character in a false light, and subsequently forced plaintiff to remain imprisoned in an unhealthy environment much longer than other defendants found guilty under the exact same United States Code statutes; a violation of plaintiff’s right to equal protection under the law, and a violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article One sections One, Three, Six and Seven of the Wisconsin Constitution and actionable under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985(3) and Wis. Const. Art. 1 section 9.

364. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants fabrication and perpetuation of fraud, through the use of misrepresented material facts and false affidavits, damaged the plaintiff’s life, health and future and caused the plaintiff to suffer injuries and losses; directly caused by defendants unlawful actions against plaintiff. Defendants intentionally disregarded the rights of plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks relief through the courts at this time.

F.

Misrepresented Discovery Evidence; Fraud.

365. On May 1st, 2013, government officials seized plaintiff’s Gateway computer. At the time of the seizure, plaintiff was a full time college student and a small business owner (UW Wisconsin & G.I. Fireworks). Plaintiff’s computer was absolutely critical to the success of plaintiff’s college career and to the success of plaintiff’s small business. Plaintiff’s computer was also an archive of plaintiff’s life, past and present. Plaintiff spent countless hours, several hours every day, working at his computer. Plaintiff Witzlib was “one” with his computer one might say. Plaintiff’s computer was an extension of himself; history, photo album, music, inventions, two book manuscripts, video footage, business interactions with raw material suppliers, college responsibilities and so on. Plaintiff’s computer was used only by plaintiff. Plaintiff lived with, and was the caretaker for, his 85 year old disabled

74 of 191.

grandmother. Plaintiff’s grandmother had her own laptop and spent all her time sitting in front of the large TV in the living room watching cable news networks and playing solitaire and checking her emails. Plaintiff was absolutely the only person to use the Gateway computer that was seized by the government on

May 1st, 2013.

366. On July 17th, 2013, plaintiff received discovery materials from government defendants. Found in the discovery evidence materials that plaintiff received on July 17th, 2013, from Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, were hundreds of pieces of alien information and data; images, photos, writings and other miscellaneous bits of discovery “evidence” allegedly extracted from plaintiff’s computer by government computer technicians. The discovery “evidence” allegedly extracted from plaintiff’s computer by government computer technicians, was never on plaintiff’s computer. The alleged discovery “evidence” in the form of hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of alien data, amounted to material misrepresentations of facts, unlawfully interjected into case 13-CR-99 by rogue government computer technicians or other unknown entities somewhere within the federal government.

367. Plaintiff informed Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants that the discovery evidence sent to him, which was being used to prosecute him, contained information and alien data that was never on plaintiff’s computer and that plaintiff had never seen before in his entire life.

368. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and unknown entities functioning jointly and in concert with defendants, unlawfully, intentionally, deliberately, willfully and maliciously interjected misrepresented facts which the government claimed to be evidence, in the form of fabricated data and alien information, into the discovery evidence and then used that false evidence to prosecute plaintiff. Defendants, by fabricating and then perpetuating the use of misrepresented facts, within alleged discovery evidence, compromised the integrity of the prosecution and adjudication of case 13-CR-99, denied and deprived plaintiff of due process and manipulated the reality of the case in favor of the government. Defendants’ misrepresented facts assisted them in their concerted efforts to prosecute and convict plaintiff and damaged and deprived plaintiff of his right under the law to clear his name.

369. The fraudulent discovery evidence, worked to distract, confuse, overwhelm and deceive plaintiff himself as pro se and any counsel that represented plaintiff; a manipulative and unlawful diversion of the plaintiff’s attention and of plaintiff’s counsels’ attention from actual material facts and exculpatory evidence (using fraudulent misrepresented facts) that federal prosecutors were deliberately attempting to keep covered up by the introduction and interjection of vast amounts of random misrepresented evidence into discovery. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants interjected the false data into discovery, which they claimed was extracted from plaintiff’s computer, for the purpose of, and with the intent to, deceive all subsequent examiners of that

75 of 191.

data; including the plaintiff himself, who actually was deceived by those misrepresented facts and was effectively incapacitated by that fraudulent discovery evidence.

370. Defendants’ used hundreds of pieces of fraudulent “discovery evidence” to manipulate and deceive federal panel attorneys and bring into question the soundness of their clients mind, the plaintiff. Federal prosecutors used the extremely large amount of fraudulent “discovery evidence” to secure an allegiance with federal panel attorneys and against plaintiff, which was not difficult to do considering federal panel attorneys already shared loyalties with the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution, the unit of government that was cutting them a paycheck, cut them past paychecks and if they didn’t “make waves”, was sure to cut them future paychecks. Federal panel attorneys certainly were not going to bite the hand that feeds them, not on account of the plaintiff, especially after the soundness of plaintiff’s mind had been brought into question by the fraudulent evidence interjected into the case, intentionally and deliberately by the prosecution and other unknown government entities.

371. State licensed federal panel attorneys were already bias and prejudice in favor of the “hand that feeds them” in the first place, and at the end of the day were more so; comfortably aligned with the federal prosecutors due in part to the prosecutors manipulative use of fraudulent evidence and misrepresented facts in the form of alien computer data.

372. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and entities functioning in synergenic cooperation with defendants under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, fabricated and misrepresented facts, with the deliberate intent to deceive plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel, deprived plaintiff of rights of the accused and the right to have a voice in the courtroom. Plaintiff was deceived by the misrepresented facts and could not effectively represent himself because of, in part, the distortion and introduction of the misrepresented facts into case 13-CR-99. Defendants unlawful actions, fall under the definition of fraud as known and understood and recognized under Wisconsin State Law. Defendants’ unlawful actions ultimately deprived plaintiff of his right to free speech, his right to counsel, and his right to due process; all rights protected under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections One, Three, and Seven and protected under the United States Constitution’s First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

373. The fraudulent evidence unlawfully interjected into discovery by defendants and turned over to plaintiff two weeks before trial on July 17th, 2013, was set to be used at trial by federal prosecutors in their efforts to convict plaintiff, therefore, the fraudulent evidence was “material” or “alleged” to be “material” by the government’s own admission.

76 of 191.

374. Plaintiff moved the Eastern District court for a polygraph examination of himself and of defendants to combat and attack the false misrepresented alleged factual evidence being used to prosecute plaintiff by the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Defendants submitted a “response” to the district court, requesting that the court deny plaintiff’s request for a polygraph examination of himself; yet defendants (federal prosecutors) continued to use the false evidence and misrepresented facts against plaintiff in their efforts to prosecute plaintiff for the purpose of convicting him.

375. Once again, the use of misrepresented facts in the form of fraudulent discovery evidence, alien computer data, regarding plaintiff’s Gateway computer, shows a clear and convincing pattern of prosecutorial misconduct and a course of conduct showing bad faith with malicious intent to deceive, to convict plaintiff by any means necessary.

376. Defendants used the misrepresented facts against the plaintiff unlawfully, in a manipulative, malicious, and strategic prosecutorial onslaught of deception and legal unlawfulness that effectively undermined the plaintiff’s rights; rights of the accused, right to due process of law, and ultimately deprived the plaintiff of Liberty, protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions.

377. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants actions taken against the plaintiff were deliberate and were taken with reckless disregard for plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff suffered injury and losses directly caused by defendants unlawful actions against him. Plaintiff seeks relief at this time.

G.

Fraud and Conspiracy.

378. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Adelman, Dietrich and Sanfilippo, intentionally, willfully and maliciously created fraudulent district court documents with full knowledge their actions were unlawful and with the deliberate intent to deceive.

379. The purpose for which these fraudulent documents were created and for defendants unlawful actions was to cover up other unlawful actions and other prosecutorial violations of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution employees (specifics omitted pending completion of Office of Lawyer Regulation investigation involving federal panel attorney Wilmouth and federal prosecutors Santelle, Johnson, Kwaterski and Kanter).

380. Plaintiff alleges defendants deliberately made material misrepresentations of past and existing facts that were untrue. Defendants’ actions were orchestrated and executed with the intent to deceive, in an unlawful effort to prosecute and convict plaintiff by any means necessary. Plaintiff relied upon the fruits of defendants’ fraudulent acts and misrepresentations of fact to effectively represent himself,

77 of 191.

and plaintiff was “at the mercy” of the misrepresented facts when trying to clear his name. The fraudulent fruits of defendants’ unlawful conduct, violated plaintiff’s rights to due process, rights of the accused and ultimately deprived plaintiff of Liberty, protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions.

381. Defendants’ unlawful misrepresentations of fact and unlawful actions caused plaintiff injury and loss.

382. (‘specific incident omitted’ (COUNT I. section “G.”) to protect plaintiff from retaliation from Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and to protect the integrity of the foregoing lawsuit).

383. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ unlawful actions show an intentional disregard for the rights of plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses and loss of Liberty caused by defendants’ unlawful actions executed against him.

384. Under the Wisconsin Constitution, Article One section Nine, plaintiff has the right to seek relief through the courts for his injuries and for damages incurred by the unlawful actions against him of defendants. Plaintiff seeks relief at this time pursuant to law.

H.

Fraud and Rights Violations.

385. In May of 2013, while incarcerated in the Washington County Jail, plaintiff complained to the jail medical staff of pain in and around his esophagus, chest area and upper abdominal area and pain when swallowing food. Washington County Jail Doctor Cornelius met with plaintiff. Plaintiff informed Cornelius that plaintiff suffered from the symptoms before entering jail and had sought treatment and had been prescribed heartburn/acid reflux drugs in the past and that plaintiff’s condition did not improve and had actually worsened on account of the prescription strength acid reflux drugs. Cornelius ordered plaintiff to be tested for S.T.D.’s including hepatitis. Cornelius also prescribed plaintiff the acid reflux drug “Ranitidine”, despite plaintiff informing him that acid reflux was not what plaintiff was suffering from and that there was something else physically wrong with plaintiff’s body causing the pain. Plaintiff took the heartburn medications prescribed by Cornelius and plaintiff’s condition again did not improve and again caused plaintiff to feel worse while on the drug. The blood tests came back allegedly negative for hepatitis and HIV. When plaintiff was transferred from the Washington County Jail to the federal inmate holding area of the Milwaukee federal courthouse on May 29th, 2013, plaintiff’s medical records followed him from the Washington County Jail medical staff; Cornelius and Waldhart. The remaining Ranitidine medication left in the prescription also followed plaintiff as part of his medical records. Washington County Jail is not a

78 of 191.

federal holding facility. U.S. deputy Marshals informed the plaintiff he was being transferred to Dodge County Jail. Witzlib signed the form that allowed Marshals to release plaintiff’s medical records to the next facility that would be housing plaintiff, the Dodge County Jail and federal holding facility. U.S. deputy Marshals on duty May 29th, 2013, including Deputy Marshal “Burton” (name prosecutors referred to him), requested plaintiff sign the release form allowing Marshals to release plaintiff’s medical information. Witzlib signed the form at the Marshals request and in a good faith effort to cooperate with Marshals and not to be obstructive. Witzlib informed the Dodge County Jail medical staff nurse “Austin”, that the heartburn drugs were ineffective and actually made plaintiff feel worse and that the physical pain plaintiff was suffering from was not mitigated by the ingestion of the Ranitidine. For this reason, the fact that the drug actually made plaintiff feel more ill, sicker and worse, plaintiff refused to be re-prescribed more acid reflux drugs and insisted on further in depth testing, in accordance with plaintiff’s signs and symptoms of physical disease. Dodge County medical staff refused to provide any further medical care or to investigate plaintiff’s symptoms any further. On August 27th, 2013, plaintiff was transported out of the Dodge County Jail en route to another holding facility.

386. Again, at the federal inmate holding area in the federal courthouse, plaintiff was asked by deputy Marshals to sign a medical release form, giving Marshals permission and plaintiff’s consent to forward plaintiff’s medical records. Again, plaintiff, in an effort to cooperate with the government, signed the medical release of information form at the request of the deputy Marshals.

387. Plaintiff’s efforts to receive medical care continued in the Kenosha County Jail and in the Kenosha County Detention Center. Plaintiff’s medical record was forwarded via the U.S. Marshals and was a continuation from the very beginning of plaintiff’s incarceration in May of 2013 at the Washington County Jail.

388. Plaintiff Witzlib realized the original misdiagnosis of “acid reflux/heartburn” by the Washington County Jail doctor was following him via his medical record and that subsequent medical staffs in each federal holding facility were not using plaintiff’s medical record to provide plaintiff with medical care or diagnose plaintiff’s physical condition accurately, rather the medical staffs, including the U.S. Marshals, were using the plaintiff’s medical records to justify denying plaintiff medical care and any further investigation into plaintiff’s obvious signs of physical disease and symptoms.

389. In mid September of 2013, plaintiff was transferred directly from the KCDC federal holding facility to the MCC federal prison in Chicago Illinois to undergo a 30 day commitment for competency evaluation by forensic psychologist Dr. Ron Nieberding. While at the MCC federal facility, plaintiff received an intake physical by medical staff nurse practitioner Kistler. Plaintiff informed MCC medical staff of his symptoms and signs of physical disease (which can be embarrassing). MCC medical staff did not diagnose plaintiff at that time. Dr. Nieberding noted in his final forensic report that there was a possibility plaintiff was suffering from a real

79 of 191.

physical undiagnosed disease and did not completely rule out the possibility that Witzlib was in fact in real physical pain caused by a real physical undiagnosed disease.

390. On November 26, 2013, plaintiff is transported by Kenosha County transport deputies back to the Kenosha County main jail and then back to the KCDC facility the very next day. Back in the Kenosha County facilities, plaintiff was again under the authority of the Kenosha County medical staffs who were still in possession of plaintiff’s medical history dating back to Washington County Jail and still relying on that information within plaintiff’s medical records which was false. Kenosha County medical staff used plaintiff’s existing medical records to justify decisions made regarding plaintiff’s health care and what medical care was appropriate to provide plaintiff. Kenosha County medical staffs did not use plaintiff’s records to provide plaintiff with medical care, Kenosha County medical staffs used plaintiff’s established medical records to justify denying plaintiff medical care. Plaintiff submitted grievances to Sheriff Beth, the doctor, facility administrators and U.S. Marshal Carr and the court.

391. In mid December of 2013, plaintiff’s efforts to receive medical care and to reach an accurate diagnosis of his condition continued. The Kenosha County medical staff and jail doctor (short blond woman with European accent that never introduced herself at the doctor visit) insisted that Witzlib “try” more acid reflux drugs and take them for ONE month. The main jail doctor promised plaintiff that if plaintiff’s condition and pain did not improve after taking her prescribed medications, she would order further in depth testing. Even though plaintiff knew that he was not suffering from heartburn, and knew beyond all doubt that his condition, which included blood in his stool as one noticeable obvious sign, was not acid reflux related, and that heartburn drugs would not improve his physical condition, plaintiff reluctantly agreed to take the “acid reflux” drugs for one month under the assurance and promise of the Kenosha County jail doctor that if his condition did not improve, in depth investigative testing of plaintiff’s physical condition would follow.

392. Plaintiff Witzlib took the first acid reflux prescription pill prescribed by the jail doctor on Thursday December 19th, 2013, and continued taking the full regiment of pills until on or about January 17th, 2014. It came as no surprise to plaintiff that the acid reflux medications did not improve plaintiff’s condition. In fact, plaintiff actually felt worse and developed worse headaches than usual and more chest pain while on the medication prescribed by the Kenosha County medical staff doctor.

393. After following through with his end of the agreement, and taking the month long prescription, and showing no improvement or lessening of pain in the chest, throat and abdomen, plaintiff sought medical care from the Kenosha County medical staffs in the form of further investigative tests into signs and symptoms of physical illness plaintiff was showing and suffering from. The Kenosha doctor promised plaintiff tests if plaintiff’s condition did not improve. Kenosha medical

80 of 191.

staff refused to order any further tests or in depth investigation. Kenosha medical staff actually bombarded plaintiff with larger dosages of heartburn drugs which plaintiff refused to take, due to the fact that plaintiff’s condition did not improve on the month long regiment and plaintiff actually felt worse during the time on the prescription medications.

394. After medical staff refused any further testing, plaintiff exhausted every possible grievance option available to him, writing letters and grievances to the Kenosha County Jail administrators, the Kenosha County Sheriff Beth, Wisconsin Department of Corrections Health Department and U.S. Marshal Carr and federal judge Adelman.

395. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ were briefed by plaintiff thoroughly, through grievances and letters, on plaintiff’s state of physical health.

396. On Thursday morning, February 20th, 2014, at approximately 6:00 a.m., plaintiff was ordered to pack up his property because he was being transferred out of the KCDC federal holding facility. Plaintiff was transported by Kenosha County transport deputies back to the federal holding area in the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin. Plaintiff had no scheduled court date on February 20th, 2014, and was transported for the sole purpose of transfer from one facility to the next. By order of the U.S. Marshals.

397. Again, in the holding area of the federal courthouse, plaintiff Witzlib was confronted by Marshals who requested that plaintiff sign a form, allowing the Marshals to release plaintiff’s medical records to the Ozaukee County Jail medical staff. Ozaukee County happened to be the next federal holding facility to house plaintiff

398. This time, February 20th, 2014, plaintiff Witzlib refused to sign the release of information form, exercising his constitutional right to privacy in medical records. Plaintiff did not give Marshals permission to forward his medical records from the Kenosha County federal holding facility to the Ozaukee County federal holding facility.

399. Witzlib realized that the government was forwarding false documents and material misrepresentations of facts as they existed at that time and leading all the way back to the Washington County Jail in May of 2013, each time plaintiff was transferred from one facility to the next. The perpetuation of false and inaccurate medical documents by the Marshals service was not being used to provide plaintiff with medical care and not was not being used to diagnose plaintiff’s physical condition accurately, the medical record that had developed and expanded over the time period plaintiff was incarcerated up until that point in time, and that was created by medical personal with their own best interests in mind, was being used to deny plaintiff medical care and further investigation into plaintiff’s undiagnosed physical condition.

81 of 191.

400. Witzlib refused to sign the release form on February 20th, 2014, and attempted to break the cycle and perpetuation of false facts, misrepresented facts, and fraudulent medical documents. Witzlib had been found to be intelligent and competent by forensic psychologist Dr. Nieberding. Witzlib was, and still is, of sound mind. Witzlib decided to invoke his rights to privacy in confidential medical records and refused to sign the release form on February 20th, 2014, presented to him by deputy Marshals at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin during transfer.

401. The original misdiagnosis of heartburn by the Washington County Jail medical staff had followed plaintiff from facility to facility and each subsequent federal holding facility, including the Marshals service themselves under noted defendants and under the policy of the office under which defendants served, was actively and deliberately using plaintiff’s medical record, which was constructed by various jail medical staffs, to justify denying plaintiff medical care and further perpetuate the original misdiagnosis of plaintiff’s true physical condition.

402. Ozaukee County Jail medical staff interviewed plaintiff Witzlib with the standard intake interview. Witzlib informed Ozaukee medical staff of his condition; signs and symptoms. Witzlib’s condition was progressively worsening, even if slowly. Some days were worse than others.

403. In the days following plaintiff’s arrival at the Ozaukee County Jail, plaintiff was seen for the standard intake physical provided to all inmates by medical staff, in the Dr.’s office by the jail nurse. At this visit, plaintiff Witzlib learned that his medical records had been forwarded by the U.S. Marshals service to the Ozaukee County Jail.

404. Plaintiff learned, in the last week of February, 2014, that his medical records had been forwarded and had been disclosed to the Ozaukee County Jail medical staff by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and that the Marshals service had forwarded the heartburn drugs that were prescribed to plaintiff by the Kenosha County medical staff doctor from back in January of 2014 that plaintiff had refused to take, against plaintiff’s will and with plaintiff’s consent.

405. Not unlike a broken record, plaintiff’s efforts to obtain medical care, now, from the Ozaukee County Jail medical staff continued.

406. On or about March 12th, 2014, plaintiff was seen by Ozaukee County Jail doctor “Perez”, who again fell back on plaintiff’s established medical record forwarded to the Ozaukee County medical staff by the U.S. Marshals service against plaintiff’s will and without plaintiff’s consent, and insisted that plaintiff take more acid reflux heartburn drugs.

82 of 191.

407. The Ozaukee federal holding facility medical staff doctor Perez, told plaintiff that he recommended an increased dosage and combination of two different prescription strength acid reflux drugs, both of which plaintiff had tried in the past and neither of which caused plaintiff’s condition to improve. In fact, the drugs Perez suggested Witzlib take actually made Witzlib feel more sick and Witzlib told this to Perez. Plaintiff requested further in depth testing as was promised to him back in December of 2013 by the Kenosha County doctor if plaintiff agreed to take the month long prescription and his condition did not improve.

408. Ozaukee County federal facility medical staff doctor Perez refused to order any further testing, basing and justify the medical staffs denial and refusal of care, in part, if not exclusively based on the fraudulent medical records forwarded by the U.S. Marshals service against plaintiff’s will and without plaintiff’s consent.

409. Again, plaintiff grieved the denial of medical care to the U.S. Marshals service, Carr, Burton, Doug, the Ozaukee County Sheriff M. Straub and other Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and governmental entities.

410. From February 20th, 2014, through April 4th, 2014, plaintiff received no medical care or investigation into his condition by the Ozaukee County medical staff, only an adjusted diet that caused the plaintiff unhealthy weight loss. Furthermore, there was no area to run around and exercise provided to plaintiff by the government between the dates of February 20th, and April 4th, 2014, while plaintiff was housed in the Ozaukee County federal holding facility.

411. On April 4th, 2014, plaintiff was transported out of the Ozaukee County Jail to the federal inmate holding area of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin. Here, plaintiff was again confronted by deputy U.S. Marshals who requested plaintiff sign another medical release of information form so that plaintiff’s medical record could be forwarded and follow plaintiff to the next facility which this time, happened to be the Milwaukee County Jail and federal holding facility.

412. Plaintiff again, on April 4th, 2014, refused to sign the release of medical information form and exercised his right to confidentiality and privacy in medical records protected under the United States Constitution.

413. Plaintiff alleges that the medical record that was following him from facility to facility was false and contained countless documents which were material misrepresentations of past and existing fact. Plaintiff alleges that defendants forwarded the false medical history record for liability purposes, not because defendants were actually concerned with the actual state of plaintiff’s physical health and well being.

414. On the morning of April 4th, 2014, plaintiff was transported from the federal courthouse inmate holding area, to the Milwaukee County Jail and federal inmate

83 of 191.

holding facility a few blocks away from the courthouse by two U.S. Marshal Deputies, one of whom threatened plaintiff with a stun gun in the January 9th, 2014, bullpen incident. Plaintiff was booked into Milwaukee County Jail and assigned to housing area Block “A” cell 44, top tier, directly across from the entry door slider and computer area for MPS. To plaintiff’s knowledge, plaintiff’s medical records and medical history records were NOT forwarded to Milwaukee County Jail medical staff by deputy Marshals on April 4th, 2014, and plaintiff’s records were not disclosed to Milwaukee County Jail medical staff. To plaintiff’s knowledge, plaintiff’s right to privacy in medical records was not violated by the government on April 4th, 2014, during the transfer from Ozaukee to Milwaukee County federal holding facility.

415. In Milwaukee County intake, plaintiff informed intake medical personal booking nurses of his condition and that he felt sick and of his signs and symptoms of physical disease. Plaintiff was only in Milwaukee County Jail for one week. During that time, plaintiff received one blood draw test for TB. Plaintiff assumes that the test was negative because he was never contacted or quarantined.

416. On April 11th, 2014, after being transferred out of the Milwaukee County Jail and back to the federal holding area of the federal courthouse, U.S. deputy Marshals again confronted plaintiff and requested that plaintiff sign an medical release form, giving Marshals consent to release plaintiff’s medical records to the next federal holding facility that plaintiff was set to be house at, which this time happened to be the Waukesha County Jail and federal holding facility.

417. On April 11, 2014, plaintiff refused to sign the release form presented to him by deputy Marshals and again exercised his right to privacy in confidential medical records. Plaintiff did not authorize U.S. Marshals to forward, release, or disclose any of plaintiff’s medical records which were incorrect and did contain false fraudulent documents, created for liability purposes and with the intent to deceive and future examiners of those false documents and with the intent shield government officials from any wrongdoing concerning plaintiff’s state of physical health and wellness. Plaintiff refused to sign the disclosure form on April 11th, 2014, at the federal inmate holding area in the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin.

418. After a scheduled status hearing on April 11th, 2014, plaintiff was transported by Waukesha County transport deputies to the Waukesha County Jail and federal holding facility. In the booking area of the Waukesha facility a booking officer (heavy set female guard on second shift) demanded that plaintiff sign a medical release of information form, similar to the one deputy Marshals had requested plaintiff sign in the bullpen area of the federal courthouse earlier that day. Plaintiff again refused to sign, exercising his right to confidentiality in private medical records (which in this case were fraudulent and false).

419. Witzlib was again attempting to break the cycle and perpetuation of false incorrect information that was being perpetuated by defendants.

84 of 191.

420. Waukesha County Jail booking staff, particularly the heavy set woman on second shift, became visibly agitated and angered by plaintiff’s refusal to sign the medical release consent form. Waukesha booking staff then retaliated in response to Witzlib’s refusal to sign the medical release of information form, by segregating plaintiff Witzlib in an isolation cell out of general population, all in retaliation for Witzlib’s refusal to consent to have the false medical records released to Waukesha County federal holding facility medical staff.

421. Waukesha County Jail booking staff, next, seized all of plaintiff’s legal, medical and personal records and refused to return them until approximately six days later. Booking staff also changed plaintiff out of the orange shirt that he was originally assigned to into a red shirt which was a lower classification status level and which meant plaintiff would not be going directly into general population like other federal inmates. Plaintiff would be forced into going into the maximum security area of high restrictions and minimal privileges; no exercise, no Law Library and plaintiff was forced to live with high risk and violent criminals.

422. In the beginning stages of plaintiff’s incarcerated life, plaintiff signed all the forms that the government requested plaintiff sign, in a good faith effort to cooperate with government employees and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. However, once plaintiff realized the record was being manipulated, falsified, and contained material misrepresentations of past and existing facts, plaintiff stopped signing and consenting to the release of his alleged medical records. Plaintiff attempted to STOP the perpetuation of the false records which medical staffs were using not to provide a higher quality level of care, but rather to deny plaintiff medical care and to justify doing so with misrepresented facts.

423. Plaintiff’s efforts to receive medical care and an accurate diagnosis of his physical condition continued at the Waukesha County facility. Plaintiff put in requests to see the Waukesha County medical staff and doctor. Plaintiff was given the standard intake physical by a medical staff nurse. Medical staff scheduled plaintiff to see jail doctor Chen Noto.

424. At the first nurse visit, with Waukesha County Jail medical staff, plaintiff learned that his records had been forwarded to the Waukesha County Jail by the U.S. Marshals service, despite the fact that plaintiff refused to sign the release of medical information at both the Waukesha County booking area and at the bullpen area in the federal courthouse. Plaintiff’s confidential medical records had been forwarded to the Waukesha facility either on the day plaintiff was transferred or electronically by the U.S. Marshals service via the internet and electronic data transfer or email.

425. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors and private entities, functioning under the color of state law and

85 of 191.

under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, unlawfully forwarded and disclosed plaintiff’s private medical information; violating plaintiff’s right to confidentiality in private medical records.

426. Plaintiff alleges that the U.S. Marshals service, the only link and plausible entity between each federal holding facility, again, unlawfully forwarded plaintiff’s medical records to the Waukesha County Jail medical staff via transport deputies in paper format or via the internet and electronic data transfer, against plaintiff’s will and without plaintiff’s consent.

427. Plaintiff alleges Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants unlawfully forwarded fraudulent medical records with the intent to manipulate and deceive future examiners of those records who would be care providers for plaintiff who would have no other alternative options to seek medical care and who would be completely at the mercy of those care providers (Waukesha County Jail medical staff) and the decisions that they would make concerning actual medical care plaintiff would or would not receive; in part based on the examination of plaintiff’s medical records and medical history.

428. Plaintiff alleges the misrepresented facts within plaintiff’s “medical file” or “medical record” or “medical history record”, forwarded by defendants, unlawfully against plaintiff’s will and without plaintiff’s consent, was against state and federal law, and undermined plaintiff’s ability and right to receive competent unbiased and unprejudiced medical care from medical professionals who were not influenced or manipulated by false documents contained within plaintiff’s medical record. Plaintiff alleges that his medical record was forwarded against his will for liability purposes and with the intent to deceive.

429. Plaintiff alleges defendants violated plaintiff’s right to privacy and confidentiality in medical records and the right not to disclose medical information to subsequent jail medical staffs or government entities, a right protected under the Wisconsin Law and the United States Constitution.

430. Plaintiff alleges defendants enabled perpetuated and proximately committed fraud as known and understood under Wisconsin State Law by forwarding false documents containing material misrepresentations of past and existing alleged facts that defendants knew were untrue and were told were untrue by plaintiff and of which plaintiff did not consent or authorize defendants to disclose. Plaintiff alleges that defendants forwarded false documents with the intent to deceive the receivers and reviewers of those documents. Plaintiff alleges defendants forwarded fraudulent medical records for liability purposes. Plaintiff alleges defendants knew the misrepresented facts which they were forwarding within plaintiff’s medical record were false, and that defendants knew the fraudulent documents they were forwarding, and proximately fabricating in so doing, would be used and relied upon by the receivers, federal facility, state, and private medical personal; and that those records would be used by those personal to make decisions regarding plaintiff’s medical care. Plaintiff alleges that

86 of 191.

defendants knew those false documents would damage, hinder, obstruct, manipulate and work to deny plaintiff’s right to receive medical care from medical personal who had been prejudiced and deceived by false misrepresented facts after reviewing a false and misrepresented non-factual account of plaintiff’s medical history; and that medical personal were sure to examine the plaintiff’s medical history containing those false documents because their job required them to do so.

431. Plaintiff alleges the disclosure and forwarding of his medical records against his will and without his consent by defendants was a violation of plaintiff’s rights to privacy in medical records and that defendants unlawful actions proximately and directly fall under the definition of fraud as known and understood under Wisconsin State Law.

432. Plaintiff alleges defendants’ actions, alleged in COUNT I. “H.”, were in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and were in violation of the Wisconsin State Constitution Article One sections One, Six, Seven and Eleven.

433. Plaintiff alleges defendants actions were willful, intentional, and malicious, and were conducted in bad faith with the intent to deceive and that plaintiff suffered injury and loss directly and indirectly caused by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants unlawful actions against him. Defendants unlawful actions against plaintiff caused plaintiff injuries and losses. Plaintiff has the right under Article One section Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution to seek relief through the courts for injuries and losses he suffered directly caused by defendants unlawful actions against him and does so at this time.

I.

Fraud, Theft, and Slander.

434. On January 8th, 2014, plaintiff was transported to the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin from the Kenosha County main jail facility to attend a scheduled status hearing. The hearing was cancelled and rescheduled for the next day. Ever since plaintiff lost all of his legal records, medical records and personal letters and property through the “transfer” process on August 27th, 2013, plaintiff made a conscience point to always bring all, or most, of his property with him to status hearings and court dates in case the defendants decided to transfer him to a different facility unannounced; so that plaintiff would not be deprived of all of his records again through government trickery and unlawfulness. On January 8th, 2014, plaintiff brought all of his records with him to the scheduled status hearing. All of plaintiff’s records, personal letters and property was contained in folders, one folder was sealed. While placed in the holding cell bullpen cage in the federal inmate holding area, all federal inmates are separated from their paperwork and

87 of 191.

property which is immediately taken by the U.S. deputy Marshals upon entering the federal courthouse and stored in an adjacent room until the federal inmates are picked up later that afternoon. This is the policy of the federal Marshals service in the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants had access to plaintiff’s records the entire day on January 8th, 2014, because all of plaintiff’s records were taken when he arrived at the Milwaukee federal courthouse and plaintiff never attended court on January 8th because his hearing was allegedly cancelled. See infra 106 and 1o7.

435. On January 8th, 2014, before leaving the federal holding area in the federal courthouse in Milwaukee, plaintiff noticed that his sealed manila folder had been torn open. At this point, plaintiff knew that Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants had gone through his property and records for at very least inspection for contraband and more likely an inspection and examination of the documents, paperwork and letters (information) plaintiff possessed at that time. Collecting intelligence and seeking possible incriminating evidence to use in the efforts to prosecute plaintiff.

436. After getting back to his cell W-2 in the Kenosha County main jail facility late in the evening of January 8th, 2014, plaintiff looked through his records and personal property which had been examined by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants sometime that day. Plaintiff discovered that he was missing personal property. Artwork, drawings and poems had been stolen by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. At the Kenosha County main jail, booking staff placed plaintiff’s property right outside of the cell door of the bullpen holding area. Plaintiff could keep an eye on his property and rule out that Kenosha County booking staff were to blame for the theft. Plaintiff alleges U.S. deputy Marshals, and other possibly other unknown Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, stole plaintiff’s intellectual property on January 8th, 2014, at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin.

437. The next day, January 9th, 2014, plaintiff was again transported to the federal inmate holding area in the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin to attend a rescheduled status hearing which had been cancelled the day before. Immediately upon arrival and coming into contact with the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants who were all deputy Marshals at this time, plaintiff confronted defendants while being processed into the federal inmate holding area. Plaintiff demanded the return of his property, artwork, poems, drawings and writings. Plaintiff stated that he was innocent until proven guilty.

438. Plaintiff assertively stated that soldiers died for Liberty and freedom in wars, not for “total government control.” In response to plaintiff’s assertive demand for the return of his property and his attempts to shame the deputy Marshals for stealing plaintiff’s property (shame on them), and in response to plaintiff’s proclamation

88 of 191.

that deputy Marshals were violating the law and disgracing the basic American philosophy by the unlawful theft, defendants became “mad” and aggressive.

439. Several federal inmates witnessed the incident that happened next. Plaintiff had just been placed in the first bullpen area on the right if entering the holding area from the sally port. Plaintiff was sitting down on the bench on the right side of the caged in holding area, if standing at the entrance facing in. Three or four other federal inmates were also seated in the caged in area. In an unnecessary display of excessive force, in response to plaintiff’s verbal statements, four of five deputy Marshals appeared at the outside of the bullpen cage, deputy Marshals rushed into the bullpen area where plaintiff was sitting and forced plaintiff to stand up, threatened plaintiff with an electric high voltage tazor, pushed plaintiff up against a wall, manacled plaintiff, and placed plaintiff in the small interview room away from the other inmates. Plaintiff and the other inmates were all sitting down and secured with leg irons on and there was no disruption within the caged in area between plaintiff and any of the other inmates whatsoever. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants appeared outside the door of the caged in area armed with high voltage tazors and proceeded to threaten plaintiff. Deputies ordered plaintiff to stand up and plaintiff remained seated. Plaintiff said nothing and refused to stand up. Defendants appeared at the front gate with a key. Three or four deputy Marshals entered the caged in area and ordered plaintiff to his feet. Plaintiff refused to stand up. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants became more aggressive and threatened plaintiff that if he did not stand up from his seated position, he would be tazed and stunned. Defendant’s aggressively pointed the high power tazor with one green and one red light at the end of it right into plaintiff’s face, not his body or his legs as would be appropriate under standard procedure. At the threat of injury by tazor in his face, plaintiff stood up to avoid being tazed in the face by the Marshals who were very hostile and agitated at this point in time. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants then seized plaintiff’s body with force and forcefully pushed plaintiff up against the wall opposite the door of the bullpen cage. Plaintiff was in leg irons and was not resisting the hostile deputy Marshals in any way whatsoever. Plaintiff loudly stated “I’m not resisting.” Defendants and all the federal inmates awaiting their court hearings witnessed the incident and heard plaintiff’s loud assertive statement that he wasn’t resisting. Marshals proceeded to manacle plaintiff with excessive force. Defendant’s put plaintiff back into the transport handcuffs and waist chain and placed plaintiff in the small attorney room area single cell. The incident occurred at approximately 8:00 a.m. on January 9th, 2014, and was witnessed by approximately 4 other federal inmate witnesses.

440. Approximately an hour later a deputy Marshal (two sleeves of tattoos), told plaintiff that if plaintiff stayed quiet he would be put back in the bullpen cage and unhandcuffed.

89 of 191.

441. Between two and three hours later, after plaintiff stayed quiet at the orders of the deputy Marshal, another deputy Marshal unhandcuffed plaintiff and led plaintiff back into the caged in area of the bullpen and out of the single cell interview room area. At this time plaintiff sat back down to his original position before being manacled by deputy Marshals.

442. Later that afternoon, at the scheduled status hearing, federal prosecutor Johnson entered evidence into the court record by verbally stating in open court to the judge, during the proceeding, that plaintiff was disruptive and hostile and needed to be restrained earlier that morning by deputy Marshals in the holding bullpen area of the federal courthouse, due to plaintiff’s alleged disruptive conduct.

443. Federal prosecutor Johnson further stated that the night before, the evening of January 8th, 2014, in the booking area of the Kenosha County main jail bullpen area, plaintiff needed to be restrained because of disruptive conduct and that plaintiff was placed into administrative segregation at that time, the evening of January 8th, 2014, as a result of plaintiff’s alleged disruptive and hostile behavior.

444. Both of defendant Johnson’s statements were false and slanderous.

445. Plaintiff was not disruptive in the holding area earlier that day and was actually the victim of a theft and corrupt government misconduct.

446. Plaintiff had received ZERO jail rule violations in Kenosha County main jail as of January 9th, 2014; the record will show. Plaintiff was in segregation at his own request out of fear for his safety from hostile gang members.

447. Defendant’s slanderous false statement in open court portrayed plaintiff’s character in a false light. A false light favorable to Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants efforts to prosecute and convict plaintiff and unfavorable to plaintiff’s efforts to clear his name and be released from jail; including being release from jail on bail or bond.

448. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants deliberately, willfully, intentionally and maliciously entered a material misrepresentation of past or existing fact into court records. Johnson’s slanderous false statements were untrue and were made with knowledge that the statements were untrue or with reckless ignorance/disregard of whether the statements were untrue or not, for the specific purpose of deceiving the court, manipulating the court record via the recorded transcript in favor of the government, and portraying plaintiff’s character in a false light to aid and defendants efforts to prosecute and effectuate a conviction of plaintiff by any means necessary.

449. The court and record were prejudiced by the introduction of false facts by defendant Johnson at the January 9th, 2014, status hearing. The court rightfully relied on evidence provided by the prosecutors when making decisions on

90 of 191.

motions, adjournments, bail, and other court matters in the adjudication process that directly affected plaintiff’s life at that time and future. Plaintiff was denied bail by the court and denied freedom and Liberty based on false misrepresented facts provided to the court by Johnson and other Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. The introduction of false misrepresented facts and false evidence, essentially fabricated by defendants to assist in the prosecution of plaintiff, was used by the court and other Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants to justify real unfavorable actions against plaintiff that negatively affected his life.

450. The material misrepresentations of facts entered into evidence and into the record by defendants, caused plaintiff injuries and loss, extreme emotional distress and mental anguish.

451. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ unlawful actions were intentional and malicious. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants intentionally entered false information into the court record with the intent to deceive, deprive plaintiff of Liberty, deny plaintiff unprejudiced and fair due process, deny plaintiff equal protection of law, and ultimately damage plaintiff’s life and rob plaintiff of the opportunity to clear his name and restore his good character.

452. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ actions against plaintiff were taken with intentional disregard for the rights of plaintiff. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants actions fall under the definition of fraud as known and understood under Wisconsin State Law and case law precedent.

453. Plaintiff has the right under Article One section Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution to seek relief through the courts for injuries and losses he suffered directly caused by defendants unlawful actions against him and does so at this time.

J.

Fraud, Trickery, Deception, Meanness, Abuse of Process and Conspiracy.

454. On July 14th, 2014, at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin, before a scheduled status hearing, plaintiff was confronted by defendant “Burton” a U.S. deputy Marshal. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendant Burton told plaintiff that plaintiff should request bond from federal judge Adelman and that if plaintiff requested bond, plaintiff would be released and could fight the charges and case from the outside and get out of jail.

455. Later that day, as deputy Marshals were escorting plaintiff to court, deputy Marshal “Doug” told plaintiff that plaintiff should request bail/bond and if plaintiff requested bail/bond from the court, plaintiff would be released.

91 of 191.

456. Plaintiff did not request bond on July 14th, 2014, because the discussion at the status hearing was critical and totally committed to the issues surrounding two different pretrial motions that were pending at that time; Motion to Suppress Evidence and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. Plaintiff stayed focused on the important issues and plaintiff’s ultimate goal of clearing his name.

457. After the July 14th, 2014, status hearing, both deputy Marshal “Doug” and “Burton” told plaintiff that he should have requested bail and that plaintiff would have been released that very day if he had requested bail from the court. Plaintiff told deputy Marshals that he did not have any money but that he would take their advice and instruction and request bail in writing. The next status hearing was set for July 29th, 2014.

458. The next day, back at the Dodge County Jail and federal holding facility, in H-block of the facility, Dodge County Jail officers “Gabel” and “Riter” each told plaintiff, at two separate times throughout the day, that plaintiff should have requested bail and that plaintiff would have been released. Gabel and Riter told plaintiff that it was plaintiff’s own fault that he was in jail at that time because according to Gabel and Riter plaintiff could have been released on bail the day before.

459. Obviously anybody in jail would want to be released and to go home if they had the chance. Plaintiff, who did not have any money for bail, but at the advice and instruction and actual urging of government officials to do so, wrote a letter to federal judge Adelman requesting bail and/or bond. Plaintiff mailed in a request and submitted a request directly to the court, the morning of July 29th, 2014, at the federal courthouse before the scheduled status hearing that afternoon.

460. That afternoon at the scheduled status hearing, Adelman denied plaintiff’s request for bond and read a lengthy statement into the court record that contained false information and portrayed plaintiff’s character in a false light.

461. Plaintiff was tricked and deceived by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of state law and under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

462. Plaintiff was tricked and deceived by defendants who were actively, willfully, intentionally and maliciously distorting and manipulating the court record to the advantage of the government and federal prosecutors.

463. Plaintiff had not requested bond in over 14 months and had not planned on requesting bond because plaintiff had no money and was under the impression bond was not an option. The only reason that plaintiff requested bail was because 4 different government officials told plaintiff that if he requested bond he would be released on a signature bond if he requested bail from Adelman. According to

92 of 191.

defendants, all plaintiff needed to do was request bail and he would be released. Plaintiff was unlawfully deceived and manipulated by defendants.

464. When plaintiff requested bail, plaintiff opened the door and gave the court and government the opportunity to legally attack plaintiff and infiltrate the case and record of the case with more damning evidence and false statements, interjected into the case, this time by defendant Adelman, who was actively participating in the prosecution of plaintiff at this time; even participating in plea negotiations and dictating which pleas would be acceptable and which plea agreement terms were out of the question.

465. Plaintiff alleges Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants maliciously prosecuted him and took irregular steps in the adjudication process that involved trickery and unlawful deception and included the theft of plaintiff’s intellectual property. Plaintiff alleges defendants actions were deliberate and were taken for the purpose of strengthening the government’s case against plaintiff and were unlawful. Defendants unlawfully deprived plaintiff of due process of law and abused the court process with the deceptive abnormal and irregular steps Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants were taking en route to obtaining a conviction of plaintiff. Plaintiff was deprived of lawful procedural due process and deprived of Liberty by the defendants’ fabrication (lying to plaintiff about being released on bail) and manipulation of false facts, conveyed verbally to plaintiff by 4 different government officials all on “the same page.”

466. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants material misrepresentations of fact, the fact that plaintiff would have been released and would be released if he requested bail, were untrue and were made with knowledge that the statements and facts set forth by defendants and verbally conveyed to plaintiff were false.

467. Defendants’ misrepresentations of fact were made with the intent to deceive and actually did deceive the plaintiff and the plaintiff acted on the misrepresentations of fact by the defendants and was injured and incurred losses as a direct result of relying on defendants’ devious misrepresentations.

468. Defendants misrepresentations of past and existing fact were made with the intent to deceive the plaintiff and trick plaintiff into requesting bond, only to be denied bail by the court and then have the court read a damning statement into the court record against plaintiff, which damaged plaintiff’s case, plaintiff’s state of mind at that time, and which never would have occurred had it not been for defendants lies and misrepresentations of facts which plaintiff relied on to his detriment. Plaintiff relied on defendants misrepresentations of fact when deciding whether or not to request bail/bond because plaintiff was under the impression that he was going to be released if he did.

93 of 191.

469. Plaintiff suffered injury and losses caused by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants mean, devious, deceptive, untruthful, fraudulent and unlawful actions.

470. Plaintiff alleges that one can reasonably assert the existence of an unlawful conspiracy, grounded on the fact that all 4 government officials told plaintiff to request bail, all within a 24 hour time frame.

471. Plaintiff alleges defendants ultimate objective was to assist in the prosecution of plaintiff and to unlawfully deny and deprive plaintiff of rights of the accused; rights to fair and lawful due process; rights to be free of slander; and to deprive plaintiff of Liberty protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. Defendants’ misrepresentations of past and existing facts denied and deprived plaintiff of the aforementioned rights.

472. Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, mental anguish, hopelessness, depression, confusion, nightmares, weight loss, and unhealthy stress directly caused by defendants mean trickery and unlawful deceptive devious tactics of malicious prosecution. Defendants’ deliberate actions taken against plaintiff were done so in bad faith and with reckless disregard for the rights of plaintiff.

473. Plaintiff has the right under Article One section Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution to seek relief through the courts for injuries and losses he suffered directly caused by defendants unlawful actions against him and does so at this time.

K.

Fraudulent Concealment of Material Transcript Evidence.

474. On January 19th, 2014, plaintiff requested district court transcripts from hearings on August 27th, 2013; December 20th, 2013; and January 9th, 2014; all for case 13-CR-99, United States v. Bodie Witzlib. Plaintiff requested transcripts from Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Adelman, Sanfilippo, Dietrich, Stawski and John S.

475. Plaintiff was found indigent by the state public defender’s office of Washington County and by federal judges Adelman, Joseph, Duffin and Goodstein.

476. Plaintiff submitted a total of 9 requests for court transcripts to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants between the dates of January 19th, and August 2nd, 2014. Plaintiff was denied court transcripts by the court and court reporters a total of 9 times. At this time, plaintiff was never given the transcripts and deprived of the information contained in the transcripts. Essentially plaintiff was forced to plead guilty by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants by defendants denying plaintiff access to material evidence and denial of plaintiff right to effectively

94 of 191.

prepare for trial. Plaintiff needed the transcripts to prepare for trial in case 13-CR-99.

477. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants have a duty to disclose transcripts to plaintiff under the law. Plaintiff followed the exact specifications of the United States Code Rules of Federal Procedure in ordering and specifying the transcripts plaintiff required for legal purposes. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants refused to turn over the transcripts which contained material evidence in two separate cases, the transcripts were material evidence in adjudication of criminal case 13-CR-99 and in a civil case that plaintiff was unable to initiate due the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants refusal to disclose material evidence plaintiff required to support his allegations.

478. Plaintiff requires transcripts and material facts contained therein, for at least four cases. Plaintiff requires transcripts in preparation for trial in case 13-CR-99. Plaintiff requires transcripts for his Appeal cases, 14-2687 & 14-2738. Plaintiff requires transcripts for the foregoing lawsuit because transcripts contain material facts and material evidence that support the truth and support plaintiff’s allegations. (Cohn slander 6/11/13; Wilmouth slander 8/27/13; Johnson slander 1/9/14; Plaintiff asserting and proclaiming disputed issues of material facts during the July 14th, 2014, status hearing when questioned by Adelman; Adelman participating in plea negotiations 7/29/14; . . .)

479. By deliberately denying plaintiff access to court transcripts after 9 proper requests for transcripts, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants unlawfully denied pro se plaintiff access to material evidence and material facts in four separate cases, not including the Wilmouth lawsuit and other pending civil actions. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants have a duty under Wisconsin Law and under Federal Rules of Civil, Criminal, and Appellate Procedure, to disclose the transcripts to plaintiff upon plaintiff’s formal and proper request, order and demand for them. The aforementioned Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, violated the law by concealing material evidence that is critical to multiple cases.

480. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants violated plaintiff’s rights of access to the courts, access to material evidence, to lawful due process, and the right to take legal action against those who have violated the law and slandered plaintiff with false statements and caused plaintiff injury and losses and humiliation.

481. Plaintiff has the right to the material evidence contained in the court transcripts under Wisconsin Law. Plaintiff has the right to the material evidence contained in the court transcripts and defendants have a duty and must disclose that material evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (1963); Rule 16 of the U.S. Code Rules of Federal Criminal Procedure; Ollerman v. O’Rourke Co. Inc. (Wis.

95 of 191.

1980); and under the Wis. Const. Art. 1 sections 1, 7, and 9 and under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff properly demanded discovery and requested transcripts NINE separate times, between January 19th, 2013, and August 2nd, 2014. Access to the material evidence contained in the transcripts of hearings for case 13-CR-99 was denied by the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants NINE separate times. See the NINE transcript requests “cc:” 1-9.

482. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ deliberately concealed material evidence which they had a duty to disclose.

483. Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, mental anguish, hopelessness, migraines, depression, confusion, nightmares, weight loss, and unhealthy stress directly caused by defendants mean trickery and unlawful deceptive devious tactics. Defendants deliberate actions orchestrated and executed against plaintiff were done so in bad faith and with reckless disregard for the rights of plaintiff.

484. Plaintiff has the right under Article One section Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution to seek relief through the courts for injuries and losses he suffered directly caused by defendants unlawful actions against him and does so at this time.

L.

Fraud.

485. Over the course of the adjudication of case 13-CR-99, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants committed acts against plaintiff that fall under the definition of Fraud as known and understood under Wisconsin State Law. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants committed fraud, used fraud, perpetuated fraud and fraudulently concealed material facts in their efforts to prosecute and ultimately convict plaintiff by any means necessary. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants committed fraud, used fraud, perpetuated fraud and fraudulently concealed material facts in a concerted effort to obstruct and deprive plaintiff of the legal ability to take civil action against individuals and against the government for violating plaintiff’s rights. See infra COUNT I. “A-K.”

486. The unlawful actions of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants in their efforts to prosecute plaintiff and effectuate a conviction of plaintiff, by any means necessary, occurred from April 30th, 2013, through October 21st, 2014, and continue at this time.

487. Over the course of the aforementioned time period defendants made false representations of fact that defendants knew were false or recklessly disregarded whether the representations were false or not. In most of the aforementioned instances (A-K), defendants knew beyond any doubt that the material

96 of 191.

misrepresentations they made were false and did so for the purpose of prosecuting and eventually convicting plaintiff, by any means necessary.

488. Defendant’s misrepresentations of past and existing facts (COUNT I. A.-K.) were made with the intent to deceive the plaintiff, deceive the court, and deceive other responsible authorities and to justify manipulative and unlawful actions orchestrated against plaintiff.

489. Plaintiff and other responsible authorities relied on defendants misrepresentations of past and existing fact to their detriment and plaintiff suffered injuries and losses resulting from and caused by defendants unlawful actions against him.

490. Plaintiff was denied due process, access to the courts, access to material evidence, suffered injuries and losses, and was ultimately deprived of Liberty protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions, caused by, and resulting from, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ unlawful actions.

491. Under Wisconsin state law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of fraud, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action, pursuant to law.

COUNT II.

State Law Theft Claim.

492. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs

1-491 above.

A.

Theft of Intellectual Property, Tournament Guidelines.

493. On or about June 25th, 2013, unknown government entities, and unknown defendants, functioning in synergenic cooperation with Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, including U.S. Marshal Carr, at the Dodge County federal holding facility in Juneau Wisconsin, stole plaintiff property; intellectual property valued at $11,000.00.

494. Defendants stole two tournament brackets and structure guidelines for rules, created and developed by plaintiff.

97 of 191.

495. Defendants actions were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting intellectual property and tangible property, protecting the right to work, and protecting citizens from theft by thieves, raiders, pirates and government officials acting in bad faith under the color of law.

496. Plaintiff’s property was not returned by defendants and plaintiff never recovered any of his property and was never compensated for the loss of his property by defendants.

497. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the unlawful actions of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

498. Under Wisconsin state law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of theft, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action, pursuant to law.

B.

Theft of Intellectual Property; Inventions and Blueprints.

499. On or about August 5th, 2013, Dodge County Jail and federal holding facility officers Ronge and Riter and functioning jointly and in concert with Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Carr and other unknown government entities and in synergenic cooperation with Dodge County Jail Administration “programs” state employees, at the Dodge County facility in Juneau Wisconsin, in block “A” bottom level area, opened plaintiff’s outgoing mail and stole plaintiff’s intellectual property valued at 2.5 million dollars and of an unlimited potential value.

500. Defendants stole four separate original inventions drafting drawings by tearing open Witzlib’s sealed outgoing mail after jail staff inspected the outgoing mail and determined that there was no contraband in the outgoing package.

501. Defendants unlawfully deprived plaintiff of original inventions blueprints of: “The Gasinator”, emergency portable fuel container; “Mechanical Pipe Hanger”, plumbing tool; “Inside Pipe Cutter”, plumbing tool (drill attachment part); “Head Mount Portable Deer Decoy”; and several original drawings and artwork.

502. Defendants’ actions were unlawful and were in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting all Wisconsin Citizens from unlawful THEFT of property by thieves, raiders, pirates and governmental officials acting under the color of law.

98 of 191.

503. Plaintiff’s property was not immediately returned after the theft and was unlawfully reproduced by government entities. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants unlawfully duplicated plaintiff’s intellectual property, proximately stealing plaintiff’s property. Defendants unlawfully deprived plaintiff of original blueprints and designs of original inventions, deprived plaintiff of intellectual property, stole trade secrets, and cruelly and unusually punished plaintiff in so doing.

504. Defendants proximately and subsequently directly acquired plaintiff’s intellectual property by opening sealed outgoing mail after jail staff (officer Ronge) had inspected plaintiff’s outgoing mail and determined that there was no contraband contained in the package. Plaintiff’s intellectual property was seized by the Dodge County jail administration “programs” department and proximately and subsequently by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning jointly and in concert with the Dodge County federal holding facility state actors. Dodge County forwarded the intelligence they collected by unlawfully ripping open Witzlib’s sealed mail to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants.

505. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the unlawful actions of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

506. Under Wisconsin state law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of theft, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action, pursuant to law.

C.

Theft by, Unauthorized Release of

Gateway Computer; Confidential Information.

507. The third or fourth week of August 2013, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Santelle, Johnson, Kanter and Kwaterski, stole plaintiff’s Gateway computer, which had been in their possession as the result of a seizure of plaintiff’s home on April 30th, 2013. Defendants released plaintiff’s confidential, personal, private intellectual property to STRANGER, state licensed federal panel attorney Wilmouth after plaintiff specifically ordered Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants NOT to disclose any of plaintiff’s information to Wilmouth and specifically told

99 of 191.

Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants NOT to release any of plaintiff’s property to Wilmouth.

508. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants proximately effectuated a theft of plaintiff’s Gateway computer and intellectual property contained therein when they unlawfully and deliberately released plaintiff’s property to state licensed federal panel attorney Wilmouth without plaintiff’s consent and intentionally against plaintiff’s will. The unlawful theft occurred at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin.

509. When plaintiff was finally given access to his computer data in May of 2014, over a year after the initial seizure, plaintiff discovered missing information, missing documents and missing intellectual property. The value of the stolen property was estimated at (omitted) dollars with an unlimited potential value.

510. Defendants actions were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens intellectual property and tangible property, protecting the right to work, and protecting citizens from theft by thieves, raiders, pirates and government officials acting in bad faith under the color of law.

511. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the unlawful actions of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

512. Under Wisconsin state law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of theft, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action, pursuant to law.

D.

Theft of Legal Record, Medical Records, Personal Letters, Artwork & Drawings.

513. On August 27th, 2013, state licensed federal panel attorney and STRANGER Thomas Wilmouth, functioning in synergenic cooperation with Kevin Carr, James Santelle and unknown government entities and unknown Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin after a scheduled status hearing, unlawfully stole a package containing Legal Records, Medical Records, Confidential Letters, Artwork, Drawings and other Intellectual Property that was sealed mail with postage, and was cleared by a deputy Marshal to be released to a member of plaintiff’s family. The package contained a brief, medical records and other intellectual property and was sealed mail.

100 of 191.

514. Plaintiff’s property was stolen by defendants’, then unlawfully duplicated/reproduced and subsequently mailed back to the original intended receiver of the mail, approximately 1 ½ - 2 weeks later.

515. The value of the stolen property concerning the legal work is estimated at $7,500.00 (150hrs. x $50.00/hr) plus intellectual property (drawings) with a potential unlimited value. Plaintiff’s medical records were also stolen. Defendants acted in concert and jointly with state officials to effectuate the theft.

516. Defendants actions were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens intellectual property and tangible property, protecting the right to work, and protecting citizens from theft by thieves, raiders, pirates and government officials acting in bad faith under the color of law.

517. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the unlawful actions of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

518. Under Wisconsin state law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of theft, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action, pursuant to law.

E.

Theft of Original Incident Report Affidavit; Summary of Witness Statement.

519. On August 27th, 2013, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, stole an official original police report affidavit out of plaintiff’s legal records and never returned it, and then attempted to conceal the existence of the document.

520. The affidavit that was stolen out of plaintiff’s legal records was authored by Germantown Police Officer Penny Schmitt. In the original affidavit, Schmitt quotes, in actual “quotation marks”, one of the police informants lying to police. The lie was in quotation marks. Informant number one was quoted by Schmitt as stating that plaintiff was QUOTE “off his medications”, (informant also told numerous other lies to police but this one happened to be quoted by Schmitt) allegedly on the day of the incident, April 30th, 2013, when police executed an unwarranted search of plaintiff’s home after police took steps to obtain a warrant

101 of 191.

and did not obtain one and after plaintiff asserted his Constitutional Rights and made it clear that it was against his will for police to intrude into his home.

521. The affidavit was acquired from the plaintiff by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, through an unlawful THEFT, and was priceless. What is the value of freedom? What is the value of having the opportunity and ability to clear your name? What is the value of having the opportunity or being deprived of the opportunity to take legal action against those who slandered you and lied to effectuate an unwarranted search of your home and seizer of your body? What is the value of due process and what is the value of Liberty? Some people have died for it? What is the value of all of these things? When Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants stole the original Schmitt affidavit out of plaintiff’s records, they stole all of these things from plaintiff. When defendants stole the original Schmitt affidavit out of plaintiff’s records, they stole material evidence relevant and critical to 2 separate cases; case 13-CR-99 and a state law civil case.

522. Defendants stole the original Schmitt affidavit from plaintiff which had an estimated value of at least $25,000.00 and a potential value of approximately one year of freedom (priceless).

523. Defendants actions were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens intellectual property and tangible property, protecting the right to work, and protecting citizens from theft by thieves, raiders, pirates and government officials acting in bad faith under the color of law.

524. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions against him of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

525. Under Wisconsin state law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of theft, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

102 of 191.

F.

Theft of Legal Letters; Grievances of Federal Panel Attorney.

526. Between the dates of September 5th, and November 1st, 2013, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Adelman, Dietrich and Sanfilippo stole legal correspondences submitted by plaintiff to the court, complaining and grieving both federal panel attorney Wilmouth and the federal prosecutors that were releasing information to Wilmouth and releasing plaintiff’s property (Gateway computer) to Wilmouth without plaintiff’s consent and against plaintiff’s will. Legal letters were destroyed and never entered into the district court docket. Plaintiff was denied the district court docket until March of 2014 and at that time discovered that letters plaintiff wrote the court were never entered into the docket. Several letters on yellow legal pad.

527. The value of the letters is estimated at (omitted) dollars. Again, what is the value of due process, material evidence, access to the courts and of Liberty?

528. Defendants actions were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens intellectual property and tangible property, protecting the right to work, and protecting citizens from theft by thieves, raiders, pirates and government officials acting in bad faith under the color of law.

529. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions taken against him of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

530. Under Wisconsin state law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of theft, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

G.

Theft of Intellectual Property, Artwork and Poems.

531. On January 8th, 2014, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants including deputy Marshals stationed in the receiving/bullpen/federal inmate holding area of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin (who do not where name tags or badges in plain sight), stole plaintiff’s property. Defendants' stole plaintiff’s artwork (drawings) and short poems.

103 of 191.

532. Plaintiff’s property is valued at an estimated $2,500.00 with a potential unlimited value (plaintiff considers his artwork priceless and the original drawings are irreplaceable).

533. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants stole plaintiff’s real tangible property in the form of artwork images drawn on paper in ink of the following images; sledge hammer, axe, spade shovel, heart, clover, pick axe, spade, diamond, original drawing of a penguin (drawn by plaintiff’s mom) and other shapes and symbols. Each individual drawing contained a poem on the reverse side of the paper.

534. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants never returned plaintiff’s property.

535. Defendants actions were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens intellectual property and tangible property, protecting the right to work, and protecting citizens from theft by thieves, raiders, pirates and government officials acting in bad faith under the color of law.

536. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions taken against him of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

537. Under Wisconsin state law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of theft, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

H.

Theft of Intellectual Property; Motion to Suppress Evidence.

538. Between the dates of March 1st and March 31st, 2014, plaintiff was imprisoned in the Ozaukee County Jail and federal holding facility in Port Washington Wisconsin. The facility contained one legal room computer typing area where inmates had access to a computer that contained a word processing program, Microsoft Word. All inmates in the facility used the same computer if they needed to do legal work that needed to be typed out. The computer was located in a small square room of the facility labeled “Attorney Room #5.” Room #5, was across the hall from another small room that was only designated as a Law Library for researching case law and examining discovery evidence. The “Law Library” did

104 of 191.

not contain a functional word processing program in the Ozaukee facility. Not unlike other facilities that housed plaintiff, it was much like pulling teeth trying to gain access to use the facilities computer resources. Plaintiff was very persistent because he was representing himself and required use of the Law Library and Microsoft Word in order to effectively represent himself. Plaintiff had completed extensive research in the Kenosha facilities using the “Nexus” database program. The defense, in the month of March, 2014, was at the stage of applying the knowledge plaintiff acquired and information he acquired researching case law, directly to plaintiff’s specific case. Plaintiff was obstructed and restricted to short periodic intervals of time in the Ozaukee County facility Law Library which made it all the more difficult to make progress. Plaintiff did most of the writing in his cell and simply used the “Attorney Room #5” to type up and printout legal documents final drafts. Each inmate was allowed to save works in progress and finished legal documents on an Ozaukee County community flash drive data chip. This jail policy was reasonable and fair and enabled inmates to pick up where they left off if the inmate was in the middle of doing legal work and guards told them that their time was up or it was lockdown time. Plaintiff saved all of the legal work he accomplished as well as works in progress on the Ozaukee County facility flash drive. Ozaukee jail officials, who were all Ozaukee County Sheriff’s Deputies, Jail Administration officials and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, functioning jointly and in concert with Ozaukee County Jail officials had access to the flash drive. Other inmates did not have access to each others legal work, information and legal records because under Ozaukee County Jail policy, deputies always retained the actual flash drive itself. Inmates never actually accessed their records folders on the flash drive, Ozaukee County officials downloaded and uploaded each individual’s specific data off of the flash drive disc (which took approximately 5-25 seconds of the officers’ time to actually do by the click of a button). The Ozaukee County system of saving and retrieving saved data for inmates use was efficient and reasonable for all parties involved.

539. Plaintiff alleges federal government officials stole over 200 pages of legal records and “works in progress”, specifically a Motion to Suppress Evidence, that plaintiff had worked on writing in Attorney Room #5 from February 20th, through April 4th, 2014.

540. Plaintiff alleges that Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants monitored his Law Library and computer activities while plaintiff was imprisoned in the Ozaukee County federal holding facility. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants monitored plaintiff’s progress, legal work, and legal records, while plaintiff painstakingly drafted his Motion to Suppress Evidence and other important legal documents in the Ozaukee County Attorney Room #5 over the course of the entire time plaintiff was imprisoned in Ozaukee County. All of plaintiff’s legal work on the computer was dedicated to clearing his name and seeking justice for rights violations orchestrated against plaintiff by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Plaintiff alleges defendants monitored

105 of 191.

plaintiff (kept an eye on plaintiff), through the use of instantaneous electronic data transfer, proximately effectuated by Ozaukee County officials functioning jointly and in concert with Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, including, U.S. Marshal Carr, U.S. Attorney Santelle, federal computer technicians, and other unknown government entities who were hostile to plaintiff’s best interests and who were actively attempting to prosecute and ultimately convict plaintiff by any means necessary.

541. On April 4th, 2014, while plaintiff was approximately 14 pages into typing up a finished draft of plaintiff’s “Motion to Suppress Evidence”, plaintiff was abruptly transferred out of Ozaukee County Jail without notice a week before plaintiff’s next scheduled court hearing, scheduled for April 11th, 2014. All of plaintiff’s legal records, medical records and personal property, including plaintiff’s Motion to Suppress Evidence was proximately stolen by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants on April 4th, 2014, and never returned.

542. Plaintiff was transferred to federal holding facilities with no Law Libraries or computers for the next 8 weeks.

543. Ozaukee County Jail Officials refused to printout plaintiff’s legal records, over 200 pages of documents, which also contained medical records. Government officials refused to printout or electronically transfer the data on the flash drive into the possession of plaintiff via email, or blank flash drive, or printout. State and federal officials functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other, stole plaintiff’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (that plaintiff did not have a complete copy of), legal documents and medical records on April 4th, 2014.

544. Plaintiff suffered a major setback by the theft after working on his case and specifically the “Motion to Suppress Evidence” for the last 5 weeks in Ozaukee County and before that in Kenosha County. Defendants stole all of plaintiff’s records on the Ozaukee County flash drive.

545. Plaintiff was subsequently transferred to federal facilities with no computer for the next 8 weeks until June 5th, 2014. Plaintiff alleges the value of the stolen legal records and medical records is estimated at (5 weeks x 10hrs./day x $50/hr.) $12,500.00 with an unlimited potential value and of which were actually priceless because plaintiff was drafting the suppression motion to counter Constitutional Rights violations of government officials and in an attempt to clear his name. The material evidence defendants stole was actually priceless.

546. Plaintiff was denied and deprived of due process, access to the courts, and of Liberty by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ unlawful theft of his confidential property.

106 of 191.

547. Plaintiff grieved the theft to the Ozaukee County Sheriff Straub, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division in Washington D.C., and the Eastern District of Wisconsin Court.

548. Defendants actions were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens intellectual property and tangible property, protecting the right to work, and protecting citizens from theft by thieves, raiders, pirates and government officials acting in bad faith under the color of law.

549. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions against him of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

550. Under Wisconsin state law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of theft, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

I.

Theft of Intellectual Property; “Relay Race Analogy.”

551. On April 11th, 2014, federal Marshals stationed in the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin, functioning in synergenic cooperation with Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, stole plaintiff’s intellectual property. Plaintiff was transferred from the Milwaukee County Jail and federal holding facility to the federal inmate holding area of the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin the morning of April 11th, 2014. Plaintiff was separated from his legal records, medical records, personal notes and other information that was plaintiff’s property all day long. Defendants rummaged through plaintiff’s legal records and notes and other information which Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants developed a pattern of doing during plaintiff’s scheduled status hearing appearances, on April 11th, 2014, after defendants once again separated plaintiff from his records.

552. Defendants, including U.S. Marshal Carr, stole plaintiff’s notes and a rough draft of plaintiff’s “Motion to Suppress Evidence” that were not typed and were only in the rough draft and brain storm stage of writing. Defendant’s specifically stole plaintiff’s intellectual literary piece on “Bad Faith” that was only in the rough draft and note stage at the time of the theft.

107 of 191.

553. Plaintiff’s intellectual piece found under R.135 II.F. of plaintiff’s Motion to Suppress Evidence, specifically compared the informing of plaintiff’s alleged crime and the subsequent investigation and prosecution that ensued, to a relay race in track and field. Plaintiff used literary tools such as personification, colorful language, metaphor, and analogy when plaintiff articulated the incident, stating “the baton of bad faith” was passed from the informants to the government and the government investigators and prosecutors took the “baton of bad faith” and ran with it, “full speed ahead.”

554. Plaintiff’s creative original analogy of comparing the perpetuation of bad faith on the part of police to a relay race in track and field was stolen by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants on April 11th, 2014, out of plaintiff’s notes and personal records by defendants.

555. Plaintiff’s analogy was original and valuable.

556. Plaintiff was on a track and field team in high school coached by Rich Smith, philosophy scholar and chess team head 1995-1997. Plaintiff’s “baton of bad faith” analogy was stolen by defendants, unlawfully.

557. Plaintiff’s bad faith piece with plaintiff’s original “baton of bad faith” analogy is valued at $1,500.00 with an unlimited potential value. Plaintiff considers his poetic writings and intellectual property priceless.

558. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants deliberately stole plaintiff’s intellectual property on April 11th, 2014. Defendants actions were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens intellectual property and tangible property, protecting the right to work, and protecting citizens from theft by thieves, raiders, pirates and government officials acting in bad faith under the color of law.

559. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions taken against him of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

560. Under Wisconsin state law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of theft, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

108 of 191.

J.

Theft of Intellectual Property; “Appellate Brief.”

561. On July 21st, 2014, federal judge Adelman denied two of plaintiff’s pretrial motions; Motion to Suppress Evidence and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. Plaintiff learned that Adelman’s ruling contradicted itself, the applicable standard set forth in numerous state and federal cases, case precedent, and the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. Plaintiff Witzlib immediately began working on an “Appellate Brief.” Using the Dodge County Jail Law Library and the Lois Law internet case law database, plaintiff researched and learned both proper procedures of filing an appeal of Adelman’s “Decision and Order” and studied the specifications set forth in the United State Code for Rules of Appellate Procedure. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure sets forth specifications for the structure and content of the Appellate Brief. Any competent person who has access to a fully functional Law Library and who can follow directions, can author an “Appellate Brief.” The entire month of August and the last week of July 2014, plaintiff wrote a brief that contained an argument against Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order”, which unlawfully denied plaintiff’s motion to suppress evidence and motion for evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff authored the brief using only the directions specified in the U.S. Code, with absolutely no help from any professional attorney whatsoever. Plaintiff is proud of the tireless work and countless hours he committed to authoring the brief, from the researching and brainstorming process, all the way through the typing up of the brief one page at a time because the government was restricting plaintiff from full access to the Law Library. Plaintiff constructed the brief using letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, footnotes, and most importantly, his own original ideas and ingenuity. Plaintiff Witzlib worked constructing the Appellate Brief, authoring the brief in his cell, then typing up the brief one or two pages at a time in the Dodge County federal holding facility Law Library the entire month of August, 2014. Often plaintiff would find mistakes in punctuation or sentence structure, or come across additional information or case law that supported and strengthened plaintiff’s argument. Then plaintiff would go back and amend the Brief, inserting the information accordingly, to properly strengthen and reinforce his argument. Witzlib receive no assistance from any attorney whatsoever. In fact, the federal panel attorney assigned to plaintiff’s case at the time, told plaintiff that he agreed with the government and threatened to write and “Anders Brief” as he called it, in an attempt to discredit and derail plaintiff Witzlib’s efforts to win the appeal of Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order.” Witzlib was not discouraged by the state licensed federal panel attorney’s threats to discredit plaintiff’s Appellate Brief and plaintiff continued to work on the Brief day and night.

562. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Carr, Santelle, unknown computer technicians and other unknown government entities, functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state officials within the Dodge County Jail and federal holding facility, acting under the color of law and under the colors and authority of the

109 of 191.

United States Federal government, stole plaintiff’s Appellate Brief simultaneously as plaintiff worked on the brief in the Dodge County facility Law Library, typing and printing out one or two pages at a time.

563. Specifically, defendant Carr, functioned with unknown government officials to effectuate the theft of plaintiff’s Appellate Brief, robbing plaintiff of valuable intellectual property and robbing plaintiff of the time, research, effort and tireless work plaintiff put in to authoring the 50 page Appellate Brief from scratch.

564. Plaintiff alleges the value of the stolen Appellate Brief is estimated at (4 weeks x 10hrs./day x $50/hr.) $10,000.00 with an unlimited potential value and of which was actually priceless because plaintiff was drafting the Appellate Brief to counter an unconstitutional court ruling and if the plaintiff’s Appellate Brief would have succeeded with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the evidence collected after the unwarranted search of plaintiff’s home would have been suppressed, plaintiff’s name would have been cleared and the government would have been liable for violating plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights and for falsely arresting and imprisoning plaintiff for over 17 months. What is the value of freedom? What is the value of Liberty? Plaintiff argues the values of freedom and Liberty are priceless. Plaintiff draws the courts attention to the fact that people have died for both freedom and Liberty and that one cannot put a value or price tag on 17 months of time being free. Plaintiff was unlawfully robbed of priceless time and robbed of his Appellate Brief which could have vindicated plaintiff and ultimately cleared plaintiff’s name by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants.

565. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants deliberately stole plaintiff’s intellectual property (Appellate Brief) between the dates of July 21st, 2014, and September 1st, 2014, systematically via electronic data transfer from one computer to another instantaneously. Defendants actions were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens intellectual property and tangible property, protecting the right to work, and protecting citizens from theft by thieves, raiders, pirates and government officials acting in bad faith under the color of law.

566. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions against him of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

567. Under Wisconsin state law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of theft, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice

110 of 191.

through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

K.

Theft.

568. Between the months of May, 2013, and October, 2014, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants acting inside and outside the scope of their official capacities, and acting in concert, jointly, and synergenically with one another and in some instances with state officials, unlawfully stole plaintiff’s property on numerous occasions. Defendants did not have the lawful authority to steal plaintiff’s property that plaintiff bought and paid for and that plaintiff created through the use of intellect, ingenuity, creativity and with knowledge acquired by research, through life experiences, and through education under knowledgeable teachers.

569. For 17 months, defendants intentionally, knowingly, maliciously and willfully demonstrated an unlawful course of conduct by systematically executing numerous thefts of plaintiff’s property. Defendants intentionally disregarded plaintiff’s rights. Defendants knowingly and willfully stole plaintiff’s property, COUNT II. A-J, with full knowledge that their actions were wrong and were in violation of state and federal laws.

570. Defendants and state officials acting jointly and in concert with one another intentionally disregarded plaintiff’s rights by stealing his property.

571. Defendants’ thefts were strategically timed to deliberately damage, derail, and obstruct plaintiff from clearing his name. Defendants’ thefts deprived plaintiff of valuable property and defendants thefts also denied and undermined plaintiff’s right to due process; right of access to the courts; right of access to material evidence; right to effectively represent himself; right to privacy; and deprived plaintiff of Liberty protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. Plaintiff demands justice for the violations of his rights and compensation for the thefts of his property by defendants that were hell bent on prosecuting and convicting plaintiff by any means necessary throughout the entire adjudication process of case 13-CR-99.

572. Defendants actions were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens intellectual property and tangible property; protecting the right to work; and protecting citizens from theft by thieves, raiders, pirates and government officials acting in bad faith under the color of law.

573. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions against him of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law

111 of 191.

and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

574. Under Wisconsin state law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of theft, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

COUNT III.

State Law Slander and Defamation of Character Claim.

575. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-574 above.

A.

Slander and Libel by U.S. Marshals and

Unknown Government Entities.

576. On or about May 29th, 2013, federal U.S. Marshal Carr, and unknown federal defendants slandered plaintiff, portrayed plaintiff’s character in a false light and defamated plaintiff’s character by disclosing false information and false statements to federal prosecutors and state licensed federal panel attorney Cohn. Defendants forwarded a fake written slanderous statement that defendants knew was false, to more than two people, with the specific purpose and intent to slander plaintiff and damage plaintiff’s reputation and how plaintiff’s character was perceived by those people exposed to the false information defendants were fabricating, forwarding, and perpetuating. Defendants’ slander of plaintiff’s character worked to assist defendants in their efforts to prosecute and convict plaintiff by any means necessary. The slander of plaintiff’s character by defendants, which took place on May 29th, 2013, and in the days following, by and through the perpetuation of a false statement affidavit, occurred at the Washington County Jail and at the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin.

577. Defendants Carr, and unknown government entities, all acting jointly and in synergenic cooperation with one another, acted as a vectors, relaying an outrageous slanderous false statement of an unreliable heavily medicated jailhouse informant who was a diagnosed schizophrenic and admitted to hearing voices, against plaintiff for the specific purpose of gaining power over plaintiff and the upper hand and unfair legal leverage against plaintiff in case 13-CR-99. Carr had full knowledge that the informant was unreliable and that the statement was false but used and perpetuated the false statement anyway in a concerted

112 of 191.

effort with Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants to prosecute plaintiff and assist in the prosecution of plaintiff, by any means necessary; and to gain leverage in the case and enhance his own power over the plaintiff’s current life and destiny at that time.

578. Plaintiff was facing fireworks charges and jailhouse rat Lawrence Arnold submitted a false statement where Arnold claimed that plaintiff threatened to “bomb churches.” This vicious, slanderous lie, was perpetuated and relayed by Carr and company to several people in a malicious effort to deliberately discredit and slander plaintiff, portray plaintiff’s character in a false light, and obstruct and derail plaintiff’s efforts to clear his name. See infra COUNT I. D.

579. Defendants deliberate proximate and direct slander of plaintiff and attempts to destroy plaintiff’s good reputation and good character, by knowingly, intentionally, willingly, and maliciously, using false statements to slander plaintiff is a violation of Wisconsin State Law. Plaintiff suffered injury and losses, caused directly and indirectly by defendants’ slander of plaintiff’s character and damage to plaintiff’s reputation and manipulation of how plaintiff’s character was perceived by the court and by unknowing individuals that were exposed to defendants false information. Plaintiff lost opportunities of receiving bail and gaining freedom and plaintiff lost the fair opportunity to attempt to clear his name and be found not guilty. Plaintiff was humiliated by the slanderous information and proximate slander tactics of defendants. Plaintiff was humiliated and stripped of Liberty with respect to due process rights and the right to equal protection under the law. Defendant malicious slander tactics manipulated plaintiff’s federal panel attorneys perceptions of plaintiff’s character and encouraged an indifferent, nonchalant attitude of panel attorneys, who were already loyal the federal government who cut them paychecks, and after being exposed to defendants slanderous false information, became prejudice and bias in favor of the government and reluctant to provide plaintiff with effective counsel; federal panel attorney actually aided in the prosecution of plaintiff.

See Wilmouth statement: I’m going to see to it that you are put in “prison, where you can’t ‘manipulate’ people anymore.”

580. Defendants slander of plaintiff was deliberate and with knowledge that the information used to make the slander attack, “bomb churches”, was false.

581. Defendants’ actions against plaintiff were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens from slanderous attacks against their character by individuals using false untrue information to deliberately damage other individual’s reputations and how those other individuals reputations and personal character is perceived by otherwise unknowing ignorant people exposed to the false information.

582. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions, slander and defamation of plaintiff’s character, against him, of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants

113 of 191.

functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

583. Under Wisconsin State Law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of slander, and who are unlawfully humiliated and have their characters destroyed through defamatory unlawful actions, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

B.

Slander and Libel by Federal Probation Officer S. Mott.

584. On May 29th, 2013, at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin, federal probation officer Mott, slandered and defamated plaintiff’s character and damaged plaintiff’s reputation and humiliated plaintiff by misrepresenting facts within an official pretrial service report. See infra COUNT I. B. The slanderous report, which contained false misrepresented facts, was disclosed and disseminated to more than two people (federal prosecutors, federal judges, federal panel attorneys, the public who had access to the federal court website, and clerks). See and compare Q.12. and Q.14. (specific and exact quotes found in Q.12 document and omitted at this time).

585. Mott’s slander and libel portrayed plaintiff’s character in a false light. Mott’s false information, misrepresented facts, and slander of plaintiff’s character, worked to undermine and damage plaintiff’s life and future because Mott’s report falsely and negatively prejudiced the court and was taken into consideration by the court when making decisions on matters that directly affected plaintiff’s life for the better or for the worse, matters such as bail/bond that directly impacted plaintiff’s life, future, health and overall well being.

586. Defendants’ actions against plaintiff were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens from slanderous attacks against their character by individuals using false untrue information to deliberately damage other individuals’ reputations and how those other individuals’ reputations and personal character is perceived by otherwise unknowing ignorant people exposed to the false information.

587. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions, slander and defamation of plaintiff’s character, against him, of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with

114 of 191.

state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

588. Under Wisconsin State Law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of slander, and who are unlawfully humiliated and have their characters destroyed through defamatory unlawful actions, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

C.

Slander and Libel by Federal Prosecutor

Johnson and Unknown Federal Officials.

589. Between the dates of May 29th, 2013, and the present, federal prosecutor Johnson and unknown federal officials within the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution, in concert with state actors functioning outside the scope of their duties, in bad faith, knowingly, intentionally, maliciously, and willfully, violated Wisconsin Law by using negative, untrue information and false misrepresented facts, and false facts to slander and attack plaintiff’s character, image, reputation and integrity.

590. Between the dates of May 29th, 2013, and August 27th, 2013, at the Milwaukee Federal Courthouse, Johnson verbally slandered plaintiff with false untrue statements to state licensed federal panel attorneys Cohn and Wilmouth. Johnson directly told two or more people that plaintiff was “dangerous” and had “mental issues.” Johnson proactively slandered plaintiff with false information and lies that portrayed plaintiff’s character in a false light, in a malicious effort to ultimately effectuate a conviction of plaintiff by discouraging plaintiff’s counsel from effectively representing plaintiff, thus denying plaintiff access to the courts, denying plaintiff of his Sixth Amendment Constitutional Right, maliciously prosecuting plaintiff, and ultimately gaining more power over plaintiff’s life and destiny and gaining the upper hand in the prosecution of plaintiff as the investigation and adjudication of case 13-Cr-99 moved forward.

591. Johnson and unknown federal defendants malicious slander campaign, both behind the scenes and in the public record, against the plaintiff, was unlawful under Wisconsin State Law. Johnson used false statements and fraudulent affidavits and verbal manipulation tactics to slander and defamate plaintiff’s character; portraying plaintiff’s character in a false light to more than two people which aided defendants in their efforts to prosecute plaintiff by any means necessary. Defendants’ actions against plaintiff were taken with intentional disregard for the rights of plaintiff.

115 of 191.

592. Defendants’ actions against plaintiff were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens from slanderous attacks against their character by individuals using false untrue information to deliberately damage other individuals’ reputations and how those other individuals’ reputations and personal character is perceived by otherwise unknowing ignorant people exposed to the false information.

593. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions, slander and defamation of plaintiff’s character, against him, of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

594. Under Wisconsin State Law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of slander, and who are unlawfully humiliated and have their characters destroyed through defamatory unlawful actions and false slanderous statements, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

D.

Slander by Federal Panel Attorney Cohn.

595. On June 11th, 2013, at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin, state licensed federal panel attorney Cohn slandered plaintiff at a status hearing. Cohn stated in open court, publically, that plaintiff had “mental issues”, obviously implying the soundness of plaintiff’s mind was in question, despite no factual evidence or proof to support defendant’s statement. Federal panel attorney Cohn had already been fired by plaintiff at that time and was not authorized to slander plaintiff in open court. Cohn had also taken a $5,000.00 retainer from plaintiff and refused to actually do standard legal work on plaintiff’s case or on behalf of plaintiff. Federal panel attorney Cohn’s statement to the court on June 11th, 2013, was false, and was intentionally asserted in a malicious attempt to slander plaintiff and manipulate the courts and public’s perception of plaintiff’s character and portray plaintiff’s character in a false light. Cohn’s slanderous “mental issues” statement prejudiced the court and was heard by two or more people and damaged plaintiff’s reputation and humiliated plaintiff and was false. A week earlier, before Cohn made the slanderous statement, implying plaintiff had mental issues or that the soundness of plaintiff’s mind was in question, plaintiff fired Cohn for ineffectively representing him and requested that Cohn return a portion of the $5,000.00 retainer that plaintiff paid Cohn. Cohn refused to return any of the retainer. Cohn told plaintiff that he was charging $300.00/hr. and had used up all of the $5,000.00 retainer. Cohn refused to take basic steps on

116 of 191.

plaintiff’s behalf like challenging the evidence obtained by the government through an unwarranted search of plaintiff’s home after plaintiff asserted his Constitutional Rights. Cohn refused to effectively represent plaintiff, and accordingly, was fired by plaintiff. After plaintiff fired Cohn, and requested a portion of the $5,000.00 refunded, Cohn appeared in open court without plaintiff present and slandered plaintiff’s character and attacked plaintiff’s reputation and humiliated plaintiff with a false unfounded statement. Defendant’s statement was made in bad faith with malicious intent to deceive and was made in a concerted effort to portray plaintiff’s character in a false light before the court, the public, and in the court record.

596. Cohn’s slander of plaintiff was a manipulative retaliatory action with the purpose of derailing and obstructing plaintiff’s efforts to clear plaintiff’s name and cover up his own laziness and ineffectiveness of counsel and his own incompetence.

597. Cohn’s slanderous false statement, that prejudiced the court and deceived all those exposed to the false statement, damaged plaintiff’s reputation, and was a violation of Wisconsin State Law. Defendants’ actions against plaintiff were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens from slanderous attacks against their character by individuals using false untrue information to deliberately damage other individuals’ reputations and how those other individuals’ reputations and personal character is perceived by otherwise unknowing ignorant people exposed to the false information.

598. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions, slander and defamation of plaintiff’s character, against him, of Cohn and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

599. Under Wisconsin State Law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of slander, and who are unlawfully humiliated and have their characters destroyed through defamatory unlawful actions and false slanderous statements, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

E.

Slander and Libel by Federal Panel Attorney Wilmouth.

600. On August 27th, 2013, at a scheduled status hearing in Milwaukee Wisconsin at the federal courthouse, and in more than one isolated incidents between the August 27th, 2013, status hearing and December 20th, 2013, state licensed federal

117 of 191.

panel attorney Wilmouth, maliciously, condescendedly, intentionally, and in bad faith, slandered and defamated the character and reputation of plaintiff. Wilmouth slandered plaintiff with false statements, false facts, and untruthful letters and correspondences with local attorneys and judicial officials at both the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin and in correspondence with the Shawano County Clerk of Courts office and Shawano Circuit Court.

601. On August 27th, 2013, at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee in the attorney/defendant interview room in the receiving area of the federal courthouse, state licensed federal panel attorney Wilmouth told plaintiff that he was moving the court to have plaintiff committed for a competency evaluation and that there was nothing plaintiff could do about it. Plaintiff had attempted to fire or remove Wilmouth as appointed counsel for the entire month of August. Federal panel attorney Wilmouth was aware that plaintiff had wrote the court letters trying to fire him. Wilmouth showed up to meet with plaintiff on August 1st, 2013, very late in the evening and appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance. Plaintiff, on August 27th, 2013, after realizing his free will and power of making his own decisions that would affect his future had been stripped away from him by shrewd lawyers and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Government officials, quietly submitted to the total control mentality of Thomas Wilmouth and Eastern District Federal Governmental Institution defendants because plaintiff made the decision at that time that resistance was futile and that it was in plaintiff’s best interest to go along with the powers that were in control even if plaintiff did not agree. Plaintiff feared further retaliatory actions against him by Thomas Wilmouth and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants after meeting with state licensed federal panel attorney Wilmouth prior to the August 27th, 2013, status hearing at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin.

602. At the status hearing Wilmouth slandered plaintiff in open court. Wilmouth moved to have plaintiff “committed”, by force, with or without the consent of plaintiff. Plaintiff was in a helpless, powerless, situation and had no choice but to go along with the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants dictations.

603. Defendant Wilmouth slandered and humiliated plaintiff by attacking the integrity of plaintiff’s character and the soundness of plaintiff’s mind. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants malicious actions were in response to plaintiff’s numerous attempts to fire him over the month of August, 2013. There were no facts or evidence to support defendants’ efforts to have plaintiff committed. In fact, any competent person who examines the record of the last year of plaintiff’s life carefully, will conclude that all facts indicate mental health and wellness, not mental illness. Furthermore, the last psychiatrist plaintiff was examined by, found plaintiff to be competent and not suffering from a mental disease or defect. Plaintiff verbally told defendants that he was not suffering from any “mental illness”, that he had been found sane, competent and intelligent by a professional psychiatrist in a prior case and that he was not on

118 of 191.

“medications” as was alleged (falsely) by the informants who told numerous other lies to police in addition to the “off his medications” lie. Defendants had full knowledge that there were no facts supporting a commitment of plaintiff, nonetheless, committed plaintiff anyway in their efforts to prosecute and convict plaintiff and unlawfully obtain greater levels of power, authority and dominance over plaintiff to satisfy their own egos, impose their own will, and make it that much more difficult for plaintiff to ultimately clear his name via the ongoing adjudication of case 13-CR-99.

604. Plaintiff was slandered by state licensed federal panel attorney Wilmouth, who slandered plaintiff to two or more people in two separate judicial court venues. Wilmouth wrote letters to Shawano County slandering and humiliating plaintiff and slandered and humiliated plaintiff at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee and in the Milwaukee area. Wilmouth used slander tactics when he contacted Shawano County officials and demanded the disclosure of plaintiff’s medical records without plaintiff’s consent. Wilmouth slandered and unlawfully obtained plaintiff’s medical records from Shawano County, only to find out that the Shawano County psychiatrist determined the plaintiff was not suffering from a mental disease or defect; to Wilmouth’s sha-grin. Defendant belittled, humiliated, and slandered plaintiff to numerous entities, telling them that plaintiff had “mental” problems in an effort to impose his will and get what he wanted; and because he was a powermonger who fancied having control over plaintiff’s life and future.

605. On September 5th, 2013, defendant Wilmouth told plaintiff that he was going to see to it that plaintiff was imprisoned where plaintiff couldn’t quote “manipulate people anymore.” Defendant verbally attacked plaintiff at this meeting, calling plaintiff a “paranoid schizophrenic” and calling plaintiff a “p***k”, unfounded allegations that were not true. Wilmouth also told plaintiff, “you can’t fire me” and was still angry that plaintiff Witzlib had attempted to fire him the entire month of August, 2013. Defendant Wilmouth was hostile to plaintiff and to plaintiff’s best interests at that time. Defendant Wilmouth’s slanderous statements and writings, correspondences with the court and clerks offices of two separate judicial venues, were intentional and malicious. Defendant’s slander was unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law. Wilmouth’s intentional and malicious slander and libel prejudiced the court and defamated plaintiff’s character in violation of Wisconsin State Law.

606. Wilmouth’s slanderous false statements and writings, prejudiced the court, and deceived all those exposed to the false information Wilmouth asserted and perpetuated. Wilmouth’s slander damaged plaintiff’s reputation, and was a violation of Wisconsin State Law. Defendant’s actions against plaintiff were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens from slanderous attacks against their character by individuals using false untrue information to deliberately damage other individuals’ reputations and how those other individuals’ reputations and personal character is perceived by otherwise unknowing ignorant people exposed to the false information.

119 of 191.

607. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions, slander and defamation of plaintiff’s character, against him, of Wilmouth and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

608. Under Wisconsin State Law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of slander, and who are unlawfully humiliated and have their characters destroyed through defamatory unlawful actions and false slanderous statements, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

F.

Slander and Libel by U.S. Marshals Carr,

Burton, and unknown Deputy Marshals.

609. On January 9th, 2013, U.S. Federal Marshal defendants, in response to plaintiff’s demand for the return of stolen property, artwork and poems that were stolen on January 8th, 2013, by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, unlawfully, and using excessive force, manacled plaintiff in the bullpen area of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin. See infra 107 and 108.

610. Deputy Marshals’ then made false statements that they knew were false and with the intent to deceive and slander plaintiff to federal prosecutors who subsequently slandered plaintiff with the false information provided to them by Marshals, before the Eastern District of Wisconsin Court in an unlawful attack against plaintiff’s character and in a manipulative effort to distort the record of case 13-CR-99 in favor of the government and for the purpose of prosecuting and ultimately convicting plaintiff by any means necessary.

611. Defendants slanderous statements were deliberately asserted to two or more people and were made with the malicious intent to damage plaintiff’s character and reputation and damage how plaintiff’s character was and is perceived by those people exposed to the false information. The slanderous statements by defendants, stating that the plaintiff needed to be “restrained” and was disruptive, and hostile, were false statements by defendants, asserted in bad faith and with the deliberate intent to portray plaintiff’s character in a false light.

612. Plaintiff was proximately humiliated and suffered injury and loss and damage to his life, future, and opportunities to clear his name by the slander of Eastern

120 of 191.

District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Federal prosecutors used the false slanderous statements by U.S. Marshals deputies to gain more power in the courtroom and the upper hand moving forward through the adjudication of case 13-CR-99. The court decided in favor of the government and against the plaintiff in every major pretrial motion that was critical to plaintiff’s case and denied plaintiff bail/bond. The slanderous statements fabricated with false facts, misrepresented facts, and untrue statements, were used by federal prosecutors, functioning in synergenic cooperation with federal Marshals defendants, to maliciously prosecute plaintiff and deprive plaintiff of Liberty.

613. The slanderous false statements of U.S. Marshals against plaintiff, had a negative impact on plaintiff’s current life at that time and negatively affected plaintiff’s future.

614. U.S. Marshals slanderous false statements, proximately prejudiced the court, and deceived all those exposed to the false information U.S. Marshals asserted and fabricated. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants slander damaged plaintiff’s reputation, caused plaintiff mental anguish, and was a violation of Wisconsin State Law. Defendants’ actions against plaintiff were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens from slanderous attacks against their character by individuals using false untrue information to deliberately damage other individuals’ reputations and how those other individuals reputations and personal character is perceived by otherwise unknowing ignorant people exposed to the false information.

615. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions, slander and defamation of plaintiff’s character, against him, of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

616. Under Wisconsin State Law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of slander, and who are unlawfully humiliated and have their characters destroyed through defamatory unlawful actions and false slanderous statements, and their Constitutional Rights violated, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

121 of 191.

G.

Slander by Federal Prosecutor Johnson.

617. On January 9th, 2013, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendant and federal prosecutor Johnson, maliciously slandered plaintiff in open court to two or more than two people with false untrue statements that she knew were false and untrue or recklessly disregarded the truthfulness of the statements because the statements enhanced her power and assisted in the prosecution efforts to convict and imprison the plaintiff, which was her ultimate goal, by any means necessary. See infra 108.

618. Defendant slandered plaintiff at a critical time in the case, when plaintiff was considering accepting the government’s first plea agreement offer. Defendants’ slanderous untrue statements portrayed plaintiff’s character in a false light and were intentionally made by the defendants in bad faith and with the intent to deceive.

619. Defendants’ slanderous statements prejudiced the court. See infra 109. The slanderous false statements of Johnson against plaintiff, had a negative impact on plaintiff’s current life at that time and negatively affected plaintiff’s future.

620. Johnson’s slanderous false statements prejudiced the court, humiliated plaintiff, and deceived all those exposed to the false information Johnson asserted and perpetuated. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants slander damaged plaintiff’s reputation, caused plaintiff mental anguish, humiliated plaintiff, and was a violation of Wisconsin State Law. Defendants’ actions against plaintiff were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens from slanderous attacks against their character by individuals using false untrue information to deliberately damage other individuals’ reputations and how those other individuals’ reputations and personal character is perceived by otherwise unknowing ignorant people exposed to the false information.

621. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions, slander, and defamation of plaintiff’s character, against him, of Johnson and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

622. Under Wisconsin State Law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of slander, and who are unlawfully humiliated and have their characters destroyed through defamatory unlawful actions and false slanderous statements, and their Constitutional Rights violated, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this

122 of 191.

time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law (the defendants systematically denied plaintiff the court transcripts so the exact quotes are unavailable to the plaintiff at this time . . . omitted).

H.

Proximate Slander by Unknown Jailhouse

Informants Acting in Concert with Marshals.

623. Between the dates of April 30th, 2013, and October 21st, 2014, U.S. Marshals, unknown Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, other government entities, and jailhouse informants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other, systematically slandered plaintiff by releasing slanderous statements and slanderous lies that were maliciously intended to destroy the character and reputation of plaintiff and diminish and negatively manipulate how plaintiff’s character and personal integrity was perceived by vast numbers of people, all in a concerted joint effort to maliciously prosecute plaintiff, convict plaintiff by any means necessary, and deprive plaintiff of property, freedom, opportunities and Liberty.

624. Federal defendant Carr and unknown government entities and jailhouse rats, proximately facilitated the slander campaign that involved the internet and computers which disseminated false slanderous statements attacking and slandering plaintiff’s character, to more than two people. Defendants slander campaign was deliberately orchestrated for the purpose of assisting Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants with the prosecution of plaintiff and to effectuate a conviction by any means necessary.

625. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants slander campaign, systematically waged against plaintiff, was unlawful. Defendants’ actions against plaintiff were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens from slander attacks against their character by individuals using false untrue information to deliberately damage other individuals’ reputations and how those other individuals’ reputations and personal character is perceived by otherwise unknowing ignorant people exposed to the false information.

626. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions, slander and defamation of plaintiff’s character, deliberately orchestrated against plaintiff, by Carr, and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert state actors, computer technicians, and jailhouse rats (informants), acting in their personal and official capacities, under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

123 of 191.

I.

Slander, Libel and Defamation of Character by

Eastern District of Wisconsin

Federal Governmental Institution Defendants.

627. Between the dates of April 30th, 2013, and October 13th, 2014, defendants unlawfully slandered plaintiff. See COUNT III. A-H.

628. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants slandered plaintiff in open court and through the use of computers to two or more people. Plaintiff has formally requested and demanded court transcripts over 8 times and has been denied material evidence (transcripts) by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Adelman, Sanfilippo, Dietrich, Stawski and John S.

629. Pleadings A-H, as a result of defendants obstructions of justice, lack a multitude of exact specific quotes that certainly would have been included in the foregoing pleadings accordingly pursuant to law. Exact quotes certainly would have strengthened the legitimacy of the foregoing pleadings in the eyes of the court. Despite being deprived of material evidence by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants systematic obstructions, plaintiff does have numerous affidavits in his records and witnesses in court who were present at the time of the slander and who witnessed the unlawful slander campaign, manipulation, and malicious attacks against plaintiff’s character and reputation by defendants; attacks that were intentionally orchestrated against plaintiff in bad faith to deliberately harm plaintiff; attacks in violation of Wisconsin State Law.

630. Plaintiff suffered injury, losses, and damage, resulting from and directly caused by, defendants untrue, unlawful slander attacks. See COUNT III. A-H. Plaintiff suffered humiliation, extreme emotional distress and mental anguish resulting from defendants slander attacks against him. Plaintiff was forced under the control of a prejudiced court and was subsequently deprived of due process rights and of Liberty by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants unlawful slander attacks against plaintiff. The court denied every single pretrial motion plaintiff submitted and denied plaintiff bail directly resulting from the slander attacks by Eastern District of Wisconsin defendants.

631. Plaintiff’s physical health was also damaged as a consequence of the slander attack because plaintiff was forced to live in unhealthy jail settings where he did not have access to exercise or medical as a result of being unlawfully denied reasonable bail a result of the slander attacks amongst other reasons.

632. Defendants’ actions against plaintiff were unlawful and in violation of Wisconsin State Law protecting citizens from slanderous attacks against their character by individuals using false untrue information and misrepresented facts to

124 of 191.

deliberately damage other individuals’ reputations and how those other individuals’ reputations and personal character is perceived by otherwise unknowing ignorant people exposed to the false information.

633. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions, slander and defamation of plaintiff’s character, deliberately orchestrated against plaintiff by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government.

634. Under Wisconsin State Law and established case law precedent, citizens who are victims of slander, and who are unlawfully humiliated and have their characters destroyed through defamatory unlawful actions and false slanderous statements, and their Constitutional Rights violated, have the right under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine to access the courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries they suffered and the losses they incurred; and for wrongs and unlawful actions against them. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

COUNT IV.

Denial of Reasonable Bail Claim.

635. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-634 above.

636. On Friday May 3rd, 2013, plaintiff made an initial appearance in Washington County Circuit Court in West Bend Wisconsin. The court set bail at $25,000.00. Plaintiff did not have any money and requested a signature bond at that time.

637. On May 21st, 2013, plaintiff was indicted by the federal government. The federal government never offered plaintiff bond and detained plaintiff without bond from May 29th, 2013, through October 21st, 2014. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, who were in control of plaintiff’s body, by and through the decisions they made and the power they possessed by virtue of federal law and under the colors and authority of the United States Government, never established bond or set bail for plaintiff despite plaintiff’s plea of “not guilty.” Plaintiff maintained his innocence yet was denied bail/bond by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants.

638. On June 17th, 2014, the government revised the original plea offer to recommend a sentence of 24 months which was still and excessive amount of time in comparison to individuals indicted under the exact same charges and U.S. Code infractions and the sentences those individuals received. See United States v. Droganes.

125 of 191.

639. On July 14th, 2014, plaintiff was approached by two federal Marshals deputies “Burton” and “Doug.” These deputy Marshals told plaintiff that if plaintiff requested bail, defendant Adelman would grant bail. On July 15th, 2014, plaintiff encountered and shared a brief exchange of words with two separate Dodge County Jail officials “Gabel” and “Riter.” Both of these correctional officers told plaintiff that if plaintiff would have requested bail plaintiff would have been released. All four of these federal and state officials, acting in concert with one another, advised plaintiff to request bail, all within a 24 hour time frame.

640. At visiting, on or about July 20th, 2014, plaintiff told his mom that 4 different government officials told him to request bail/bond. Plaintiff told his mom that at the advice and instruction of government officials, plaintiff was going to request bond from the court in hopes to be released while he fought the charges against him and maintained his innocence.

641. Plaintiff, at the advice, instruction, assurance, and direction of 4 different state and federal government officials, submits a request for bail/bond to the court. Plaintiff requests the bail by mail in a letter form and directly delivers a request in letter form to the court on July 29th, 2014, addressed to defendant Adelman with closed copies to the federal prosecutors at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin. During the hearing, federal prosecutor Johnson requests a recess in the middle of the hearing to discuss the plea agreement with plaintiff. Johnson, who is in possession of plaintiff’s letter requesting bail at that time, tells plaintiff during the approximate 15 minute recess that if plaintiff pleads guilty and accepts the government’s plea agreement at that time, the government would allow plaintiff out on bail to await sentencing. Plaintiff tells Johnson that he will compromise and plead nolo contendere. Plaintiff requests a conditional plea that will allow plaintiff to appeal defendant Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order” denying two of plaintiff’s critical pretrial motions. Johnson becomes visibly agitated and visibly and noticeably angered at plaintiff’s reasonable request to appeal the Adelman’s ruling which was unlawful in the opinion of the defense. Johnson storms into the judge’s chambers after plaintiff refuses to plead guilty. A few minutes later, Johnson, Dietrich, and Adelman, emerge from the Adelman’s chambers. Next, Adelman proceeds to read a written statement denying plaintiff’s request for bail. Adelman reads a false slanderous statement into the court record which misrepresents facts, reasserts false misrepresented facts already contained in the court record and entered into the court record by fraudulent actions and false statements of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants in regards to plaintiff’s record and personal history. Adelman subsequently denies plaintiff bail using the false statement and misrepresented facts to justify and support his unfounded and unlawful decision of denying plaintiff bail. Adelman and federal prosecutors strong armed plaintiff and used plaintiff’s Constitutional Right to bail as a manipulative form of legal leverage and essentially made bail a condition of a plea agreement attempting to force a plea of guilt in exchange for bond. Adelman and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, functioning jointly, and

126 of 191.

in concert with one another, were essentially strong arming plaintiff, using bail/bond (freedom!), or the denial of, as a manipulative necessary condition to induce and force a plea of guilt; unlawfully.

642. Plaintiff was incarcerated by the government for petty fireworks, half the size of your index finger. The state set bail at $25,000.00 and the federal government refused to set bail unless the plaintiff plead guilty, in which case Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants offered to allow plaintiff out of jail on a signature bond to await sentencing.

643. Extorting a plea of guilt by using plaintiff’s Constitutional Right to bail as the leverage to force the plea of guilt is unlawful.

644. If plaintiff signed the plea agreement and pled guilty on July 29th, 2014, plaintiff was actually facing only a month or two of incarceration if that, and had already served all of his time in jail required under the plea offer of 24 months by the government. Plaintiff was not actually facing any more time in jail, considering the final 6 months of a federal sentence is served in a half way house and considering the good time received by federal inmates for not acquiring any new charges while incarcerated. Plaintiff had already served the vast majority of his sentence if not the entire sentence.

645. The court was unreasonable to deny plaintiff bail at this point in time and the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants actions of using plaintiff’s Constitutional Right to bail as leverage to force a plea of guilt was unconstitutional.

646. The Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ actions of denying plaintiff bail on July 29th, 2014, at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin, were unreasonable, unlawful, and unconstitutional.

647. Plaintiff was unlawfully denied bail by the court. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants unreasonable, unlawful, and unconstitutional use of the governments plea agreement, and whether or not the plaintiff signed the plea agreement, as the determining factor on whether or not to grant the plaintiff bail, after plaintiff had already served nearly all, if not all of his sentence at the time plaintiff requested bail, which was recommended by the government under the plea agreement, was unlawful and a violation of plaintiff’s right to bail protected under the Article One section Six of the Wisconsin Constitution and under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

648. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants violated Wisconsin State Law and the United States Constitution by refusing to set bail from May 29th, 2013, through July 29th, 2014, and then at that time, forcing plaintiff to sign a plea agreement in exchange for bail/bond; when there was still no proof plaintiff actually committed a crime charged in the indictment

127 of 191.

by the courts own admission (there is “no way of knowing” if all the fireworks were “duds” or not).

649. Plaintiff was unlawfully denied bail by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants from May 29th, 2013, through October 21st, 2014.

650. Plaintiff had the right to a bail/bond whether it be no money posted (signature), or whether it be $100, $500, $10,000, $25,000 or a million dollars. Plaintiff had the right to a reasonable bail for the relatively petty crime of allegedly possessing and producing fireworks at workbench in his basement. Especially when federal prosecutors are telling plaintiff that they will let him out of jail on bond, but only if he pleads guilty. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants intentionally disregarded and violated the rights of plaintiff.

651. The defendants’ refusal to establish a reasonable bail was unlawful. There were no facts supporting the denial of a reasonable bail; the state court set a bail; federal prosecutors told plaintiff that he would be released if he plead guilty; and plaintiff plead guilty and was immediately granted bail on October 21st, 2014. The state court complied with the law under both the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions, yet the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, did not, and exhibited the attitude and have demonstrated a course conduct of having an all powerful, we can do whatever we want mentality.

652. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ actions against plaintiff violated plaintiff’s right to a reasonable bail protected under Article One section Six of the Wisconsin Constitution and under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

653. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions executed against him by defendants. Defendants systematically denied plaintiff bail. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, violated plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff was forced to live in unhealthy jail conditions by the denial of bail. Plaintiff suffered muscle atrophy for lack of exercise. Plaintiff was denied medical care and when he went to receive medical care was stabbed FIVE times by a syringe of a jail nurse that caused plaintiff injury. Plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress in the jail setting and mental anguish. Plaint was forced to live with violent criminals and criminal charged with heinous crimes that were terrible.

654. Under Wisconsin and United States Constitutions, citizens accused of crime who have plead not guilty have the right to a reasonable bail. Under the Wisconsin

128 of 191.

Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine, plaintiff has the right to access the Wisconsin courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries plaintiff suffered and the losses plaintiff incurred for wrongs and unlawful actions against him and the violations of plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights. Defendants deprived plaintiff of Liberty. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

COUNT V.

Denial and Deprivation of Right to Counsel Claim.

655. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-654 above.

656. Under Article One sections One, Three, and Seven, of the Wisconsin Constitution, and under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, plaintiff has a constitutionally protected right to competent and effective assistance of counsel (State v. Trawitzki, (2001) . . . ). Plaintiff has a right to counsel, under the Constitution of the United States and under the Wisconsin State Constitution, who will make decisions with the best interest of plaintiff in mind.

657. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with one another and jointly in concert with private individuals and state actors, intentionally denied and deprived plaintiff of the right to counsel and plaintiff’s right to self representation.

658. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Adelman, Stiller, Joseph, Wilmouth, Hunt, Cohn, Santelle, Kwaterski, Johnson, Kanter, Sanfilippo, John S., Stawski and Dietrich, systematically and unlawfully, acting in bad faith and with intentional disregard for plaintiff’s rights, intentionally denied and deprived plaintiff of his right to counsel protected under Article One section Seven of the Wisconsin Constitution and protected under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution; thus depriving plaintiff of Liberty.

659. Private state licensed federal panel attorney Cohn refused to provide plaintiff with effective assistance of counsel from on or about May 10th, 2013, through approximately June 6th, 2013, when Cohn was fired by plaintiff for deliberately refusing to effectively represent plaintiff. Federal attorney Cohn refused to take basic steps every reasonable attorney would have taken under the same circumstances and conditions. Cohn had a long time (years) personal and business relationship with federal courthouse defendants and shared loyalties with them. Cohn refused to challenge the validity of the original search, the warrant, the indictment, and refused to challenge the legality and validity of the evidence derived/obtained from an unwarranted search of plaintiff’s home by police. Police attempted to obtain a warrant and did not obtain one and plaintiff asserted his Constitutional Rights in the driveway of his residence. Police initially

129 of 191.

justified the search by insisting that plaintiff did not pay rent and therefore plaintiff’s assertion of his Constitutional Rights protecting him from unwarranted searches was moot. Police were wrong and Cohn refused to challenge the evidence being used to prosecute plaintiff which was unlawfully obtained. Federal panel attorney Coon took actions such as waiving the preliminary hearing, slandered plaintiff’s good character in open court, and refused to do any standard legal work or legal research on the case. Cohn’s first priority was not fighting for the rights of plaintiff and fighting to clear plaintiff’s name, Cohn’s first priority was money and extracting the most possible money out of plaintiff as possible while at the same time maintaining a comfortable cozy relationship with Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants who had cut him past paychecks and colluded with him on past cases.

660. Between the dates of July 2nd, and July 29th, 2013, plaintiff officially represented himself under pro se status. Over the course of that time period defendants pushed for trial scheduled for July 29th, 2013. Plaintiff could not effectively investigate and prepare for a trial in three short weeks. Not even a professional attorney with full access legal resources could effectively investigate and prepare for trial in 2-3 weeks, let alone the plaintiff who was incarcerated in a federal holding facility that lacked a functional Law Library, had no money for trial preparation materials, and was being denied access to material evidence by federal prosecutors (plaintiff was denied access to the data on his computer for over a YEAR after the original incident when the computer was seized).

661. July 2013, defendants obstructed plaintiff’s ability to represent himself by attempting to force plaintiff into trial when they knew that he could not effectively prepare in such a short period of time. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Santelle, Johnson, Kanter, and Kwaterski, sent plaintiff fraudulent discovery evidence and material video evidence that would not play or was incompatible with the Dodge County Jail computers.

662. Defendants denied and deprived plaintiff the ability to effectively represent himself by intentionally obstruction and stopping plaintiff’s ability to investigate case 13-CR-99, by denying plaintiff access to material evidence (two videos), by denying plaintiff access to exculpatory evidence for over a year (Gateway computer data), and by infiltrating the discovery with vast amounts of fraudulent alien data and information, bogus material data. Defendant’s intentionally obstructed and deprived plaintiff of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and plaintiff’s right to self representation by systematically and deliberately obstructing, stopping, and stonewalling plaintiff from access to material evidence and standard procedural accommodations (continuance/adjournment). Defendants systematic deliberate actions against plaintiff, who was in a powerless situation, made it impossible for pro se plaintiff to effectively represent himself and stopped plaintiff’s efforts to complete the investigation of case 13-CR-99. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ actions against plaintiff were

130 of 191.

intentional, willful, and malicious, and were taken with intentional disregard for the rights of plaintiff.

663. On July 26th, August 2nd, August 16th, 2013, plaintiff was deprived of counsel by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Stiller, Adelman, Joseph and Wilmouth when Stiller specifically selected state attorney Thomas Wilmouth off of the federal panel (7/26); Adelman appointed Wilmouth as plaintiff’s counsel (8/2); and Joseph re-affirmed and appointed Wilmouth as plaintiff’s counsel (8/16). Plaintiff was denied the right to counsel the entire time plaintiff was forced under the authority of federal panel attorney Wilmouth, from on or about July 23rd, 2013, through December 20th, 2013. Wilmouth was never taken on as counsel by plaintiff. Wilmouth showed up to visit plaintiff late in the evening of August 1st, 2013, and appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance. Wilmouth behaved erratically at that time and made bizarre off handed comments that had nothing to do with plaintiff’s case. Wilmouth also complained about being swamped with cases and told the defendant he would have to wait a few weeks before Wilmouth could begin working on the case. Plaintiff was in the middle of attempting to conduct an investigation of the case 13-CR-99 in an effort to clear his name and get out of jail as soon as possible. Plaintiff was not going to “wait a few weeks” for Wilmouth who was taking on too many cases at once (8 cases Wilmouth claimed to be on at that time, Wilmouth even admitted that he took on too many cases at that time, yet refused to withdraw). The entire month of August federal panel attorney Wilmouth refused and declined all phone calls from plaintiff, despite telling plaintiff at the initial meeting on August 1st, 2013, that plaintiff could call him from the Dodge County Jail phone and that the government had established a phone account that plaintiff could used to talk with his attorney Wilmouth. See Dodge County Jail phone records. Plaintiff wrote letters to the court attempting to fire Wilmouth the entire month of August. Plaintiff Witzlib declared independence from Wilmouth in early August yet plaintiff’s declaration of independence from Wilmouth was not recognized by the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. At a meeting between Wilmouth and Witzlib on September 5th, 2013, Wilmouth told plaintiff that Wilmouth was going to see to it that plaintiff was locked away in federal prison where plaintiff couldn’t “manipulate” people, which according to Wilmouth was what plaintiff was doing somehow from plaintiff’s powerless, helpless, situation of being locked in a government facility with no money and no assistance of any kind. At the September 5th, 2014, meeting, Wilmouth verbally attacked plaintiff calling plaintiff abusive names that were untrue, inaccurately depicting plaintiff’s character (“p***k”, “paranoid schizophrenic”). Federal panel attorney Wilmouth was outspokenly hostile to plaintiff himself, plaintiff’s best interests, and plaintiff’s goal and proactive efforts to clear his name and regain his freedom.

664. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants intentionally deprived plaintiff of his Sixth Amendment right to competent and effective counsel by forcing a hostile verbally abusive federal panel attorney onto plaintiff’s case and then refusing to remove that attorney who was outspokenly

131 of 191.

hostile to plaintiff’s best interests after plaintiff, who had been determined to be competent, expressed his wish to proceed pro se moving forward in the case, and assertively and respectfully declared independence from hostile Wilmouth. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants intentionally denied and deprived plaintiff of the right to counsel protected under Article One section Seven of the Wisconsin Constitution and protected under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution by appointing and then forcing a state licensed federal panel attorney onto plaintiff’s case against plaintiff’s will who was outspokenly hostile to plaintiff’s best interests, who refused to accept phone calls the entire month of August (see phone records), and who even threatened plaintiff that he was going to assist in the prosecution and see to it that plaintiff was imprisoned! Defendants systematically deprived plaintiff of the right to counsel the entire time hostile Wilmouth was ineffectively representing plaintiff, from approximately July 23rd-26th, 2013, when Wilmouth filed the “Notice of Appearance” to approximately December 20th, 2013, after Wilmouth moved to withdraw and was relieved of his appointment by the court.

665. Between the dates of December 20th, 2013, and August 1st, 2014, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Adelman, Sanfilippo, Dietrich, Johnson, Santelle, Kanter, Kwaterski, and Carr, intentionally deprived plaintiff of his Sixth Amendment right to self representation by obstructing, restricting, transferring, and denying plaintiff access to basic legal resources, material evidence, standard legal resources, standard legal documents, and standard procedural information that every attorney has access to. Out of spite, bad faith, and as a malicious retaliatory gesture/action, plaintiff was essentially shunned by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants from December 20th, 2013, through August 1st, 2014. Over this time frame defendants selectively picked and choosed when they would recognize plaintiff as a legitimate member of “the courtroom workgroup” and when they would not. Defendants’ retaliated against plaintiff for plaintiff’s firing two hostile federal panel attorneys Cohn and Wilmouth by simply refusing recognize plaintiff as a legitimate member of the courtroom workgroup. Defendants intentionally discriminated against plaintiff due to his pro se status and denied plaintiff equal protection; class of one discrimination. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants took deliberate malicious steps to obstruct and deprive plaintiff from having the ability to effectively represent himself and did effectively STOP plaintiff altogether from effectively representing himself and from investigating and completing the investigation of case 13-CR-99.

666. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Adelman, Sanfilippo, and Dietrich, denied and refused to disclose the district court docket for case 13-CR-99 United States v. Bodie Witzlib from December 21st, 2013, through March 12th, 2014, after plaintiff wrote 13 letters requesting the district court docket. Adelman, Dietrich, Sanfilippo, Stawski and John S. refused to disclose the official court transcripts, even after 9 proper requests, demands and orders for the transcripts pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedure. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants absolutely

132 of 191.

obstructed plaintiff from effectively representing himself in two separate cases by denying plaintiff access to the district court docket and access to the court transcripts which were material evidence and required by the defense with respect to preparing case 13-CR-99 for trial.

667. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants shunned and excluded plaintiff and refused to correspond with plaintiff or communicate outside the brief encounters in the courtroom before status hearings. Federal prosecutors denied plaintiff access to material evidence (search warrant video and video of alleged firework production) for over a year; evidence which was listed in the government’s “case-in-chief” that was therefore admittedly material.

668. Federal Marshal Carr, and state actors jointly functioning in concert with each other, proximately seized plaintiff’s legal records and actually stole plaintiff’s legal and medical records! Carr, and government defendants, and entities functioning in synergenic cooperation with Carr, in an orchestrated effort to stop plaintiff from having the ability to effectively represent himself, seized plaintiff’s motion to suppress evidence when plaintiff was halfway finished typing it and never gave it back. Carr authorized the move of plaintiff out of a facility with a Law Library; a strategic transfer of plaintiff to deliberately deny plaintiff the right to self representation protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. Carr and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, who were “all on the same page”, regarding the efforts to prosecute plaintiff and effectuate a conviction by any means necessary, facilitated the move of plaintiff out of a facility with a Law Library into two subsequent facilities with no Law Libraries for nearly 8 weeks; deliberately. From April 4th, 2014, through June 5th, 2014, plaintiff was imprisoned in facilities with no recreation and no access to basic legal resources, not even a copy machine for legal “closed copy” documents (cc’s; Judge, Clerk, Prosecutors, Defense Records).

669. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants denied plaintiff access to even more material evidence by denying plaintiff access to a Gateway computer that was seized by the government on May 1st, 2013, for over a year. Every action Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants took against plaintiff, was intentionally and deliberately asserted for the purpose of denying and depriving plaintiff of his Sixth Amendment Constitutional rights to counsel or of the right to self representation for the purpose of prosecuting plaintiff and ultimately convicting plaintiff by any means necessary. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants intentionally denied plaintiff the right to self representation protected under Article One sections One, Three, and Seven of the Wisconsin Constitution and protected under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution by taking deliberate unlawful actions against plaintiff that made it impossible for plaintiff to effectively represent himself.

133 of 191.

670. Plaintiff was denied and deprived of the right to effective counsel because Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, who possessed all the power, forced plaintiff to choose between being represented by a federal panel attorney who was hostile to plaintiff’s best interests and that slandered plaintiff and verbally attacked plaintiff at meetings, threatened to have plaintiff imprisoned, or, represent himself, in which case defendants abused their power by systematically making it impossible for plaintiff to represent himself effectively (theft of legal records, moves to facilities with no Law Libraries, denial of access to standard legal materials such as the district docket and transcripts, denial of access to material evidence and so on . . . ). Defendants intentionally, willfully, and maliciously, denied and deprived plaintiff of the right to counsel and of the right to self representation.

671. On July 29th, 2014, after plaintiff refused to accept a plea deal offered by the government, the court set a trial date for August 19th, 2014. Plaintiff feared getting burned again by another hostile federal panel attorney loyal to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, however, with only 3 weeks until trial, requested another appointed attorney because at that point, plaintiff could not prepare or represent himself at trial due to the obstructions and restrictions forced onto him by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants.

672. Again, plaintiff got burned by federal defender Stiller and the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants when federal panel attorney Hunt was selected by the federal defenders service and assigned to plaintiff’s case by the Eastern District court. Private state licensed federal panel attorney Hunt, told plaintiff that the prosecutors and judge and police were within the confines of the law when they searched and raided plaintiff’s home without a warrant and after plaintiff asserted his Constitutional Rights in his driveway. Hunt told plaintiff to LIE! Hunt told plaintiff to say that plaintiff was just a “fraud” and a “con” and that plaintiff was intentionally producing bogus fireworks (duds). Hunt suggested that plaintiff claim that he was planning on ripping everyone off by selling non functional “dud” fireworks. Plaintiff did not like the idea of compromising his integrity for the sake of Hunt’s devious defense strategy. Plaintiff told Hunt that he would not go along with Hunt’s suggested defense strategy.

673. Hunt also told plaintiff, that plaintiff’s appeal was “meritless”, before Hunt ever even read plaintiff’s 50 page Appellate Brief, which plaintiff worked on the entire month of August 2014. Hunt threatened plaintiff that if plaintiff attempted to appeal Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order”, Hunt threatened to write and “Anders Brief” and submit it to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in an effort to discredit and derail plaintiff’s efforts to clear his name by having the unlawful July 21st, 2014, Adelman decision reversed, and subsequently the evidence obtained from the unwarranted search of plaintiff’s home, suppressed.

134 of 191.

674. Once again, plaintiff found himself being represented by a federal panel lawyer who was hostile to plaintiff’s best interests and who was outspokenly loyal to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and the government. Hunt shared loyalties with the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution, the same governmental entity and the same government employees who were cutting Hunt a paycheck, cut Hunt paychecks in the past, and were sure to cut Hunt paychecks in the future as long as everything went smoothly and defendants prevailed.

675. Hunt was hostile to plaintiff’s best interests on several fronts, even threatening to rob plaintiff of the right to due process by threatening to derail and destroy plaintiff’s efforts on appeal (which Hunt claimed was “meritless” without ever even reading plaintiff’s Appellate Brief); and discredit plaintiff before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

676. Hunt was hostile to plaintiff on several fronts and had no concern for the best interest of plaintiff, rather, Hunt’s outspoken concerns were for the best interests of Eastern District of Wisconsin defendants (Hunt stated so in writing in letter he wrote plaintiff). If the court case was boxing match, Hunt would have been in the government’s corner, and Hunt admitted it in writing.

677. Plaintiff made every effort possible to remove Hunt from the case but Hunt refused to withdraw and Adelman refused to take Hunt off the case. Plaintiff submitted a “Motion to Relieve” counsel but Adelman denied the motion. Plaintiff verbally request that Hunt be removed at two different status hearings but Adelman once again refused to remove Hunt from the case. Adelman refused to remove Hunt from the case and in so doing once again forced another federal panel attorney onto plaintiff who was hostile to plaintiff’s best interests and who was loyal Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Very convenient for Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants who had a weak case after Adelman admitted that there was “no way of knowing” if the fireworks were “duds” or not. Basically stating that there was “no way of knowing” if plaintiff was or was not guilty of possessing explosive devices as what was alleged in the indictment.

678. Defendants violated plaintiff’s right to counsel protected under Article One section Seven of the Wisconsin Constitution and plaintiff’s right protected under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution to effective and competent counsel by again forcing a hostile federal panel attorney onto plaintiff’s case that was in no way loyal to his client the plaintiff. Hunt told plaintiff to lie, threatened to stop, discredit and derail plaintiff’s Appellate Brief which Hunt never even read but claimed was “meritless.” Hunt threatened to take actions against plaintiff to deny and deprive plaintiff’s right to due process of law by attacking plaintiff’s credibility and plaintiff’s 50 page Appellate Brief, appealing two unlawful rulings on two pretrial motions.

135 of 191.

679. Plaintiff was denied and deprived of his Constitutional Right to counsel, self representation, and to due process, by deliberate malicious tactics of prosecution of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with one another, and jointly in concert with private parties and state officials, acting under the color of law or under the colors and authority of the United States federal government. Defendants systematically violated plaintiff’s rights for nearly the entire approximate year and half long adjudication of case 13-CR-99 and took deliberate steps to stop and obstruct plaintiff’s efforts to initiate a civil case for those rights violations against defendants.

680. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants actions against plaintiff violated plaintiff’s right to competent and effective counsel or self representation in case 13-CR-99 protected under Article One section One, Three, and Seven of the Wisconsin Constitution and under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

681. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions executed against him by defendants. See infra 653. Defendants systematically denied plaintiff the right to effective counsel and then retaliated against plaintiff when he tried to represent himself by taking numerous unlawful actions against plaintiff that made it absolutely impossible for plaintiff to effectively represent himself. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and acting under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, violated plaintiff’s right to counsel and violated plaintiff’s right to self representation.

682. Under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions, citizens accused of crimes have the right to effective assistance of counsel or the right to be recognized as legitimate members of the courtroom workgroup if that citizen who has pled not guilty chooses to represent themselves. Citizens have the right of access to the courts. Under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine, plaintiff has the right to access the Wisconsin courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries plaintiff suffered and the losses plaintiff incurred and for wrongs and unlawful actions against plaintiff.. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice and relief through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action, against defendants, pursuant to law.

COUNT VI.

Denial and Deprivation of Right to Access Judicial Process Claim.

683. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-682 above.

136 of 191.

684. Under Article One sections One, Three, Seven, and Nine, of the Wisconsin Constitution, and under the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, plaintiff has a constitutionally protected right to access judicial process. Wisconsin citizens have the right and are guaranteed access to the courts. See Penterman v. Wisocnsin Electric Powere Co., 211 Wis. 2d 458, 474, 565 N.W.2d 521 (1997)(citizens right to judicial process must be “adequate, effective, and meaningful”). “The right of access to the courts is one of the fundamental rights protected by the [United States] Constitution.” Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967, 971 (5th Cir. 1983).

685. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, functioning in synergenic cooperation with one another and jointly in concert with state actors, intentionally denied and deprived plaintiff the constitutionally protected right of access to judicial process by denying plaintiff access to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Court and by threatening to deny plaintiff access to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge a ruling that plaintiff holds is unlawful. Between the dates of May 29th, 2013, and October 13th, 2014, defendants systematically denied plaintiff access to the courts in both case 13-CR-99 and a pending civil case plaintiff was obstructed and stopped from initiating by defendants deliberate and unlawful actions against him. Defendants, acting in bad faith and under the color of law, and with intentional disregard for plaintiff’s rights, deliberately denied plaintiff access to both the Eastern District of Wisconsin federal court regarding the adjudication of case 13-CR-99 and systematically deprived plaintiff of the ability to initiate civil action, protected under Article One section Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution in state courts. Defendants systematically obstructed and denied plaintiff access to critical material evidence necessary to support a non-frivolous claim in state courts. Defendants deliberate unlawful actions orchestrated against plaintiff deprived plaintiff of Liberty.

A.

Denial of Access to Procedural Due Process of the Courts.

686. Under the law and under the applicable standard recognized by all attorneys practicing in the federal criminal defense judicial system and under the Wisconsin Bar Association, clients who are represented by private, public, or appointed attorneys, do not have the ability to represent themselves concurrently while under a professional attorneys counsel; clients/defendants do not have the ability to correspond with prosecutors and to investigate their cases and are discouraged from corresponding with the judge and clerk of court. Attorneys are the link between the criminal defendant and the court and are recognized as such under Wisconsin State Law.

687. Plaintiff was blocked from accessing the courts by deliberate and decisive manipulative actions of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with one another

137 of 191.

and jointly in concert with state attorneys on the federal panel. Plaintiff was systematically denied and deprived of the right to counsel by defendants. See infra 655-82. Federal panel attorneys blocked plaintiff from accessing the court with respect to the adjudication of case 13-CR-99, and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants directly blocked plaintiff from accessing the court while plaintiff attempted to represent himself pro se. Plaintiff was denied access to the courts by the defendants from approximately May 29th, 2013, through October 13th, 2014.

688. Federal panel attorneys Cohn, Wilmouth, and Hunt, all, in a concerted effort to block plaintiff from accessing the court, aligned themselves with federal prosecutors and the federal defender Stiller and systematically blocked plaintiff from accessing the court at the time periods the aforementioned attorneys were on case 13-CR-99, allegedly representing the plaintiff. The aforementioned attorneys systematically blocked plaintiff from accessing the court while at the same time deliberately ineffectively represented the plaintiff (Cohn refusing to challenge unlawful evidence and take basic standard steps, slandering plaintiff in open court after being fired, perpetuating a fraudulent police report; Wilmouth verbally attacking plaintiff, calling plaintiff names and telling plaintiff that he was going to see to it that plaintiff was imprisoned; Hunt, telling plaintiff to lie, telling plaintiff that he agreed with federal prosecutors and police, and threatening plaintiff that if plaintiff attempted to appeal an unlawful decision on a pretrial motion to suppress, Hunt would discredit plaintiff to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by writing an “Anders Brief” against plaintiff). These attorneys deliberately failed to effectively represent plaintiff and take standard legal actions on plaintiffs behalf that reasonable effective attorneys would have taken under the same circumstances; challenging evidence obtained from an unwarranted search after plaintiff asserted his Constitutional Rights outside the residence and after police took steps to obtain a warrant 2 ½ hours before pulling into plaintiff’s driveway and did not obtain a warrant; challenging contradictory statements and contradictory false police incident affidavits; moving to suppress; moving for an evidentiary hearing; formulating a defense theory (telling the client to lie does not count!); contacting expert witnesses to validate defense theory; and keeping plaintiff informed and updated as to legal progress in the case and important factors. Federal panel attorneys failed to effectively represent plaintiff intentionally and denied and deprived plaintiff of the right of access to the courts in so doing. While these ineffective attorneys were on plaintiff’s case, 13-CR-99, there was no progress made on the case, nothing got done and plaintiff’s case and life and future was actually damaged by these attorneys ineffectiveness. These attorneys were loyal to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and outspokenly hostile to plaintiff’s best interests. During the time these attorneys were on plaintiff’s case, plaintiff was “blocked” from the courts and in a helpless situation, “blocked” from taking legal action on his own behalf and “blocked” from completing the investigation of the case.

689. When plaintiff was representing himself under pro se status, in July of 2013, and from December 20th, 2013, through October of 2014, Eastern District of

138 of 191.

Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants systematically stopped plaintiff from accessing the court by refusing to correspond with plaintiff, by denying plaintiff standard legal documents (docket, transcripts, forms), by refusing to recognize plaintiff as a legitimate member of the courtroom workgroup, by refusing to rule on plaintiff’s motions, by denying plaintiff standard due process procedures like an evidentiary hearing and a scheduled deposition of a material witness who was unable to appear at trial due to age and illness and who was suffering from a medical condition that will eventually be terminal, and by systematically placing the plaintiff in federal holding facilities with no Law Libraries or any legal resources whatsoever with full knowledge that plaintiff was a pro se and required basic legal resources in order to effectively represent himself. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ synergenically cooperated with each other to deny plaintiff access to the court.

B.

Denial of Deposition of Defense Witness.

690. Plaintiff, while under pro se status, attempted to depose a material defense witness to preserve her testimony for trial and possibly for an evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff notified all parties pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 15 and followed all proper procedural guidelines specified in the U.S. Code. Despite plaintiff’s diligence and adherence to proper procedures and timely filings of court documents, the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, denied plaintiff the right to depose witness Ruth Witzlib at a scheduled deposition on August 7th, 2014. Defendants failed to notify either plaintiff, or deponent Ms. Witzlib, that the deposition had been denied/cancelled by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Ms. Witzlib had planned and prepared to undergo the deposition on August 7th, 2014. Ms. Witzlib has a medical condition that is potentially life threatening. Ms. Witzlib is 85 years old and could pass any day. Under the law, plaintiff had the right to depose Ms. Witzlib who was a material witness and was present on the scene the day of the incident. Ms. Witzlib was an eyewitness who could offer testimony that contradicted the false police reports and the alleged events on the day of the incident by police officers that simply were not true. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants will stop at nothing to convict plaintiff and cover for the officers’ unlawful actions during the incident and the then the authoring of false, inaccurate, and incorrect reports after the incident was over. Plaintiff was denied his right of access to the courts and denied the right of compulsory process when Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants systematically denied plaintiff the right to depose material witness Ruth Witzlib. See infra 261 and R.155.

691. Ruth Witzlib also signed an affidavit stating that she was forced to sign the consent to search form by police after they intruded into her home after being

139 of 191.

told to get off the property by plaintiff and after plaintiff asserted his rights and made police aware that it was against his will for police to enter the residence where plaintiff did have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Ruth Witzlib never called the police and it was not Ruth Witzlib’s will for police to be on her property and in her home on April 30th, 2013.

692. Defendant, federal prosecutor Johnson, wrote a letter to plaintiff dated July 18th, 2014, where Johnson states: “It is unreasonable to expect the U.S. Marshals to make arrangements for a federal prisoner to be taken to a deposition outside of a secured facility.” That is the U.S. Marshals job. Ruth Witzlib could not attend court due to age and illness. Plaintiff was transported to court dates, a doctor visit, and the hospital for a scope, all without incident by government transport personal. Furthermore, under the terms of the plea agreement offered by the prosecution, the defendant had already served nearly all, if not all, of his entire sentence and was not facing any more time in jail, plaintiff had no motive to attempt escape and no record of escape attempts. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants had no reason to deny plaintiff access to compulsory process and access to the courts. Johnson’s excuses and assertions attempting to justify denying plaintiff access to compulsory process and access to the courts are meritless, unconstitutional, and unlawful. Not only does the U.S. Code REQUIRE and provide the right that pro se defendants in criminal cases have the right to be present at depositions, at the time, under the current government plea deal, plaintiff had already served most of his jail sentence and wasn’t facing any more time in jail. The prosecutors were simply following through with their course of conduct which they had developed and adhered to throughout the entire adjudication of case 13-CR-99; unlawfully denying plaintiff access to the courts without a reasonable explanation, unfairly, unjustly, and unlawfully. Defendants Adelman, Dietrich, Sanfilippo, Carr, Santelle, Johnson, Kwaterski, and Kanter, functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state corrections officials, including Dodge County Sheriff Ninnman, intentionally and deliberately obstructed and all out stopped plaintiff from deposing a material defense witness critical to case 13-CR-99, refused and denied plaintiff compulsory process, and refused to recognize or acknowledge any of plaintiff’s properly filed legal notices of the scheduled deposition; in so doing denying plaintiff’s right of access to the courts.

693. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants actions against plaintiff violated plaintiff’s right of access to the courts protected under Article One sections One, Three, Seven and Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution and protected under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

694. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions executed against him by defendants. Defendants systematically denied plaintiff the right of access to the courts and retaliated against plaintiff when he tried to represent himself by taking numerous unlawful actions against

140 of 191.

plaintiff that made it absolutely impossible for plaintiff to effectively represent himself or to access the courts.

695. Under Wisconsin and United States Constitutions, citizens have a right of access to the courts. Under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine, plaintiff has the right to access the Wisconsin courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries plaintiff suffered and the losses plaintiff incurred and for wrongs and unlawful actions against him. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law.

C.

Denial of Access to Material Evidence and Procedural Documents.

696. Between the dates of December 21st, 2013, and March 12th, 2014, defendants Adelman, Dietrich and Sanfilippo denied plaintiff pro se access to the court by denying plaintiff the district court docket after plaintiff submitted 13 formal requests in writing, respectfully requesting and demanding the docket. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants did not respond to any of plaintiff’s first 12 requests and then sent plaintiff the docket on the 13th, request and after nearly 3 months. Defendants, who possessed all the power, denied plaintiff access to the court and stopped plaintiff from effectively representing himself and from investigating his case by deliberately ignoring and refusing to correspond with plaintiff and essentially “shunning” the pro se defendant at that time (who is now plaintiff taking civil action for numerous rights violations of Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants).

697. Between the dates of January 19th and August 2nd, 2014, plaintiff made 9 formal proper requests in writing, respectfully requesting and demanding and properly placing an order for court transcripts. Plaintiff properly requested transcripts from the court, the clerk, and the court reporters Stawski and John S. Plaintiff followed the procedure specified in the U.S. Code and provided the court reporters with proof of indigence. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants refused to correspond with pro se plaintiff and refused to send plaintiff the official transcripts from proceedings that plaintiff specified in the requests. Plaintiff specified the exact transcripts needed in the formal request, demand, and order, for transcripts. Transcripts contained material evidence, material in two separate cases, the plaintiff’s ongoing case at that time and a civil case for rights violations plaintiff was suffering by the actions of defendants. Defendants denied plaintiff all of the aforementioned documents and material evidence and refused to correspond with plaintiff. Plaintiff could not effectively prepare for trial or properly investigate and initiate civil action against defendants directly caused by defendants’ deliberate and malicious actions against plaintiff that were intentionally orchestrated for the purpose of denying plaintiff’s right of access to the courts. Defendants unlawfully cut plaintiff

141 of 191.

pro se off from accessing the courts, both the federal court and the state courts; both the adjudication of a criminal case where plaintiff had pled not guilty and was trying to clear his name and a civil case in state court where plaintiff sought to take action against individuals for violating his rights protected under state and federal law.

D.

Inadequate Legal Resources, Obstructive Retaliatory Transfers,

No Law Library Access.

698. Plaintiff was denied access to the courts through the use of housing placement and timely transfers that cut plaintiff off from legal resources. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Carr, Santelle, Kwaterski, Johnson, Kanter and Adelman specifically and deliberately placed plaintiff in housing areas with minimal, restricted, or no access to Law Libraries or any legal resources whatsoever. Defendants were aware that pro se plaintiff required basic Law Library access and access to basic legal resources such as a copy machine and notary access. Defendants deliberately placed plaintiff in federal holding facility housing areas with no access to legal resources whatsoever, thus denying and depriving plaintiff of his right of access to the court. Multiple times over the year and half long adjudication of case 13-CR-99, plaintiff was transferred out of locations where he had access to legal resources to locations with extremely restricted access or no access at all.

699. The month of July 2013, plaintiff was housed in “C” block of the Dodge County Jail and federal holding facility. This location offered NO access to a “Law Library” case law database or legal encyclopedias. (see Bounds notes) At that time, the Dodge County facility did not pay the full subscription for the Lois Law internet program and only offered inmates access to the U.S. Code, U.S. Constitution, Wisconsin Statutes and Wisconsin Constitution. On the wall of “C” block, next to the computer, were instructions for the “Nexis” Law Library program, however, there was no “Nexis” access on the desktop of the computer.

700. On December 20th of 2013, when plaintiff took over case 13-CR-99 under pro se status, plaintiff was located in “H” block of the Kenosha County Detention Center. Plaintiff had no access to a Law Library.

701. On January 5th, 2014, plaintiff was transported to the Kenosha County Main Jail where plaintiff received a maximum of 4 hrs./wk. in the Law Library. Four hours per week is approximately 1/10th of the amount of time a full time professional attorney would spend working per week. Kenosha charged 50 cents for each legal copy or each page printout of legal documents. Indigent plaintiff grieved the restricted access time and unreasonably high cost of copies. Finally, on February 11th, 2014, plaintiff was transported back to block H-west of the KCDC facility where plaintiff received two 8 hour sessions per week. Plaintiff started to make progress and accomplish work on case 13-CR-99 in efforts to clear his name.

142 of 191.

Just as plaintiff started to gain momentum, U.S. Marshals transported plaintiff out of KCDC in Kenosha County on February 20th, 2014, to the Ozaukee County Jail in Port Washington Wisconsin. Plaintiff’s access to the Law Library was cut from approximately two 8 hour sessions in the Law Library per week in the KCDC H-west federal housing area, to approximately 3 hours per week in the Tier 5 federal housing area of the Ozaukee County Jail. Plaintiff wrote grievances to the jail administration and the defendants. After several grievances plaintiff managed to get the time increased to approximately 5-8 hrs./wk. Plaintiff spent all the time the jail would allow in “Attorney Room #5” typing up legal documents between the dates of February 20th, 2014, and April 4th, 2014. Plaintiff worked for approximately 5 weeks in his cell and in the computer room on case 13-CR-99; typing up a “Motion to Suppress Evidence” and other legal documents. Then, on April 4th, 2014, defendants, in synergenic cooperation with state officials in the Ozaukee County Jail, seized all of plaintiff’s computer records that plaintiff worked on for approximately 5 weeks and never returned them. Plaintiff, after the seizure, was transferred to the Milwaukee County Jail and federal holding facility where there was no Law Library at all. Plaintiff wrote grievances to the defendants. Federal prosecutors stated in writing that plaintiff was not entitled to a Law Library because plaintiff refused to accept a hostile federal panel attorney who actually threatened to have plaintiff incarcerated in federal prison which clearly was not in plaintiff’s best interest. Plaintiff has the right to self representation under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. Marshal Carr, in synergenic cooperation with unknown defendants, moved plaintiff from Milwaukee County to Waukesha County federal holding facility where there was absolutely no access to a Law Library and no access to a copy machine for closed copy documents. From April 4th, through June 5th, 2014, at a critical stage in plaintiff’s case, after plaintiff had completed authoring a suppression motion and was in the process of submitting the motion to the court, plaintiff was denied access to a Law Library or any basic standard legal resources whatsoever by U.S. Marshals and other Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants acting jointly and in concert with state officials. Plaintiff was systematically denied access to the courts; deliberately by U.S. Marshal Carr, functioning jointly and in concert with federal government officials and state actors, acting under the color of law.

702. Plaintiff was being unlawfully bullied and strong armed by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, who, through the denial of access to basic standard essential legal resources, were attempting force plaintiff to accept another hostile federal panel attorney or accept the governments plea agreement (which wasn’t really an agreement because the federal prosecutors were dictating all of the terms of the ‘agreement’ and refusing to compromise), by systematically denying and depriving plaintiff of his right of access to the court.

703. Plaintiff was forced to write and submit a “Motion to Suppress Evidence” by hand and in handwriting after Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants seized all of plaintiff’s legal records and forced plaintiff

143 of 191.

into a facility with no access to a Law Library for approximately 8 weeks. Under Eastern District of Wisconsin Local Rules, court documents are required to be “typed.” In fact, in the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Court, the rules actually specify that all court documents submitted to the court are required to be properly typed. Defendants Carr, Adelman, Johnson, Santelle, Kanter, and Kwaterski all had full knowledge of the requirements set forth under the Eastern District of Wisconsin Local Rules. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants intentionally forced plaintiff into locations where he could not possibly comply with district court rules due to the fact that plaintiff was forced out of a location with a computer and into a location with no access to a any legal resources whatsoever. Plaintiff was deliberately and intentionally blocked from accessing the courts by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and the manipulative placement of plaintiff in locations with no access to any legal resources whatsoever. U.S. Marshals functioning in synergenic cooperation with unknown Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and jointly in concert with state corrections officials, acting under the color of state law and under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, systematically and intentionally denied and deprived plaintiff of his right of access to the court.

E.

Unlawful Actions of Panel Attorney.

704. On August 27th, 2013, federal panel attorney Wilmouth seized a 250 page brief that plaintiff had prepared for his family to use to find plaintiff another attorney who was not hostile to plaintiff’s best interest. Wilmouth stole plaintiff’s property, which was also sealed mail. Wilmouth intercepted and stopped plaintiff’s efforts to find an attorney who was not loyal the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and who was not hostile to plaintiff’s best interests. Not only were defendants denying plaintiff access to the courts, defendants were unlawfully preventing plaintiff from accessing a competent professional attorney who would effectively represent plaintiff and provide plaintiff with access to the courts through that attorney. Wilmouth specifically told plaintiff that he was going to see to it that plaintiff was imprisoned. There is no question that federal panel attorney Wilmouth was hostile to plaintiff and to plaintiff’s best interests (Wilmouth also humiliated and verbally abused plaintiff at a meeting between parties).

F.

Threats from Federal Panel Attorney.

705. On August 25th, 2014, federal panel attorney Hunt demanded that plaintiff withdraw plaintiff’s appeal of Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order”, which plaintiff submitted to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Hunt threatened plaintiff when he told plaintiff

144 of 191.

that if plaintiff submitted his “Appellate Brief” (which Hunt never actually read), to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, appealing Adelman’s ruling, Hunt would write and submit an “Anders Brief” to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to discredit and derail plaintiff’s efforts to clear his name and appeal the unlawful July 21st, 2014, Adelman decision, denying plaintiff’s Motion to Suppress without a hearing. Again, plaintiff was forced under the counsel of an attorney who was loyal the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and who was hostile to plaintiff’s best interest. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants denied plaintiff access to the courts by forcing him under counsel of federal panel attorneys that were outspokenly hostile to plaintiff’s best interests, notably, plaintiff’s efforts to suppress evidence and subsequently clear his name.

G.

Refusal to Recognize the Legitimacy of

Pro se Motions and Court Action.

706. Plaintiff was denied and deprived of the right of access to the courts by the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ refusal to recognize legitimate court documents submitted to the court by plaintiff between the dates of July 2nd, 2013, and October 21st, 2014.

707. Plaintiff was denied and deprived of the right of access to the courts by the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ intentional actions of picking and choosing when to recognize pro se plaintiff as a legitimate member of the courtroom workgroup and when not to, between the aforementioned dates. Plaintiff was cut off from access to the courts by defendants.

H.

Denial and Deprivation of Access to the Courts.

708. Plaintiff was systematically denied and deprived of the right of access to the courts, protected under both the Wisconsin and United Stated Constitutions by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with private and state actors; all acting under the color of law or under the colors and authority of the United States federal government. See COUNT VI. A-G. The unlawful actions defendants executed against plaintiff were intentional, deliberate, and malicious, and were specifically executed for the purpose of denying plaintiff access to the courts and for the ultimate purpose of prosecuting and convicting plaintiff by any means necessary. Defendants deliberately deprived plaintiff of Liberty. Defendants’ unlawful actions (COUNT VI. A.-G.) of deliberately denying plaintiff access to the courts, were executed in bad faith, and

145 of 191.

with intentional disregard for the rights of plaintiff. Defendants’ unlawful actions (COUNT VI. A.-G.) against plaintiff, deprived plaintiff of his right to due process of law and ultimately forced plaintiff to accept a plea agreement. Defendants’ unlawful systematic oppression of plaintiff over the lengthy adjudication of case 13-CR-99, was unlawful and ultimately denied and deprived plaintiff of the right of access to the courts.

709. Defendants’ unlawful actions against plaintiff (COUNT VI. A.-G.), directly and indirectly caused plaintiff injury, losses, and loss of Liberty. Defendants deliberate oppression of plaintiff throughout the adjudication of case 13-CR-99 abnormally perpetuated the adjudication process to a abnormal and unreasonably lengthy amount of time. Plaintiff was forced, during the approximate year and a half long perpetuation of the case, into living in unhealthy environments and forced into living conditions with hostile individuals convicted of serious crimes. Plaintiff suffered damage to his physical health and well being, directly caused by defendants forcing him into unhealthy living conditions and deliberately dragging out and prolonging the case by denying plaintiff access to the courts and denying plaintiff the ability to complete the investigation of case 13-CR-99 by denying plaintiff access to material evidence which the government had in its possession the entire time. Contra, Brady v. Maryland, (1963), and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16. Defendants directly and proximately forced plaintiff into hostile and unhealthy living conditions that damaged plaintiff’s physical and mental health, as defendants deliberately prolonged the adjudication of case 13-CR-99. Defendants intentional unlawful actions orchestrated against plaintiff caused plaintiff to suffer physical injury and mental injury. Plaintiff suffered unhealthy weight loss and muscle atrophy resulting from extremely long and abnormal amounts of time locked in small confined areas, all while innocent until proven guilty, and all the while plaintiff was doing everything in his power to clear his name and fight for his rights. Plaintiff was denied medical care and was stabbed 5 times with a syringe by incompetent medical staff personal in a federal holding facility. Plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress and mental anguish caused by defendants’ deliberate obstructive malicious prosecution tactics and caused by the hostile criminals plaintiff was forced to live with on a daily basis. Plaintiff suffered and still suffers anxiety, depression, nightmares, and extreme instances of stress that he otherwise never would have suffered had the defendants not deliberately prolonged the adjudication process by denying plaintiff access to the courts. Plaintiff has a physical medical condition that jail medical staffs refused to diagnosed and misdiagnosed. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants manipulative tactics of systemic oppression of plaintiff and denying plaintiff access to the courts, directly caused plaintiff to suffer damage to both his physical and mental health.

146 of 191.

710. Eighteen months ago when plaintiff was arrested for allegedly producing fireworks in his basement, plaintiff was in good physical and mental health, getting good grades in school, playing recreational basketball and baseball, spending time with his family and taking care of his responsibilities on a daily basis. The last 18 months have had an extremely negative unhealthy impact on plaintiff’s health. Plaintiff has suffered from migraine headaches, plaintiff now has purple bags under his eyes, plaintiff lost unhealthy amounts of muscle mass (atrophy), plaintiff lost hair and developed large amounts of grey hair, plaintiff's skin was damaged by the water or hygiene supplies of the federal holding facilities and plaintiff feels as though he has aged 25 years in the last 18 months. Defendants unlawfully denied plaintiff access to the courts and perpetuated the adjudication process of case 13-CR-99. Plaintiff did everything in his power to investigate the case and access the courts and Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants systematically obstructed, denied and deprived plaintiff of his right of access to the courts; thus depriving plaintiff of Constitutionally protected Liberty. Plaintiff was assaulted by a hostile gang member, poked numerous times with a syringe by incompetent medical personal, denied access to appropriate medical care, denied access to appropriate exercise and suffered other injuries directly caused by defendants unlawful actions against him. Plaintiff should have been in federal prison or home within the first 3 to 7 months of the case. Instead, directly as a result of defendants’ unlawful actions, manipulation of judicial process, and deliberate malicious prosecution tactics, plaintiff was forced into the hostile unhealthy county jail setting for nearly a year and a half. A living nightmare.

711. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants took intentional, willful, deliberate and malicious actions against plaintiff in an orchestrated systematic effort to prosecute plaintiff and convict him, by any means necessary.

712. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants actions against plaintiff violated plaintiff’s right of access to the courts protected under Article One sections One, Three, Seven and Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution and protected under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. See COUNT VI. A-G.

713. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses caused by the deliberate and intentional unlawful actions executed against him by defendants. Defendants systematically denied and deprived plaintiff the right of access to the courts and retaliated against plaintiff when he tried to represent himself by taking numerous unlawful actions against plaintiff that made it absolutely impossible for plaintiff to effectively represent himself or to access the courts. See COUNT VI. A-G.

147 of 191.

714. Under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions, citizens have a right of access to the courts. Under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections Seven and Nine, plaintiff has the right to access the Wisconsin courts and seek relief in damages for the injuries plaintiff suffered and the losses plaintiff incurred and for wrongs and unlawful actions against him. Plaintiff exercises his right at this time to seek justice through the Wisconsin Courts via civil action against defendants, pursuant to law. See COUNT VI. A-G.

COUNT VII.

Unlawful Retaliation Claim.

715. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-714 above.

716. Under Article One sections One, Three, Seven and Eleven of the Wisconsin Constitution and under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, plaintiff has the right to exercise free speech; plaintiff has the right to competent effective assistance of legal counsel; plaintiff has the right to fire hostile federal panel attorneys; plaintiff has the right to self representation; plaintiff has the right to refuse plea agreements that are unlawful and unreasonable; plaintiff has the right to Law Libraries after pleading “not guilty” if plaintiff is representing himself and plaintiff has the right to basic legal resources; plaintiff has the right of access to the courts; plaintiff has the right to author grievances if plaintiff’s rights are being violated by the government; plaintiff has the right to a reasonable bail; plaintiff has the right to submit legal documents to the court and have those documents recognized by the court; plaintiff has the right to compulsory process; plaintiff has the right to have access to the district court docket and transcripts that are material evidence; plaintiff has the right to examine and review material evidence set to be used against him at trial by federal prosecutors in a criminal case; plaintiff has the right to appeal court rulings that are unlawful under established case precedent; plaintiff hast the right to author and submit an Appellate Brief to the Circuit Court of Appeals which embraces the district in which plaintiff’s case is being, or has been, adjudicated; and plaintiff has the right to be free from malicious and unlawful retaliation tactics taken against plaintiff by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants for plaintiff’s exercising of the aforementioned constitutionally protected rights. Plaintiff has the right to be free from retaliatory transfers, seizures, harassment by government entities functioning in synergenic cooperation with federal government actors, shuns by judicial officers, thefts by government officials, and damage and threats of damage to plaintiff’s life, future and instant case, by hostile state licensed federal panel appointed attorneys. Plaintiff has the right to be free from deliberate and malicious retaliatory actions taken by government defendants and unknown government entities in retaliation for plaintiff’s exercising of his rights protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions.

148 of 191.

717. Plaintiff was unlawfully retaliated against by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Adelman, Santelle, Carr, Sanfilippo, Stiller, Johnson, Stawski, John S., Hunt, Cohn, Dietrich, Wilmouth and unknown government entities functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with private and state government officials, acting in bad faith and under the color of state law and under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, for the exercising of plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights by plaintiff. Defendants deliberately retaliated against plaintiff by further depriving plaintiff of rights and by using malicious strong arm tactics of prosecution in their efforts to secure a conviction of plaintiff in case 13-CR-99 by any means necessary. Defendants took unlawful actions and retaliated against plaintiff to cover up a botched unlawful police investigation that involved a warrantless search and raid of plaintiff’s home which was another violation of plaintiff’s rights.

718. Between the dates of April 30th, 2013, and October 21st, 2014, defendants engaged in an unlawful systematic course of conduct where plaintiff was repeatedly punished and retaliated against by defendants in response for plaintiff’s relentless efforts to fight the charges against him and clear his name. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants retaliated against plaintiff for plaintiff’s refusal to accept the government’s plea agreement (denial of bail, denial of access to the courts, denial of access to effective counsel, denial of access to evidence, thefts of plaintiff’s property and so on) and took unlawful actions against plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff’s decision to fire federal panel attorneys that were hostile to plaintiff’s best interest.

719. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, for the purpose of having total control over plaintiff and over the adjudication of case 13-CR-99, appointed federal panel attorneys that were loyal to Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and hostile to plaintiff’s best interests. For the purpose of having total control over plaintiff and over the adjudication of case 13-CR-99, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants steadfastly denied and deprived plaintiff of several protected rights that made it impossible for plaintiff to effectively represent himself pro se. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants took unlawful actions against plaintiff in response to plaintiff’s exercising of several Constitutional Rights in efforts to clear his name. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, through the use of unlawful force, and in retaliation against plaintiff for the exercising of his rights, took deliberate unlawful actions against plaintiff that silenced plaintiff and denied plaintiff of the right to have a voice in the courtroom; violation plaintiff’s right to free speech and right to counsel.

720. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants violated plaintiff’s rights by unlawfully retaliating against plaintiff in direct

149 of 191.

response for plaintiff’s exercising, or attempting to exercise, rights protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions.

A.

Retaliatory Appointments of Hostile

State Licensed Federal Panel Attorneys.

721. The first week of June 2013, plaintiff fired state licensed federal panel attorney Cohn for failing to provide effective assistance of counsel. See infra 23. Plaintiff requested a portion of the $5,000.00 retainer be refunded due to the fact Cohn had not earned $5,000.00 and had not effectively represented plaintiff. See infra 23. Cohn appeared in court on one day and did little or no work on plaintiff’s behalf. Furthermore, after plaintiff paid Cohn $5,000.00, Cohn refused to accept phone calls from plaintiff from Washington County Jail! Cohn refused to return any of plaintiff’s $5,000.00 retainer, and, after being fired by plaintiff, showed up to a court hearing at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin on June 11th, 2013, and slandered plaintiff in open court, telling the court that plaintiff had mental problems! On July 2nd, 2013, Cohn was removed from the case at plaintiff’s request to move forward under pro se status. Cohn, at that time, had a long time social business relationship with the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. Cohn did not fight for plaintiff’s rights against federal prosecutors and failed to take basic legal steps on behalf of plaintiff that any reasonable competent defense attorney would have taken under the same circumstances. Cohn was loyal to Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and was deliberately ineffectively representing plaintiff but at the same time trying to take plaintiff’s $5,000.00. After plaintiff fired Cohn and began investigating the case under pro se status, and after plaintiff began exercising his Constitutional Rights, defendants became hostile and began maliciously retaliating against plaintiff by executing unlawful systematic and synergenic tactics of prosecution in efforts to prosecute and convict plaintiff by any means necessary. Defendants willfully, intentionally, and maliciously, systematically oppressed plaintiff by executing unlawful actions against plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff’s exercising of his Constitutional Rights and in retaliation for plaintiff fighting to clear his name.

722. Between the dates of July 2nd, 2013, and July 23rd, 2013, plaintiff represented himself pro se and exercised his Constitutional Rights. Plaintiff intended to fully investigate case 13-CR-99 and challenge the evidence obtained from the unwarranted search of plaintiff’s home. As soon as plaintiff began resisting the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants efforts to prosecute and convict him, and while plaintiff was attempting to launch an investigation and began exercising his Constitutional Rights, defendants responded with retaliatory measures that deliberately, intentionally, willfully, and maliciously stripped plaintiff of the very Constitutional Rights he was attempting to exercise; free speech, self representation, compulsory process, access to material evidence, access to the courts, equal protection of law, and

150 of 191.

right to due process of law. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants first denied plaintiff’s motion to adjourn the scheduled trial date set for July 29th, 2013. Not even a professional attorney educated in a law school would be expected to prepare for trial in 2-3 weeks, let alone a pro se inside a highly restricted jail setting with no access to a functionally Law Library, no assistance from the outside, and no money. Defendants pushed for a trial nonetheless and denied plaintiff’s motion to adjourn. Federal prosecutors responded to plaintiff representing himself pro se, fighting for his rights and to clear his name, and exercising his Constitutional Rights, by sending plaintiff fraudulent discovery evidence and bogus C.D.’s that were supposed to contain material evidence set to be used against plaintiff at trial (search warrant video and video of plaintiff allegedly producing fireworks). Defendants immediately began playing manipulative mind games with plaintiff and abusing their power and their positions of authority. Defendants retaliated against plaintiff for firing state licensed federal panel attorney Cohn and for exercising plaintiff’s right to freedom of speech and freedom and right to self representation by denying plaintiff access to the courts, denying plaintiff access to material evidence and by attempting to force plaintiff into trial with only 2-3 weeks to prepare.

723. On June 23rd, 2013, under pressure from the court, and after plaintiff was sent bogus discovery evidence and bogus material evidence (C.D.’s of alleged videos being used by the government in their “case-in-chief”), plaintiff reluctantly agreed to accept appointed counsel, however, plaintiff did not know that with an attorney, plaintiff would not have the right to investigate the case. State licensed federal panel attorney Wilmouth was selected by Stiller, appointed by Adelman and then reappointed by Joseph. Wilmouth immediately ordered plaintiff to stop any and all investigating of case 13-CR-99 at the first meeting with plaintiff on August 1st, 2013. Wilmouth made bizarre statements that had nothing to do with plaintiff’s case and Wilmouth appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance at that time. Plaintiff, immediately, after the meeting with Wilmouth in the Dodge County facility late in the evening of August 1st, 2013, wrote a letter to the federal prosecutors and the court stating that Wilmouth did not represent him and was not plaintiff’s attorney. Adelman refused to recognize plaintiff’s declaration of independence from federal panel attorney Wilmouth. Plaintiff attempted to remove Wilmouth the entire month of August 2013, invoking his Sixth Amendment Constitutional Right to self representation. Wilmouth refused any and all communication attempts from plaintiff the entire month of August 2013, despite telling plaintiff at the August 1st meeting, that an account with $40.00 was set up specifically for plaintiff to correspond with federal panel attorney Wilmouth using the jail phone system. Wilmouth refused all communication with plaintiff nearly the entire month of August 2013, and then on August 27th, 2013, moved the district court to have plaintiff committed and told plaintiff that there was nothing plaintiff could do about it. Wilmouth stole plaintiff’s property and opened plaintiff’s sealed mail which contained legal and medical records and personal artwork. Wilmouth called plaintiff verbally abusive derogatory names and told plaintiff that he was going to see to it that plaintiff

151 of 191.

was put in prison. Wilmouth was outspokenly hostile to plaintiff and to plaintiff’s best interests.

724. Plaintiff was forced by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, including, but not limited to Adelman, to remain under the counsel of hostile state licensed federal panel attorney Wilmouth from on or about August 3rd, through December 20th, 2013, in retaliation to plaintiff’s actions of fighting federal prosecutors to clear his name, attempting to investigate his case, and exercising his rights to free speech and to self representation.

725. Plaintiff was systematically denied and deprived of Constitutional Rights to free speech, access to the courts, compulsory process, self representation, and of the right to bail when Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants forced federal panel attorney Wilmouth, who was hostile to plaintiff’s best interests, onto case 13-CR-99, in an aggressive retaliatory legal maneuver which proximately silenced plaintiff, prevented plaintiff from investigating the case, and stopped plaintiff from bringing Constitutional Rights violations that occurred on the day of the incident to light. Defendants malicious actions of forcing Wilmouth onto plaintiff, effectively stopped plaintiff from exercising his Constitutional Rights, which plaintiff was doing before having Wilmouth forced upon him.

726. After approximately 5 months where absolutely no progress was made on plaintiff’s case due directly to the fact that hostile federal panel attorney Wilmouth was forced onto plaintiff’s case and was obstructing any positive progress on plaintiff’s behalf (basic steps to clear plaintiff’s name), on December 20th, 2013, Wilmouth was relieved of his court appointment and plaintiff undertook self representation and picked up the investigation where plaintiff left off in July of 2013.

727. From December 20th, 2013, through August 1st, 2014, plaintiff investigated his case and submitted motions attempting to suppress evidence obtained from an unwarranted search of plaintiff’s home. On August 1st, 2014, plaintiff requested appointed counsel after district judge Adelman set a TRIAL date for August 19th, 2014. At this point, plaintiff had spent all of his (very limited Law Library access) time and exhausted all of his resources in authoring the pretrial motion to suppress evidence and after Adelman denied the motion, plaintiff spent all of his time working on an Appellate Brief. Plaintiff had not been preparing for trial and could not prepare for trial from under the restrictions of the county jail setting with no money and no assistance. Again, plaintiff requested court appointed counsel and again plaintiff was burned by the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants when yet another federal panel attorney who was hostile to plaintiff’s best interests was appointed to represent plaintiff. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants were manipulating the system and denying and depriving plaintiff of rights protected under the Wisconsin and United States constitutions. Federal panel attorney Hunt, who was loyal the defendants, and who threatened plaintiff

152 of 191.

with legal actions contrary to plaintiff’s best interests, was appointed in retaliation for plaintiff’s exercising of his Constitutional Rights and in an effort by the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants to stop plaintiff from clearing his name, deny plaintiff due process, silence plaintiff, block plaintiff from the district and appeals courts, and further construct an alignment of attorneys against plaintiff for liability purposes. Hunt told plaintiff that plaintiff’s appeal of Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order” was meritless before Hunt ever even read or reviewed plaintiff’s “Appellate Brief” and section IV. of the Brief, “Appellant’s Argument.” Hunt was aligned with the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and was against plaintiff before even investigating the case and reading plaintiff’s “Appellate Brief.” Hunt was specifically and deliberately selected by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants in direct retaliation for plaintiff’s exercising of his protected Constitutional Rights and determined efforts to clear his name by exercising his rights. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants retaliated against plaintiff to shield themselves from liability and discredit and stop plaintiff from succeeding in winning the case against them. Hunt stated in writing that he was, in fact, aligned with the government. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants knew that Hunt was aligned with the government and that is why Hunt was specifically selected by defendants and deliberately appointed; for the sake of their own protection and in malicious retaliation against plaintiff.

728. Defendants deliberately and systematically forced another federal panel attorney onto plaintiff that was hostile to plaintiff’s best interests in August of 2014. Federal panel attorney Hunt was outspokenly hostile to plaintiff’s best interests, including plaintiff’s “Appellate Brief.” Hunt threatened to discredit and destroy plaintiff’s chance on appeal by authoring an “Anders Brief” against plaintiff and against plaintiff’s best interests. Plaintiff’s best interest was for success on appeal of the unlawful Adelman “Decision and Order” from July 21st, 2014, with the Seventh Court of Appeals. Success of plaintiff’s “Appellate Brief” meant dismissal of the case, clearing of plaintiff’s good name, and freedom for the defendant. There is no question that Hunt was hostile to plaintiff’s best interests and there is no question that Hunt was specifically selected by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants to represent plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff’s exercising of his Constitutional Rights and to stop plaintiff from exercising his Constitutional Rights to free speech, self representation, accessing the courts (including the appeals court), and to stop plaintiff from winning the case or winning the appeal.

729. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants possessed full knowledge that the appointment of Hunt would weaken, not strengthen, plaintiff’s efforts to succeed at clearing his name, and that the appointment of another hostile federal panel attorney to plaintiff’s case would undermine and deny plaintiff Constitutional Rights and stop plaintiff from exercising Constitutional Rights; right of access to judicial process, right of free

153 of 191.

speech, right to due process, right to counsel and right to equal protection under the law.

B.

Retaliatory Thefts and Seizures.

730. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants retaliated against plaintiff for exercising his Constitutional Rights by stealing plaintiff’s property and unlawfully seizing plaintiff’s legal and medical records, intellectual property and personal property.

731. On August 27th, 2013, all of plaintiff’s records were seized by defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors acting under the color of state law and under the colors and authority of the United States federal government. The August 27th, 2013, seizure, executed by Dodge County facility officials, unknown U.S. Marshals assigned to the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin and state licensed federal panel attorney Wilmouth, of plaintiff’s legal and medical records and personal property, including the original police incident report affidavits, was in direct retaliation for plaintiff’s exercising and attempting to exercise his Constitutional Rights from July 2nd, 2013, through August 27th, 2013. If plaintiff would have accepted a plea deal in July 2013, instead of invoking and exercising his Constitutional Rights in an effort to clear his name, the theft/seizure that took place on August 27th, 2013, never would have took place. Only because plaintiff was fighting the federal prosecutors to clear his name and attempting to challenge the evidence being used against him obtained through an unwarranted search of plaintiff’s home on April 30th, 2013, and challenging the contradictory police incident reports which concealed material facts, were the numerous unlawful retaliatory seizures and thefts of plaintiff’s property executed against plaintiff. Only because plaintiff was exercising his rights, were the thefts and seizures orchestrated by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants against plaintiff ever conducted. If plaintiff had accepted the first plea agreement offered by federal panel attorney Cohn functioning jointly and in concert with Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, of 4 years in federal prison, plaintiff would have been shipped off to federal prison in short order, end of story, and the unlawful retaliatory actions of defendant’s never would have taken place. See infra 74-75.

732. Instead of accepting the government’s unreasonable plea agreement offered by defendants, plaintiff stood up for his rights which were violated by police, and for standing up for his rights and exercising his Constitutional Rights, plaintiff was maliciously retaliated against by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. One of the retaliatory measures defendants executed against plaintiff was unlawful thefts and seizures of plaintiff’s property. See COUNT II. A.-K.

154 of 191.

733. On August 27th, 2013, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants retaliated against plaintiff for plaintiff’s attempts to exercise his Constitutional Rights to self representation and for firing two federal panel attorneys. Defendants stole legal records out of plaintiff’s records which included original police reports that were revised and changed from their original context by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants. See infra 115. On August 27th, 2013, at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin and at the Dodge County federal facility, defendants, functioning jointly and in concert with state officials, unlawfully seized all of plaintiff’s legal and medical records and personal property. See infra 74. Some of the property was never returned. Defendants’ actions were directly in retaliation for plaintiff’s efforts to bring to light the warrantless search and subsequent raid of plaintiff’s home by police and for plaintiff’s exercising of plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights.

734. Defendants unlawfully stole and seized plaintiff’s property on August 27th, 2013, in retaliation against plaintiff for plaintiff’s exercising of plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights and for the purpose of covering up defendants’ own unlawful actions and for the purpose of covering up unlawful actions of police and false incident report affidavits. Plaintiff took steps to fire federal panel attorney Wilmouth nearly the entire month of August 2013. Plaintiff invoked his Constitutional Rights to self representation because plaintiff was being denied (blocked) access to the courts by a hostile federal panel attorney. Defendants punished plaintiff for exercising his rights and for trying to clear his name and for trying to firing one ineffective federal panel attorney and trying to fire another equally as ineffective and hostile federal panel attorney by retaliating against plaintiff with the August 27th, 2013, synchronized seizer of plaintiff’s property and theft of plaintiff’s property (when the government doesn’t return the property or pretends the property never existed its THEFT under Wisconsin Law). See infra 74-75.

735. Defendants synergenically stole and seized plaintiffs property on August 27th, 2013, for the purpose of covering up their own unlawful actions and in retaliation for plaintiff’s attempts to fire federal panel attorney Wilmouth and for plaintiff’s exercising of his Constitutional Rights and for the purpose of stopping and depriving plaintiff of the opportunity to exercise his Constitutional Rights in the future. See infra 74-75.

736. On January 8th, 2014, plaintiff’s artwork was stolen by defendants. See infra 107. Defendants deliberate and malicious unlawful actions were conducted against plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff’s firing of Wilmouth on December 20th, 2013, and for plaintiff’s refusal to accept an unreasonable government plea agreement and for plaintiff’s decision to exercise his Constitutional Rights to free speech and to self representation protected under the First and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution and protected under Article One sections One, Three and Seven of the Wisconsin Constitution. See infra 107.

155 of 191.

737. On April 4th, 2014, plaintiff’s “Motion to Suppress Evidence” that was saved on a Law Library flash drive, and other legal and medical records saved on that same flash drive, which were in possession of the government in the Ozaukee County federal facility, were stolen by the defendants who were monitoring plaintiff’s progress and activities in the Ozaukee County federal facility Law Library. Defendants Carr, Santelle, and unknown federal government entities proximately functioning jointly and in concert with the Ozaukee County federal holding facility state officials, stole plaintiff’s “Motion to Suppress Evidence”, other records, and never returned them. The theft was systematically orchestrated by “the feds” that were monitoring plaintiff’s computer activity, writings, legal work and legal progress plaintiff was making in the Ozaukee County Law Library “Attorney Room #5.” Plaintiff’s records and legal work was stolen by federal Marshal Carr and plaintiff was subsequently transported to a federal holding facility with no Law Library and no access to basic legal resources like a copying machine for the next two months, from April 4th, through June 5th, 2013. Defendants deliberately stole plaintiff’s property and transferred plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff exercising his right to free speech, self representation, access to the courts and for plaintiff’s authoring of a true and accurate “Motion to Suppress Evidence” which was founded on facts and supported by case precedent and the United States Constitution, and which put the federal prosecutors case against plaintiff in jeopardy by shedding light on the true events of April 30th, 2013, which the government was attempting to keep covered up by silencing plaintiff. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants actions against plaintiff were deliberate, malicious, and unlawful, and were executed for the purpose of denying and depriving plaintiff of Constitutional Rights and were executed in retaliation for plaintiff’s exercising of his Constitutional Rights. See infra 179-80.

738. On April 11th, 2014, defendants rummaged through plaintiff’s records and notes in paper format while plaintiff was secured in the federal holding area of the federal courthouse and was separated from his records. Defendants, using the excuse and justification that they were continuing to “investigate”, went through and selectively stole plaintiff’s legal work and legal records, medical records and private personal records. There was nothing to investigate because plaintiff never denied the charges or his involvement with G.I. Fireworks. Defendants were simply raiding and stealing plaintiff’s intellectual property, artwork, and original writings. Defendants Carr, Santelle and unknown government actors, stole plaintiff’s intellectual property on April 11th, 2014, in retaliation, continued retaliation, for plaintiff’s refusal to accept the unreasonable government “plea agreement” (which wasn’t really an agreement because the federal prosecutors were dictating all of the terms and refusing to compromise and for the plaintiff’s exercising of his Constitutional Rights to free speech, self representation, due process and right of access to the courts. Defendants were also searching for any incriminating evidence against themselves, since defendants had been systematically violating plaintiff’s rights from the beginning of the adjudication process for case 13-CR-99. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants violated the law by stealing plaintiff’s intellectual property

156 of 191.

“baton of bad faith” analogy literary piece, on April 11th, 2014, in direct retaliation for plaintiff’s ongoing determination to fight the case, invoking his Constitutional Rights in so doing. See infra 184-85.

739. Between the dates of July 23rd and September 1st, 2014, plaintiff worked on an “Appellate Brief” in his cell in the Dodge County federal facility and in the Law Library on the computer. The “feds”, once again, were monitoring plaintiff’s work and progress in the Dodge County Law Library. Federal officials, in synergenic cooperation with Dodge County state officials, stole plaintiff’s intellectual property off of the Dodge County computer simultaneously as plaintiff worked on typing up his “Appellate Brief” which he actually wrote by hand in his cell. Plaintiff’s Appellate Brief was approximately 50 pages long and took plaintiff nearly the entire month of August, 2014, to type up and finish. Government computer technicians and federal officials monitored plaintiff’s computer activity and stole plaintiff’s intellectual property in retaliation for plaintiff’s continued efforts to clear his name through the exercising of Constitutional Rights. At this point in time, plaintiff, had also written grievances against the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants to the state Department of Corrections, the Wisconsin Attorney General, and the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division in Washington D.C. Plaintiff’s intellectual property is valuable. Plaintiff is a free writer, and inventor, a poet, an artist and a published author (and a plumber). Defendants’ actions of stealing plaintiff’s intellectual property are unlawful and were executed in retaliation for plaintiff’s determined efforts to clear his name through the exercising of Constitutional Rights. Defendants have exhibited a pattern of continued abuse of plaintiff (slander/internet computer/cyberspace, humiliation, theft, malicious prosecution) and deliberate attempts to oppress plaintiff and deprive plaintiff of both property and constitutionally protected Liberty. See infra 1-739.

C.

Retaliatory Denial of Access to the Courts.

740. Plaintiff fired state licensed federal panel attorney Thomas Wilmouth because Wilmouth was ineffective and was outspokenly hostile to plaintiff’s best interests in December of 2013. For approximately 5 months plaintiff wrote letters to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants declaring his independence from Wilmouth and requesting that Wilmouth be removed from case 13-CR-99. For approximately 5 months federal judge Adelman ignored plaintiff’s declaration of independence and forced hostile federal panel attorney Wilmouth onto plaintiff’s case, against plaintiff’s will. Finally after approximately 5 months with almost no contact or communication with hostile Wilmouth, Wilmouth moved to withdraw. Adelman, Sanfilippo, Dietrich, Johnson, Kanter and Kwaterski, who were amongst others, the puppet masters pulling little Wilmouth’s strings, retaliated against plaintiff for firing Wilmouth and refusing to accept the unreasonable government “plea agreement” (which wasn’t really an agreement because the federal prosecutors were dictating

157 of 191.

all of the terms and refusing to compromise) and for the plaintiff’s exercising of his Constitutional Rights to self representation, free speech, and the right of access to the courts, by systematically shunning plaintiff for multiple months, and deliberately denying plaintiff access to the courts. See infra COUNT VI. 683-714.

741. Defendants deliberately, maliciously, systematically and in synergenic cooperation with each other denied plaintiff access to judicial process in direct retaliation for the firing of Wilmouth and for plaintiff’s invoking of his Constitutional Rights and for the plaintiff’s exercising of Constitutional Rights in fighting to clear his name and obtain justice for the unconstitutional search of plaintiff’s home and cover up that followed. Defendants silenced plaintiff and denied plaintiff the right to free speech by unlawful retaliatory actions executed against plaintiff.

D.

Retaliatory Slander and Harassment.

742. Between the dates of August 27th, 2013, and October 15th, 2014, plaintiff was directly slandered by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and harassed by federal jailhouse “rats” who were cooperating with federal officials. Plaintiff was harassed and slandered by defendants and private entities functioning jointly and in concert with defendants in retaliation for plaintiff’s attempts to exercise his Constitutional Rights and for plaintiff’s exercising of his Constitutional Rights in multiple incidents. See infra COUNT III. 575-634 . . . (Wilmouth Slander), . . . (Marshals Slander), . . . (Cohn Slander), . . . (Johnson Slander), . . . (Carr proximate slander). The course of conduct demonstrated by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants shows a vindictive attitude, void of chivalry, and absent any respect for plaintiff’s dignity and for plaintiff’s rights to due process and right to fight to clear his name if he so chooses. Plaintiff has been the victim of a malicious slander campaign, waged by vindictive and resentful Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants in retaliation for plaintiff’s exercising of his Constitutional Rights to free speech, due process, self representation, right of access to the courts and plaintiff’s right to seek justice in the civil arena for violations of protected rights plaintiff holds sacred.

743. Plaintiff has been harassed in the jailhouse setting by hostile entities functioning in synergenic cooperation with “the feds.” (specific names omitted at this time). Plaintiff’s housing area locations, including inmates who surround plaintiff, have been deliberately imposed on plaintiff. In other words, federal and state officials are in total control of plaintiff’s location and those individuals who surrounded plaintiff. Over the 18 month long drawn out and perpetuated adjudication of case 13-CR-99, plaintiff was deliberately harassed by entities within the jail setting that were government proxy’s, intentionally harassing and badgering plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff’s determined effort to fight the Eastern District of

158 of 191.

Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants to clear his name. Defendants directly, and proximately, harassed and facilitated the harassment of plaintiff and the slander campaign (which involved the internet/computers), against plaintiff in direct retaliation for plaintiff’s exercising of his Constitutional Rights.

E.

Retaliatory Transfers.

744. On February 20th, 2014, plaintiff is transferred out of the KCDC facility where plaintiff is receiving one, 8 hour session of Law Library time every 3 days, to the Ozaukee County federal facility where plaintiff did not receive 8 hours in an entire week and was forced to submit court documents in hand writing. See February 24th, 2014, Adjournment Motion. In four days in the KCDC facility, and two, 8 hour sessions in the Law Library, plaintiff received more time than he did the entire month of January, 2014. As soon as plaintiff received a fair amount of time where he could actually make progress on both a civil case and work on the Motion to Suppress, plaintiff, as soon as he began picking up momentum, was abruptly cut off from Law Library access and restricted back down to less than 5 hours per week when plaintiff was transferred out of H-west of the KCDC federal facility to the Ozaukee County facility under the direction and orders of the Marshals service and U.S. Marshal Carr. It is no secret that the “feds” monitor federal inmates computer activity and documents that are printed out are also simultaneously recorded for monitoring by federal officials. Plaintiff printed out numerous civil forms and legal work for case 13-CR-99 and only a day or two later was transferred out of the facility and back to an area of little or no Law Library access at all. Plaintiff was retaliated against by Carr and other unknown federal officials, specifically because plaintiff made the decision to fight to clear his name against Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants by exercising Constitutional Rights, including the right to free speech and the right of access to the courts, and making real progress on the case.

745. On February 20th, 2014, plaintiff was transferred to the Ozaukee County federal facility. The first week or two plaintiff’s access to the Law Library was highly restricted to only a few hours a week. Plaintiff was forced to submit hand written legal documents to the court. Plaintiff grieved the minimal access and unreasonable allotment of time to work on his case in the Law Library. After several grievances to U.S. Marshals, to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Court (Adelman), and to the Ozaukee County federal facility administration and Sheriff Straub, plaintiff was given slightly more time, but never anywhere near the amount of time plaintiff was receiving in the KCDC facility the week before his abrupt transfer out of the facility (which was still not even half of a regular work week). Plaintiff worked from February 20th, until April 4th, 2014, in the Ozaukee County Law Library Attorney Room #5, every chance plaintiff got. Plaintiff put a request in every single day. By April 4th, 2014, plaintiff was again making good progress and was picking up momentum. Plaintiff was approximately halfway

159 of 191.

through typing out a Motion to Suppress Evidence when plaintiff was abruptly uprooted and transferred out of the Ozaukee County facility to Milwaukee County where there was no Law Library at all. All of plaintiff’s records that were saved on the Ozaukee County community flash drive were seized and allegedly destroyed by government officials. Plaintiff lost critical legal records and lost the ability to continue authoring his Motion to Suppress Evidence in proper typed format as specified in the Eastern District of Wisconsin Local Rules. The “feds” were monitoring plaintiff’s activity the Ozaukee County Law Library as he worked on the computer, fighting against the people who were actually monitoring him, and fighting to clear his name by exercising his Constitutional Rights. Marshal Carr and unknown Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution entities, in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, acting under the color of law and under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, deliberately and maliciously seized all of plaintiff’s computer records and transferred plaintiff to facilities with no access to Law Libraries for the next 8 weeks, directly in retaliation for the progress plaintiff was making in the Law Library with respect to plaintiff’s motion to suppress evidence; and for plaintiff’s exercising of his Constitutional Rights to the fullest of their capacities. Defendants’ have shown absolutely no respect for the rights of plaintiff and defendants vindictive and malicious attitudes and course of conduct again manifests itself with the flagrant attacks by defendants on plaintiff’s Liberty, protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions.

F.

Unlawful Retaliation in Response to the

Exercising of Constitutional Rights

746. The aforementioned Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants and unknown entities functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with private and state actors, acting under the color of state law, independently, or under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, unlawfully deprived plaintiff of Liberty protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions, when defendants deliberately and maliciously retaliated against plaintiff specifically in response to plaintiff’s exercising of his Constitutional Rights to free speech, self representation, right of access to the courts, due process and the right to be free from hostile and abusive federal panel attorneys that do not have plaintiff’s best interests in mind. Plaintiff was maliciously retaliated against numerous times with unlawful actions by defendants over the course of the approximate 18 month long adjudication of case 13-CR-99 United States v. Bodie Witzlib. Defendants’ unlawful retaliatory actions were deliberately taken against plaintiff with intentional disregard for plaintiff’s rights. See infra COUNT VII. A.-E. 715-45.

747. Defendants are liable, for flagrantly violating plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights, under Article One section Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution; under the

160 of 191.

First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; and under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985(3). See COUNT VII. A.-E.

748. Plaintiff suffered injuries, losses, and loss of Liberty, directly caused by defendants unlawful actions; deliberately, vindictively, and maliciously executed and orchestrated against plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered physical injury, emotional distress, mental anguish and was deprived of Liberty, directly caused by defendants unlawful retaliatory actions against him. Plaintiff has the right to seek relief through the courts in damages against the defendants and does so at this time. See COUNT VII. A.-E.

COUNT VIII.

State Law Abuse of Process Claim.

749. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-748 above.

750. Over the approximate 18 month long adjudication process of case 13-CR-99, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants have unlawfully stepped outside the boundaries of their lawful authority and the scope of their duties on numerous occasions in a concerted effort to maliciously prosecute and convict the plaintiff by any means necessary.

751. Between the dates of April 30th, 2013, and October 24th, 2014, defendants abused judicial process executing unlawful manipulative actions against plaintiff that were abnormal in defendants’ efforts to prosecute plaintiff. Defendants’ tactics included trickery, deception, lying, abuse of power, manipulation of facts, strategic transfers, seizures/thefts of legal records, slander, and fraud; all actions orchestrated against plaintiff under the color of law and deliberately executed for the purpose of convicting the plaintiff by any means necessary.

752. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants took irregular manipulative strategic steps in their efforts to prosecute and convict the plaintiff, and used unlawful legal processes against plaintiff to accomplish unlawful objectives that aided defendants’ efforts to prosecute and ultimately convict plaintiff by any means necessary. Defendants used legal processes outside the scope of their intended design, all for the purpose of obstructing and stopping plaintiff from clearing his name and from having the ability to clear his name; for the purpose of covering up police constitutional rights violations; for the purpose of attaining a level of glory through the conviction of defendant and to satisfy their own desire to chalk another conviction up on their resume; and for the purpose of prosecuting and convicting plaintiff by any means necessary. See infra 1-293.

161 of 191.

A.

Fraudulent Pretrial Service Report False Light Manipulation.

753. The purpose of a pretrial service report is to brief/inform the court on facts regarding the criminal defendant. The purpose of the pretrial service report is not to fabricate facts, distort information, conceal information and deliberately and maliciously slander plaintiff’s character portraying plaintiff’s character in a false light; all to establish some kind of perverted foundation on which prosecutors can develop and justify unlawful prosecution methods and tactics. Federal probation officer Mott unlawfully injected a fraudulent pretrial service report into the docket record of the case for the purpose of slandering the plaintiff and portraying plaintiff’s character in a false light; thus aiding federal prosecutors in their efforts to prosecute and convict plaintiff by any means necessary.

B.

Unreasonable Push for Trial and Manipulative Scheduling.

754. In July 2013, with only 3 weeks until the scheduled trial date, after having just recently taken over the case under pro se status, plaintiff moved to adjourn, stating to the court that he could not prepare for trial in 2 weeks. J.P. Stadtmueller, in concert with federal prosecutor Santelle and unknown government entities, pushed for trial and plaintiff’s motion to adjourn was denied. Federal panel attorney Cohn told plaintiff that he had talked the government down to 4 years from the 31 total years plaintiff was allegedly facing for 2” long fireworks in his basement. If it was up to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, plaintiff would have been convicted in July of 2013 and sent to federal prison thereafter. Defendants pushing of plaintiff into trial with only two weeks to prepare was a malicious unreasonable tactic of prosecution. Plaintiff had no money, no legal assistance, no access to a functional Law Library, and no time to prepare. Defendants abused their power and are guilty of abusing judicial process by their concerted efforts to maliciously prosecute plaintiff, by any means necessary. See infra 39.

C.

Deliberate Appointments of Hostile State Licensed

Federal Panel Attorneys and Unreasonably Lengthy

Forced Continued Representation by those Hostile

Attorneys Loyal to the Eastern District of

Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution.

755. The purpose of a court appointed attorney or public defender assigned to an indigent criminal defendant’s case, is to effectively and competently represent the defendant to the best of the attorneys ability and give the defendant a voice in the

162 of 191.

courtroom from someone with knowledge of law so the criminal defendant who has pled not guilty is not abused and taken advantage of by the government. Appointed counsel has a duty to protect their clients rights guaranteed under the law and to ensure that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment Constitutional Right to counsel is protected in the interest of justice. The purpose of a court appointed federal panel attorney is NOT to deliberately obstruct and deny the defendant of the aforementioned rights in a last ditch effort to protect police and prosecutors from liability due to a botched, unlawful, and unconstitutional police search and raid of the defendant’s home. The court appointed attorney has a duty to provide honest, loyal, competent, effective, and professional representation of the defendant his client. The court appointed attorney has a duty to protect the defendant’s right to free speech and the right to have a competent voice in the courtroom fighting on behalf of their client to clear their client’s name if the client has pled not guilty.

756. Defendants Stiller, Adelman, Joseph, and unknown government entities, functioning in synergenic cooperation with one another and jointly in concert with state licensed federal panel attorneys, Cohn, Hunt, and Wilmouth, systematically denied and deprived plaintiff of the right of access to the courts. Wilmouth and Hunt were both outspokenly hostile to plaintiff’s best interests and deliberately ineffective. Federal panel attorneys were not only ineffective, they actually damaged plaintiff’s case by actions they took and by actions they had a duty to take but failed to do so. See infra 1-293.

757. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants deliberately forced hostile panel attorneys onto plaintiff’s case, not for the purpose of providing plaintiff with competent effective counsel, but for the purpose of gaining the upper hand in the prosecution and adjudication of case 13-CR-99, and for the purpose of having total control over the outcome of the case and having the ability to influence and control the record of the history of the case and what information is brought to light and what information is kept concealed. Defendants forced federal panel attorneys onto plaintiff who were loyal to the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution and who, through those attorneys, federal officials could dictate and control all variables concerning the adjudication of the case. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants manipulative unlawful actions against plaintiff fall under the definition of “abuse of judicial process” as it is known and understood under Wisconsin established case law precedent. See infra COUNT V. and COUNT VI.

D.

Manipulative Tactics to Strip Plaintiff of Due Process Rights.

758. See infra COUNT V. and COUNT VI. E. and G.

163 of 191.

E.

Manipulative Tactics to Deny Plaintiff Access to the Courts.

759. Defendants selected, appointed, and subsequently forced federal panel attorneys to remain on plaintiff’s case for unreasonably lengthy periods of time. These attorneys were outspokenly hostile to both plaintiff and to plaintiff’s best interests. These panel attorneys shared loyalties with Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants whom had provided them paychecks in the past, were doing so at that time, and notwithstanding any “falling out”, were sure to do so in the future. Defendants used the federal defenders service as a means of unlawfully gaining more control over plaintiff and more control over the adjudication process of case 13-CR-99, not for the purpose intended, which is to provide plaintiff with competent and effective counsel; counsel who is loyal to the client and who makes decisions and render’s candid advice with plaintiff’s best interests in mind. Defendant’s manipulative and devious tactics (appointing federal panel attorney puppets to plaintiff’s case who shared loyalties with Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants) systematically deprived plaintiff of Liberty.

760. Under the definition of “abuse of process” as it is known and understood under Wisconsin case law precedent, defendants deliberate manipulation of court process by assigning federal panel attorneys who where government proxies, effectively sabotaging plaintiff’s case and blocking plaintiff from the court, for the purpose of gaining control over the plaintiff and the fate of the case, was unlawful. Defendants manipulated and used a court process for a purpose of which that process was not intended nor designed and violated plaintiff’s rights in so doing; right to free speech, right of access to the courts, right to competent effective counsel, right to self representation, right to due process and right to equal protection under the law. Defendant’s unlawful actions orchestrated against plaintiff, unlawfully deprived plaintiff of Liberty. See infra COUNT V.

F.

Manipulative and Unlawful Seizures and Transfers for the

Purpose of Denying Plaintiff Access to the Courts.

761. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, over the course of the 18 month long drawn out adjudication of case 13-CR-99, executed multiple seizures and strategically timed transfers for the purpose of depriving plaintiff of rights protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitution. See infra 1-293.

762. Plaintiff was deliberately and intentionally denied and deprived of the right of access to the courts, the right to free speech, the right to due process, the right to equal protection of law, and the right to self representation by the unlawful transfers deliberately executed against plaintiff for the purpose of stopping

164 of 191.

plaintiff from exercising the aforementioned rights by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants.

763. Defendants, over the course of the 18 month long drawn out adjudication of case 13-CR-99, executed multiple seizures of plaintiff’s property and strategically timed transfers for the purpose of depriving plaintiff the ability to exercise Constitutional Rights to free speech and of access to the courts, thus obstructing and stopping plaintiff from clearing his name or from even having the opportunity to clear his name. Defendants Carr, Santelle, Adelman and unknown defendants and government entities, manipulated and abused the inmate transfer process and orchestrated unlawful thefts and seizures of plaintiff’s property for the purpose of obstructing plaintiff from clearing his name, and for the purpose of intentionally depriving plaintiff of Liberty, all while functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state officials acting under the color of law and under the colors and authority of the United States federal government. See infra 1-293.

764. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants manipulative and unlawful executions of thefts and seizures of plaintiff’s property and unlawful strategically timed transfers for the ulterior purpose of obstructing and denying plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights to due process and right of access to the courts, which defendants unlawful actions against plaintiff ultimately succeeded in doing, were unlawful under Wisconsin State Law and fall under the definition of “abuse of judicial process” as known and understood under established Wisconsin case law precedent.

G.

Manipulative Trickery and Deception by Government Officials to Effectuate an Unlawful Power Grab through Slander.

765. On July 14th and 15th, 2014, plaintiff was told by 4 different government officials, two deputy Marshals and two state federal holding facility corrections officers, that plaintiff should request bail and that if he did, plaintiff would be released on bail/bond by federal judge Adelman.

766. Plaintiff took the advice and instruction from the government officials, reasoning in his mind that the government officials had no reason to lie to him and thinking to himself: “Who could be that cruel and mean to tell someone they would be released on bail if they simply requested to be released, if they really wouldn’t be released?” Plaintiff requested bail in a letter to the court prior to his next scheduled status hearing court date set for two weeks in the future, July 29th, 2014. See infra COUNT I. J. and 1-293.

767. At the next court hearing on July 29th, 2014, federal judge Adelman denied plaintiff’s request for bail and refused to set a reasonable bail. After denying plaintiff a reasonable bail, or any bail for that matter, Adelman read a lengthy

165 of 191.

negative statement into the court record listing reasons allegedly justifying the court’s denial of bail. The statement Adelman read into the record was inaccurate and slanderous and portrayed plaintiff’s character in a false light using untrue alleged facts. Adelman’s slanderous statement that was read into the record of case 13-CR-99 on July 29th, 2014, was enabled and only made possible by plaintiff’s request for bail which 4 separate government officials told plaintiff he would receive if requested.

768. Defendants “Burton”, “Doug”, Carr, Santelle, Adelman and unknown federal entities functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state actors, deliberately and unlawfully orchestrated and effectuated damaging court actions, that included the slander of plaintiff character with false misrepresented facts, and the distortion of the court record of case 13-CR-99 to be executed against plaintiff to assist in the prosecution of plaintiff, to strengthen the government’s case against plaintiff, for the purpose of convicting plaintiff by any means necessary.

769. Defendant’s devious tactics of prosecution that included the use of abnormal and irregular steps to effectuate a conviction and strengthen the government’s case against plaintiff, were unlawful under Wisconsin law and fall under the definition of “abuse of process” as defined, known, and understood under Wisconsin established case law precedent. Defendants devious actions and flat out lying to plaintiff for the purpose of effectuating a slanderous statement to be read into the record of case 13-CR-99, damaged plaintiff’s efforts to clear his name by further prejudicing the court against plaintiff and in favor of the government; through the manipulation of how plaintiff’s character is perceived and portraying plaintiff’s character in a false light. Defendant’s abused judicial process by lying to plaintiff’s face and then reading a slanderous statement into the record after plaintiff trusted the government officials and followed their instructions (plaintiff had actually been lied to numerous times by government officials right from the beginning of the case on the day of the incident; each time plaintiff trusted government officials at their word and each time government officials burned him).

H.

Fabricating False Incident Affidavits for the Purpose of Covering up False Statements, Covering up a Botched Police Investigation, Slandering Plaintiff, and Manipulating the Court Record with False Information.

770. On January 8th, 2014, defendants stole plaintiff’s property. See infra 1-293 and COUNT II. G.

771. On January 8th, 2014, plaintiff was deprived of sleep, intentionally induced with the beginning stages of hypothermia, and neglected to be returned to his jail cell in a reasonable amount of time by hostile state corrections officers. See infra 106-07.

166 of 191.

772. On January 9th, 2014, plaintiff confronted the federal officers who stole/seized plaintiff’s property and plaintiff demanded the return of plaintiff’s artwork and poems. Plaintiff also told defendant’s their actions of THEFT (that’s what its called when you don’t return it), were unlawful and unpatriotic. See infra 1-293.

773. Defendants, U.S. Marshals deputies, responded to being “shamed” by plaintiff in front of several other federal inmates awaiting court hearings scheduled for that day, by forcefully manacling plaintiff and then submitting false reports containing untrue accounts of the incident to federal prosecutors Johnson and unknown federal government entities.

774. Federal prosecutors and Marshals, by federal prosecutor Johnson, slandered plaintiff in open court, verbally attacking plaintiff’s character, integrity, and honor, by stating that plaintiff was disruptive and needed to be restrained in both the federal holding facility the night before (which was untrue) and earlier that day by the U.S. Marshals in the federal inmate holding area of the federal courthouse in Milwaukee Wisconsin (which was also untrue). See infra 1-293 and COUNT I. I.

775. The entire incident and subsequent slander of plaintiff’s character by Johnson, which prejudiced the court and distorted the court record, was bogus. The entire incident arose from the mistreatment of plaintiff including the thefts of plaintiff’s artwork by rogue government officials.

776. The entire incident was initiated by the government and then systematically executed by the government. The incident and fabricated information that was derived from the incident was perpetuated by defendants into a malicious slander attack against plaintiff for the purpose of manipulating the court record and prejudicing the court in favor of the government. Johnson used the false information provided to federal prosecutors to launch a slander attack against plaintiff in open court.

777. The misrepresented facts entered into the court record on January 9th, 2014, negatively prejudiced the court against the plaintiff and in favor of the government. Plaintiff’s character was portrayed in a false light by defendants malicious slander attack. Defendants deliberately, intentionally, and with the intent to deceive the court, orchestrated the slander attack. Plaintiff’s case was damaged by the slander because Adelman ruled against plaintiff in every single meaningful pretrial motion submitted by the defense that was critical to the plaintiff’s case (motion to suppress, motion for evidentiary hearing, motion for polygraph, motion to inspect and examine physical evidence, motion to relieve counsel, motion to relieve judge, motion for reconsideration; and denial of bail) because Adelman was prejudiced in favor of the government.

778. Defendants’ unlawful mistreatments, seizures, slander attacks, inducement of hypothermia, sleep deprivation, manacling of plaintiff, and thefts of plaintiff’s

167 of 191.

property and the fabrication of bogus incidents in order to infiltrate the record of the case with negative damning evidence against plaintiff’s character that was false, was unlawful and devious. Defendant’s used judicial process for a purpose that the process was not meant to be used. Under Wisconsin case law precedent, defendant’s unlawful irregular steps taken to effectuate a slander campaign and slanderous statements entered into the court record, fall under the definition of “abuse of process” as known and understood under Wisconsin Law.

779. Plaintiff was slandered, defamed, mistreated, stolen from, and humiliated in open court by defendants’ malicious prosecution tactics that fall under the definition of abuse of process when examined in the complete context of the defendants’ actions executed against plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered injury, losses, loss of Liberty, humiliation, extreme emotional distress, mental anguish and plaintiff was oppressed and plaintiff’s case and future was damaged by defendants’ unlawful manipulations and misrepresentations of facts and bogus slanderous statements executed against him by defendants functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other.

I.

Docket Entry Manipulation and Entering

Fraudulent Documents into the Record.

780. The purpose of recording the district court docket of a case is to provide both the defense and the prosecution/government with an accurate chronology of the procedural history of the case, including all relevant and material court documents, allowing all parties, and providing all parties involved in the case, the ability to reference past court activity and past court documents in future court actions. The defense and pro se defendant, has an equal right to access the district court docket and access the true and accurate and original entries of documents into the docket.

781. Defendants’ Adelman, Sanfilippo, Dietrich, Joseph and unknown federal government officials unlawfully distorted, concealed, fabricated, and manipulated the district court docket by selectively choosing which documents to enter and which documents to exclude and by entering fraudulent documents into the record. Defendants manipulated dates, and distorted the record, unlawfully, for the purpose of aiding the government prosecutors with the prosecution of plaintiff and for the purpose of covering up unlawful court activities on the part of defendants.

782. On June 1st, 2013, plaintiff submitted a 10 page response letter to federal judge Joseph, responding to the pretrial service report entered into the docket by federal clerks and written by federal probation officer Mott, which clearly portrayed plaintiff’s character in a negative and false light and which misrepresented facts and concealed facts. Plaintiff’s response letter was never entered into the docket, thus depriving plaintiff of the right to have a voice in the

168 of 191.

courtroom and denying plaintiff access to the courts, and proximately depriving plaintiff of free speech. See infra 1-293 and COUNT I. B. and C.

783. Between the dates of September 5th and November 1st, 2013, defendants Adelman, Sanfilippo and Dietrich failed to enter legal correspondences plaintiff made to the court into the record which they received from plaintiff. See infra 1-293 and COUNT I. C. and COUNT II. F.

784. On (specific dates omitted pending completion of Office of Lawyer Regulation (Madison Office) investigation) defendants’ Adelman, Dietrich, and Sanfilippo, intentionally manipulated the court docket, concealed material evidence and entered fraudulent evidence into the docket, depriving plaintiff of material evidence, depriving plaintiff of the right to due process, obstructing plaintiff and stopping plaintiff from investigating case 13-CR-99, preventing plaintiff from having the ability to prepare for trial, depriving plaintiff of Liberty, and unlawfully abusing judicial process as it is understood under Wisconsin State case law precedent. See infra 1-293 and COUNT I. C. and COUNT II.

785. Between the dates of December 21st, 2013, and March 12th, 2014, defendants deliberately denied plaintiff the district court docket despite 13 formal respectful requests in writing. Between the dates of January 19th, 2014, and August 2nd, 2014, defendants denied plaintiff district court transcripts containing material evidence in two different cases, case 13-CR-99 and a pending civil case. Plaintiff followed the procedures to request the transcripts specified in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Local Rules. Defendants denied plaintiff’s right to due process in two different cases by denying plaintiff transcripts. Plaintiff submitted 9 proper requests/orders for transcripts to defendants. Defendants Adelman, Sanfilippo, Dietrich, Stawski, John S. and possibly other unknown government entities, functioning in synergenic cooperation with one another, unlawfully, and deliberately, denied plaintiff material evidence and standard documents plaintiff required to both effectively represent himself and initiate civil action to counter defendants unlawful actions and violations of plaintiff’s rights. See infra 1-293 and COUNT VI. C.

786. On August 29th, 2014, after plaintiff refused to agree to an unreasonable plea bargain (which as not a “bargain” or an “agreement” because federal prosecutors simply dictated all of the terms and refused to compromise) defendants Adelman and Dietrich scheduled a date for TRIAL for August 19th, 2014. See infra 1-293. Then the very next day, defendants changed the “TRIAL” date to a “PRETRIAL” date but defendants failed to notify plaintiff who defendants knew had no access to the updated version of the docket and who is representing himself pro se. Again defendants keep plaintiff in the dark regarding critical decisions and court actions regarding case 13-CR-99. Defendants’ devious manipulative tactics were deliberate, unlawful, and were maliciously executed against plaintiff over and over again over the entire course of the adjudication of case 13-CR-99.

169 of 191.

787. Defendants unlawful manipulations and concealment of the district court docket over the course of the adjudication of case 13-CR-99, not for the purpose of maintaining and accurate and truthful record of court activity but for the purpose of assisting the federal government in their efforts to prosecute plaintiff and for the purpose of depriving plaintiff of material evidence is “abuse of judicial process” as known and understood under Wisconsin case law precedent. Plaintiff suffered damage to his person and damage to the integrity of two separate cases, caused directly by defendants’ unlawful actions. Defendants deprived plaintiff of due process, of his right to free speech, and of Liberty. See infra 1-293.

J.

Clerk Practicing Law, Distorting the Docket,

and Dictating Orders of the Court.

788. It is a duty of a federal judge to know the law. Federal judges are expected to know the law and make competent, informed, wise decisions based on their knowledge of the law and understanding of facts set before them by either the defense or prosecution.

789. On August 27th, 2013, defendant, state licensed federal panel attorney Wilmouth, moved to commit plaintiff for a competency evaluation, in part, as a retaliatory vindictive response and reaction to plaintiff’s attempts to fire Wilmouth the entire month of August, 2013. Upon Wilmouth’s request in the middle of the August 27th, 2013, status hearing, defendant Adelman ordered plaintiff to be committed for a period of 6 months. Immediately upon Adelman’s order, the deputy clerk stood up in the middle of the hearing, turned around and told something to Adelman off the record. After deputy clerk told something to Adelman off the record, Adelman withdrew his first order and changed the order to a 30 day commitment. The clerk was dictating the orders of the court and was in control, not the judge. The judicial process was not intended nor designed to function in such a way. See infra 1-293.

K.

Withholding Bail in Exchange for a Plea of Guilt.

790. On July 29th, 2014, at a scheduled status hearing at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee, plaintiff was trapped in a manipulative power play by defendants Johnson, Santelle, Kwaterski, Kanter and Adelman. In the middle of the hearing federal prosecutor Johnson requested a recess to discuss the “plea agreement” (which was not an “agreement” because federal prosecutors dictated all the terms and refused to compromise). At that time, Adelman and Dietrich retreated to the judge’s chambers. Johnson, at this time, stood directly in front of the defense table and verbally pressured plaintiff to agree to the plea agreement. Plaintiff told Johnson that he would agree to plead “nolo contendere” under the condition he could appeal Adelman’s July 21st, 2014, “Decision and Order.” Johnson refused

170 of 191.

and told plaintiff instead, that if plaintiff agreed to sign the plea agreement on that day, at that time, the government would not object to plaintiff being allowed out on bond pending sentencing (signature bond). At this point in the hearing the court had not addressed plaintiff’s letter requesting bail induced by government officials. Johnson told plaintiff that she was not authorized to decide if the government would accept the defense offer of a nolo contendere plea and under the condition that plaintiff’s right to appeal the July 21st, 2014, ruling would be preserved. Johnson appeared to be text messaging someone in the middle of the hearing, presumably her superior Santelle. Plaintiff told Johnson that the defense would not accept the governments plea agreement as it stood at that time. Johnson was using plaintiff’s request for bail as a manipulative form of legal leverage, threatening to object to bail unless plaintiff signed the plea deal and if plaintiff signed the plea agreement, agreeing to allow plaintiff out of jail that very day pending sentencing. After plaintiff refused to sign, Johnson walked back into the judge’s chambers where Adelman and Dietrich were at the time. Plaintiff suddenly found himself alone in the courtroom with just the U.S. Marshals deputies, the bailiff, and the court reporter. The judge Adelman, clerk Dietrich, and federal prosecutor Johnson, were all together in the judge’s chambers. Moments later Johnson emerged and very shortly thereafter Adelman and Dietrich emerged. Adelman, then actually engaged briefly in plea negotiations and told plaintiff that the government would not agree to drop the charges to misdemeanors. Adelman stated “forget about it”, “it’s not gonna happen.” Adelman also denied plaintiff’s request for a conditional plea stating “that’s unheard of.” Next, Johnson stated that the government objected to bail. Next, Adelman read a statement into the record that portrayed plaintiff’s character in a false light by slandering plaintiff with misrepresented facts, false facts, and untrue allegations. The statement Adelman read into the court record was untrue. Defendants manipulated and abused judicial process by using bail, a protected right under Article One sections Six of the Wisconsin Constitution and a protected right under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or the refusal or granting of bail, as legal leverage against plaintiff in an attempt to force a plea of guilt or be denied bail. Here, defendants manipulation and abuse of power continued, which they had been doing throughout the entire adjudication of case 13-CR-99. Plaintiff was deprived of Constitutional Rights and of Liberty by defendants manipulative unlawful malicious tactics of prosecution and arm twisting in order to force a plea of guilt by the denial of the plaintiffs right to bail protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions.

791. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants unlawful irregular steps, and devious manipulative actions taken against plaintiff, for the purpose of effectuating a plea of guilt and conviction through the denial of constitutionally protected Liberties, falls under the definition of “abuse of judicial process” as known and understood under Wisconsin State case law precedent.

171 of 191.

L.

Manipulation of the Adjudication Process by

Withholding Material Evidence.

792. On July 2nd, 2013, plaintiff began representing himself under pro se status. Plaintiff was forced to take over the case because state licensed federal panel attorney was not effectively representing him. Cohn had a longtime business relationship with federal officials and refused to fight to clear plaintiff’s name on behalf of plaintiff and against federal prosecutors. Cohn refused to take basic legal steps on behalf of plaintiff and Cohn shared loyalties with federal officials, in, and outside of the courthouse for years.

793. Upon taking over the case, plaintiff launched his own investigation and demanded discovery. This occurred approximately the first week of July, 2013. On July 17th, 2013, plaintiff receives discovery evidence from federal prosecutors. This evidence contains vast amounts of alien data, allegedly found on plaintiff’s computer but was never actually on plaintiff’s computer. Federal prosecutors Santelle, Johnson, Kanter, Kwaterski, and unknown federal officials functioning in synergenic cooperation with federal prosecutors, injected vast amounts of alien data into discovery. Furthermore, and more alarmingly in this specific pleading, federal prosecutors sent plaintiff discovery “C.D.’s” containing video footage of the “search warrant” and video footage of plaintiff allegedly “producing fireworks” at his workbench in the basement of his home. Specifically, the search warrant and alleged firework production videos were material evidence because federal prosecutors notified the plaintiff that the videos would be used at trial in the prosecutors “case-in-chief.” It turns out that all of the alien data was viewable by plaintiff however the actual material evidence set to be used at trial against plaintiff, was not accessible or reviewable, due to the fact that the windows media player of the jail computer could not process the “C.D.’s” and play the videos. Plaintiff could not prepare for trial or complete the investigation of case 13-CR-99 without reviewing and examining material evidence which was set to be used to prosecute plaintiff at trial and could not effectively prepare for trial without examining these two C.D.’s.

794. On December 20th, 2013, after having been forced under the hostile federal panel attorney Wilmouth for approximately 5 months, plaintiff was once again under pro se status and picked up the investigation where he left off back in July, 2013. In January 2014, plaintiff received discovery evidence from the federal prosecutors. Original police report incident affidavits had been revised from their original versions and the exact same C.D.’s (search warrant video and video of plaintiff allegedly producing fireworks) were not playable on Kenosha County computers. Plaintiff, who was indigent and struggling to pay the 50 cent cost of copies in the Kenosha facility Law Library, paid $5.00 in postage to send back the bogus C.D.’s that would not play on the Dodge or Kenosha County computers. On February 20th, 2014, plaintiff was transferred to the Ozaukee County federal facility. At a February 25th, 2014, status hearing, Johnson hand delivered the

172 of 191.

C.D.’s that would not play on the Dodge or Kenosha facility computers and assured plaintiff that the C.D.’s would function and would be examinable on the Ozaukee facility computers because Johnson claimed that she called and checked. However, once again, the exact same two C.D.’s would not play on the Ozaukee federal facility computers. Johnson also refused to exchange the C.D.’s or have the C.D.’s reformatted, which plaintiff had requested in writing that the government do. Ozaukee County facility guards witnessed that the C.D.’s were again inaccessible. Plaintiff could not complete the investigation of case 13-CR-99 or prepare for trail without examining the material evidence that would actually be used against him at trial and the federal prosecutors were fully aware of this fact. At this point in time it was clear that Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants were playing manipulative mind games with the plaintiff and were deliberately obstructing plaintiff from completing the investigation of case 13-CR-99 and intentionally prolonging and perpetuating the adjudication of the case to an unreasonably lengthy amount of time.

795. On May 22nd, 2014, over a year after the incident, and nearly 13 months after the federal prosecutors sent the first batch of bogus discovery materials to the plaintiff and bogus C.D.’s that were allegedly material evidence, plaintiff was finally given access to the evidence contained on the C.D.’s. See infra 1-293.

796. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants systematically obstructed and stopped plaintiff from completing the investigation of case 13-CR-99 and from preparing for trial from July 2013, through May 2014. Defendants forced a prolonged lengthy adjudication process by unlawfully withholding material evidence from plaintiff and forced plaintiff to live in the unhealthy jail setting as a direct result of their refusal to turn over the evidence. Defendants violated plaintiff’s due process rights protected under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and rights to evidence protected under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 16, and protected under Brady v. Maryland (1963), and protected under Article One sections One and Seven of the Wisconsin Constitution.

797. Defendants’ actions against plaintiff were deliberate, manipulative, and malicious. Defendants intentionally deprived and denied plaintiff of rights protected under the law. Defendants forced unlawful obstructions upon plaintiff time after time and manipulated the adjudication process for the purpose of prosecuting plaintiff and obtaining a conviction by any means necessary. Defendant’s unlawful actions regarding material evidence and timely disclosure of material evidence fall under the definition of “abuse of judicial process” as known and understood under Wisconsin case law precedent.

798. Plaintiff suffered injuries caused by defendants’ unlawful actions that included mental anguish, physical damage to his body after spending unreasonable lengths of time in unhealthy jail settings (muscle atrophy . . .), loss of health, loss of time, by defendants’ devious manipulation of the judicial process and mean unlawful actions depriving plaintiff of Liberty.

173 of 191.

M.

Abuse of Process. COUNT VIII. A.-L.

799. Over the approximate 18 month long drawn out adjudication of case 13-CR-99, defendants deliberately and maliciously took unlawful manipulative actions against plaintiff and used legal judicial process against plaintiff outside the scope of the processes intended use for the purpose of prosecuting and convicting plaintiff by any means necessary. Defendants used tactics that included trickery, lying, deception, manipulation of facts, manipulation of procedure, slander, withholding material evidence, concealing evidence, transfers, unlawful seizures, and fraud, for the purpose of effectuating a conviction of plaintiff by any means necessary. See infra COUNT VIII. “Abuse of Process”, A.-L.

800. Plaintiff suffered injury, losses, loss of Liberty and was denied due process, directly caused by defendants unlawful actions maliciously orchestrated against him. As a result of the abnormally long and drawn out adjudication of case 13-CR-99, a direct result of defendants’ actions, plaintiff was forced into unhealthy jail settings where plaintiff’s health was damaged. Plaintiff never would have suffered injuries and loss absent defendants’ unlawful actions against plaintiff. See infra COUNT VIII. A.-L. Plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress, mental anguish and loss of Liberty (broken heart), directly caused by defendants’ unlawful actions against him.

801. Defendants deliberately and intentionally “abused judicial process” for the purpose of prosecuting and convicting plaintiff by any means necessary. Defendants are liable for violating plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights under Article One section Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution; under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985(3); and under Wisconsin Stats. 134.01, 893.57 and 939.31. Plaintiff suffered injuries, losses, and damage to his overall well being, directly and indirectly caused by defendants unlawful actions COUNT VIII. A.-L.; actions that fall under the definition of “Abuse of Process” as known and understood under Wisconsin State case law precedent. Plaintiff has the right under the law to seek relief through the courts and does so at this time.

COUNT IX.

State Law Denial of Procedural Due Process Claim.

802. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-801 above.

803. Over the course of the approximate 18 month long drawn out adjudication of case 13-CR-99, between the dates of April 30th, 2013, and October 25th, 2014, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, deliberately,

174 of 191.

systematically in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with private and state actors, acting under the color of law, and under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, unlawfully deprived plaintiff of rights protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. Defendants took unlawful actions against plaintiff intentionally disregarding plaintiff’s rights for the purpose of securing a conviction by any means necessary. Defendants deliberately and maliciously deprived plaintiff of rights and Liberty protected under the Constitution of the United States without providing plaintiff sufficient process.

A.

Deprived of Right to Free Speech

804. Defendants’ intentionally deprived plaintiff of the right to free speech protected under Article One section Three of the Wisconsin Constitution and under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; unlawfully. See infra 1-293 and COUNT I. C., I., K.; COUNT II. D., F., G., H., I., J.; COUNT V.; COUNT VI. A., D., F., G.; COUNT VII.; and COUNT VIII. C.

B.

Deprived of Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel.

805. Defendants’ intentionally deprived of his right to competent and effective counsel protected under Article One sections One and Seven of the Wisconsin Constitution and under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, deliberately and unlawfully. See infra 1-293 and COUNT V.

C.

Deprived of Right to Self Representation.

806. Plaintiff was deprived of his right to self representation protected under Article One sections One and Seven of the Wisconsin Constitution and under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, deliberately and unlawfully. See infra 1-293 and COUNT V.

D.

Deprived of Right of Access to the Courts.

807. Plaintiff was unlawfully denied and deprived of the right of access to the courts protected under Article One sections One, Seven and Nine or the Wisconsin Constitution and protected under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Fourteenth

175 of 191.

Amendments of the United States Constitution by Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, deliberately and unlawfully. See infra 1-293 and COUNT VI.

E.

Deprived of Right of Access to Material Evidence.

808. Defendants’ intentionally deprived plaintiff of the right of access to material evidence critical to the plaintiff’s ability to effectively represent himself, complete the investigation of case 13-CR-99, and evidence necessary to initiate civil action against government officials that flagrantly violated plaintiff’s rights; evidence defendants possessed under their control but refused to disclose to the defense. Defendants violated plaintiff’s rights protected under Article One sections Seven and Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution and violated plaintiff’s rights protected under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution by refusing to disclose evidence required to be disclosed under the U.S.C. Rules of Federal Criminal Procedure Rule 16 and under Brady v. Maryland, (1963). See infra 1-293 and COUNT I. A., K.; COUNT E., H; COUNT VI. B.; and COUNT VIII. I.

F.

Deprived of Right to Compulsory Process.

809. Defendants’ intentionally deprived plaintiff of the right to compulsory process protected under Article One sections One, Seven, Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution and protected under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and protected under the United States Code Rules of Federal Criminal Procedure Rule 15 and protected under the applicable standard precedent set forth in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154-55 (1979); accord, United States v. Giglio, 405 U.S. 150, 104 (1972); United States v. Liesure, 844 F.2d 347 (8th Cir. 1998); Brady v. Maryland, (1963). Defendants’ denied plaintiff the right to depose two critical material witnesses, one whom is terminally ill and could die at any time. Defendants’ violated plaintiff’s right to compulsory process and ultimately forced plaintiff to accept a plea bargain and forego taking the case to trial, due to the defendants’ direct obstruction and refusal to allow plaintiff access to material witness testimony and evidence which plaintiff has the right to under the law. See infra 1-293 and COUNT VI. B.

G.

Deprived of Right to Bail.

810. Defendants intentionally deprived plaintiff of the right to a reasonable bail through an unlawful, devious, strong arm malicious prosecution tactic, in which federal prosecutors and federal government entities withheld bail contingent to

176 of 191.

plaintiff’s acceptance or refusal to accept a plea agreement (which was not actually an agreement because federal prosecutors dictated all of the terms and refused to compromise). Defendants’ unlawful manipulations of judicial process violated plaintiff’s right to due process. See infra 1-293 COUNT VIII. K.

H.

Denial of Right to Procedural Due Process. COUNT IX. A.-G.

811. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’, deliberately, deviously, maliciously, and unlawfully, deprived plaintiff of the aforementioned rights protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions (COUNTS IX. A.-G.), in so doing depriving plaintiff of procedural due process. Defendants’ unlawful actions were deliberately executed against the plaintiff for the purpose of convicting him, by any means necessary. Defendants’ unlawful actions, ultimately deprived the plaintiff of due process, and simultaneously deprived plaintiff of Liberty.

812. Plaintiff suffered injury, losses, loss of Liberty, emotional distress, mental anguish and humiliation, directly caused by defendants’ unlawful actions against him. See infra 1-810.

813. Defendants’ are liable for violating plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights, under Article One section Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution; under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985(3); and under Wisconsin Statutes 134.01, 893.57 and 939.31. Plaintiff suffered injury, losses, and damage, directly and indirectly caused by defendants’ unlawful actions (COUNT VIII. A.-G.) orchestrated against him, actions that deprived plaintiff of due process and of Liberty, protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. Plaintiff has the right to seek relief through the courts and does so at this time.

COUNT X.

State Law Denial of Equal Protection Claim.

814. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-813 above.

815. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, between the dates of April 30th, 2013, and October 25th, 2014, over the course of the approximate 18 month long adjudication of case 13-CR-99, functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with private and state actors, acting under the color of law and under the colors and authority of the United States federal government or independently under a state license, denied plaintiff equal protection under the law in violation of the of the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions and in violation of the Civil Rights Act

177 of 191.

of 1871. Defendants’ discriminated against plaintiff specifically because of plaintiff’s pro se status and indigence, class of one discrimination. After plaintiff notified the government that federal panel attorneys did not represent him and were not effectively representing him, and after plaintiff declared his independence from hostile federal panel attorneys, federal government defendants discriminated against plaintiff and systematically oppressed plaintiff by refusing to recognize plaintiff as a legitimate member of the courtroom workgroup; refused to correspond with plaintiff regarding legal matters; executed unlawful thefts, seizures and transfers against plaintiff to obstruct, block, and stop plaintiff from having the ability to represent himself; denied plaintiff access to standard court procedures and access to the courts; denied plaintiff access to material evidence; imposed an unreasonable bail on plaintiff ignoring established bail that was set by a state judge (res judicata?); retaliated against plaintiff for exercising his constitutional rights to free speech and self representation; denied plaintiff compulsory process (disposition) and executed malicious tactics of prosecution against plaintiff; all discriminatory and malicious actions against plaintiff specifically because plaintiff was a pro se defendant and was poor, under indigent status. See infra 1-815.

816. Defendants denied plaintiff equal protection by pushing for an unreasonable and lengthy sentence in comparison with other individuals similarly situated under near identical circumstances or circumstances which were much more severe with respect to the amount of contraband (illegal fireworks) plaintiff allegedly possessed. Individuals charged/indicted under the same U.S. Code infractions who possessed extremely large amounts of “explosives” in comparison to the defendants small amount of alleged illegal fireworks in his basement, were sentenced to disproportionately short amounts of time imprisoned compared with the time plaintiff served and was being threatened with serving by the government; the government which was forcing plaintiff to serve an excessive and unconstitutional amount of time for fireworks incarcerated. Plaintiff was denied equal protection under the law. See United States v. Droganes and numerous other cases.

817. Defendants intentionally treated pro se plaintiff differently than professional attorneys representing clients that they would typically be interacting with within the courtroom workgroup setting. Defendants intentionally treated pro se plaintiff differently than professional attorneys representing clients or defendants’ abused or criminal defendants under the representation of professional attorneys. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants abused their power by executing unlawful actions against the pro se who was in a vulnerable and helpless situation because they could, and because defendants’ thought they could get away with it. Defendants’ intentionally violated plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights and discriminated against the pro se; class of one. See infra 1-293 and COUNTS I.-IX.

818. Defendants are liable for violating plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights, under Article One section Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution; under the First,

178 of 191.

Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985(3); and under Wisconsin Statutes 134.01, 893.57, and 939.31.

819. Plaintiff suffered injuries, losses, and damage to his life, health, well being, property and case (opportunity to clear his name) caused by defendants unlawful actions executed against him, COUNT I.-IX., actions that denied plaintiff equal protection under the law. Plaintiff has the right to seek relief through the courts and does so at this time.

COUNT XI.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment Claim.

820. Plaintiff incorporates by reference allegations contained in paragraphs 1-819 above.

821. Over the course of the 18 month long adjudication of case 13-CR-99, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with private and state officials, acting under the color of law or under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, willfully, intentionally, maliciously, and unlawfully, violated plaintiff’s rights protected under Article One section Six of the Wisconsin Constitution and protected under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution forcing plaintiff to endure cruel and unusual punishment; deliberately inflicted upon plaintiff by defendants, unknown government officials, private entities, and state officials. See infra 1-820.

822. Between the dates of April 30th, 2013, and October 21st, 2014, defendants’ deliberately prevented plaintiff from thoroughly investigating case 13-CR-99 by unlawful stonewalling tactics of prosecution in their attempts to convict plaintiff by any means necessary and forcing plaintiff to take a plea agreement. Defendants’ intentionally obstructed plaintiff and deliberately perpetuated the adjudication of the case to a lengthy and unreasonable amount of time (18 months); forcing plaintiff to remain in unhealthy jail settings for extended periods of time. Defendants’ were aware that plaintiff was being cruelly and unusually punished in those settings by the government because plaintiff wrote defendants countless grievances and other letters grieving conditions of confinement. Defendants’ cruelly and unusually punished plaintiff and tried to force plaintiff to agree to the plea agreement to escape the cruel and unusual punishment. Wisconsin case law precedent recognizes that unreasonably lengthy periods of time in the county jail setting is cruel and unusual and for this reason has mandated that sentences over 1 year are served in the prison setting. Plaintiff grieved conditions of confinement and was incarcerated approximately 18 months or a year and a half. See infra 1-293.

179 of 191.

823. Plaintiff was forced to endure conditions of confinement that included being housed in freezing cold temperatures where cold air was blown on him all day long, and forced to live with hostile, abusive, threatening, aggressive and harassing inmates. Plaintiff was forced by defendants’ to endure conditions of confinement that included denial of access to exercise (Jan. 5th-June 5th,2014); denial of access to the courts; sleep deprivation (KCDC); hypothermia; denial of access to a dentist (U.S. Marshals 18 months); 5 weeks in darkness with no natural daylight, no window, no cleaning supplies and only two showers (Jan. 6th-Feb. 11th,2014); thefts of property (COUNT II.); harassment, slander, defamation of plaintiff’s character and repeated humiliation of plaintiff; having hostile attorneys forced onto plaintiff; unlawful retaliation by defendants (COUNT VII.); intentional infliction of emotional distress (COUNT XIII.); intentional inducement of the beginning stages of hypothermia during transport and in the jailhouse settings and at the federal courthouse holding area (May 29th, 2013-Oct. 21st,2014); denial of appropriate medical care (refusal to follow through with recommendations of two different physicians; forcing plaintiff to live in constant pain); toxic food that induced migraine headaches (specific dates omitted); toxic water with unhealthy levels of chemicals such as chlorine, burning skin, burning eyes, graying hair; jail nurse stabbing plaintiff 5 times with syringe, three in left arm twice in right arm (first week of Aug. 2014); denial of reasonable bail and disregarding law in an effort to force a plea of guilt; perpetuation of a fraudulent diagnosis and fraudulent medical records (unlawful disclosure of medical records, false records); and intentionally inflicting emotional distress and mental anguish upon plaintiff against his will that damaged his health. See infra 1-293 and COUNT I.-V. with supporting affidavits.

824. Defendants’ systematically denied plaintiff due process and deliberately perpetuated the adjudication of case 13-CR-99 to an unreasonably lengthy amount of time, forcing and trapping plaintiff in unhealthy environments that defendants knew were unhealthy environments and were causing plaintiff suffering and pain, in defendant’s calculated efforts to force plaintiff into accepting an unfair and unreasonable plea agreement which plaintiff eventually was forced to accept because he had no choice and after being deliberately mistreated by the government, was desperate for relief and to escape the living conditions he was being forced to live under.

825. Defendants’ functioned jointly and in concert with state corrections officials to facilitate the unreasonably unhealthy conditions of confinement that plaintiff was being forced to live under; cruelly and unusually punishing plaintiff in defendants’ concerted efforts to effectuate a conviction of plaintiff, by any means necessary.

826. Plaintiff suffered physical injury including extreme and unhealthy weight loss, muscle atrophy, wasting, migraine headaches, abdominal pain and bloody stool (reoccurring), burning skin and eyes, grey hair, spine pain, chest pain in mid chest, pain swallowing food, hair fall out, further advancement of a serious undiagnosed medical condition, tooth damage and periodontal disease, arthritis,

180 of 191.

stricture and other injuries. Plaintiff suffered extreme emotional distress, mental anguish, and anxiety at times for being forced to live with an undiagnosed medical condition and then being injured and retaliated against by the government when trying to receive appropriate treatment for that condition. Defendants’ intentionally, directly and indirectly, caused plaintiff to suffer the aforementioned injuries against plaintiff’s will. Plaintiff’s health was damaged by defendants’ deliberated actions executed against him.

827. Plaintiff suffered loss of property and loss of Liberty, directly caused by defendants’ unlawful actions deliberately executed against him.

828. Defendants are liable, for intentionally forcing plaintiff to endure cruel and unusual punishment and for cruelly and unusually punishing plaintiff against his will under Article One sections Six and Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution; under the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution; under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985(3); under the Civil Rights Act of 1871; and under Wisconsin Statutes 134.01, 802.03, 895.043, 893.57 and 939.31. Plaintiff has the right to seek relief in damages for the injuries and losses he suffered caused by defendants unlawful actions against him and does so at this time. See infra 1-293.

COUNT XII.

Unlawful Conspiracy Claim.

829. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-828 above.

830. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and with private actors and state officials, acting under the color of law or under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, between the dates of April 30th, 2013, and October 21st, 2014, over the course of the entire adjudication of case 13-CR-99 and in several specific incidents, unlawfully conspired to intentionally deprive plaintiff of Constitutional Rights and of Liberty and subsequently deprived plaintiff of Constitutional Rights and of Liberty; conspired to injure plaintiff and damage plaintiff’s health and subsequently injured plaintiff and damaged plaintiff’s health; conspired to deprive plaintiff of tangible and intellectual property and subsequently deprived plaintiff of tangible and intellectual property; and conspired to defame, slander, and humiliate plaintiff and subsequently defamed, slandered and humiliated plaintiff, unlawfully. See infra 1-293 and COUNTS I.-XI.

831. Defendants’ effectuated their unlawful conspiracy by executing unlawful actions against plaintiff that deprived plaintiff of Constitutional Rights and of Liberty, injured plaintiff, humiliated plaintiff with untrue slander, deprived plaintiff of property, stole from plaintiff and intentionally inflicted emotional distress and

181 of 191.

mental anguish upon plaintiff. See COUNT I.-XI. Defendants’ actions against plaintiff were deliberate, systematic and calculated. The unlawful conspiracy orchestrated by the defendants against plaintiff and the defendants’ unlawful actions which were a product of that conspiracy were executed against plaintiff for the purpose of prejudicing the court and record of the case; for the purpose of building a case of damning evidence against plaintiff to justify unlawfulness by defendants; for the purpose of covering up unlawful actions of police investigators, informants and the defendants themselves; for the purpose of violating plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights; for the purpose of depriving plaintiff of property and of Liberty; and for the purpose of prosecuting and ultimately convicting plaintiff by any means necessary.

A.

Conspiracy to Cover Up False Affidavit.

832. Between the dates of May 29th, 2013, and the present, defendants Santelle, Johnson, Cohn, Kwaterski and Kanter, conspired to cover up a false police incident report affidavit by revising the original affidavit and changing the context of the original affidavit; editing out of the original report officer Penny Schmitt’s quote of informant number one “off his medications.” Defendants’ conspired to cover up the fact that they revised the original report. Defendants’ conspired to cover up unfavorable evidence to the government’s case against plaintiff, then actually executed the cover up by unlawfully fabricating a revised incident report affidavit without the “off his medications” quote which was contained in the original report and which was a lie. See infra COUNT I. A.

B.

Conspiracy to Cover Up the Fraudulent

Act of Creating the Revised False Affidavit.

833. Between the dates of May 29th, 2013, and the present, defendants’ Santelle, Johnson, Cohn, Kwaterski, and Kanter, conspired to cover up their own unlawful actions of creating a false incident affidavit. Defendants’ conspired to cover up fraudulent documents, and then executed the cover up, by delivering fraudulent documents to plaintiff in January of 2014. See infra 115 and COUNT I. A. Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy and unlawful actions deprived plaintiff of due process in two separate cases, the ongoing criminal case and a pending civil case for slander where the exact words quoted by Schmitt “off his medications” in the original affidavit, were material evidence. Under the law, Wisconsin precedent, informants are only protected and immune from civil actions when the information they provide is truthful. If informants lie for ulterior purposes, such as delusions of grandeur or to effectuate the removal of an individual from a residence out of vindictiveness, resentment, jealousy, or hopes of financial gain, informants are not immune from civil tort liability in state court. Defendants unlawfully conspired and then executed actions in furtherance of that conspiracy

182 of 191.

that ultimately denied and deprived plaintiff of Constitutional Rights and of Liberty in two separate cases.

C.

Conspiracy to Infiltrate Case 13-CR-99 with Damning

False Facts Portraying Plaintiff’s Character in a False Light. #1.

834. On May 29th, 2013, probation officer Mott, after a brief interview with plaintiff, fabricated an untrue, factually false, pretrial service report and submitted the false report into court record. See infra COUNT I. B. The false report, portraying the plaintiff’s character in a false light using misrepresented facts and untrue statements of Mott, was entered into the district docket under the authority of Joseph, Dietrich and Sanfilippo. Federal panel attorney Cohn was alerted by plaintiff that the report was false. Cohn refused to take any action on behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff wrote a 10 page response, that was not appropriately entered into the district court docket, in defense of plaintiff’s character and to accurately state the facts that were misrepresented, concealed, and fabricated by Mott. Defendants’ functioned jointly and in concert with each other to unlawfully prejudice the court, the record of case 13-CR-99, and to effectuate the slander tactics of Mott who was at this time assisting the federal prosecutors with the actual prosecution of plaintiff, all for the purpose of prosecuting and convicting the plaintiff by any means necessary. Defendants’ actions were deliberately executed against plaintiff in bad faith and were executed for the purpose of depriving plaintiff of the right to due process of law and of equal protection under the law, rights protected under the Wisconsin and Untied States Constitutions. See COUNT IX.-X. With full knowledge their actions were unlawful, defendants systematically conspired to deprive plaintiff of rights protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions.

D.

Conspiracy to Deny Plaintiff Access to Material Evidence. #1.

835. Between the dates of July 2nd, 2013, and May 22nd, 2014, defendants’ Santelle, Johnson, Carr, Kwaterski, Kanter and unknown federal government entities and state officials, functioning jointly and in concert with each other, deliberately conspired to deny and deprive plaintiff of material evidence. See infra 38, 119, 142, 156, 175, and 195. Defendants’ systematically conspired and denied plaintiff access to material evidence for nearly a year, unlawfully. Id. See infra 1-293.

E.

Conspiracy to Deny Plaintiff Access to Material Evidence. #2.

836. Between the dates of December 21st, 2013, and March 12th, 2014, defendants Adelman, Sanfilippo, and Dietrich, conspired to deprive plaintiff of access to

183 of 191.

material evidence in two separate cases. Defendants conspired, and then effectuated their conspiracy by actually denying plaintiff pro se access to the district court docket; deliberately depriving plaintiff of his right of access to the courts, and right to material evidence, rights protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. See infra 1-293 and COUNT I. C.

F.

Conspiracy to Deny Plaintiff Access to Material Evidence #3.

837. Between the dates of January 19th, 2014, and the present, defendants Adelman, Sanfilippo, Dietrich, Stawski, and John S., conspired to deprive plaintiff of access to material evidence material in two separate cases. Defendants conspired, and then effectuated their conspiracy by actually denying plaintiff access to court transcripts containing evidence material in two separate cases. Defendants deliberately deprived plaintiff of the right of access to the courts, the right of equal protection and the right to due process, rights protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. See infra 1-293 and COUNT I. K.

G.

Conspiracy to Conceal Material Evidence by

Unlawful Manipulation of the District Docket and Fraud.

838. Between the dates of April 30th, 2013, and the present, defendants Adelman, Sanfilippo, and Dietrich, conspired to deprive plaintiff of material evidence and to deprive plaintiff of due process and equal protection. Defendants deliberately fabricated false docket documents and unlawfully concealed original docket documents, for the purpose of covering up defendants unlawful actions of unknown government entities. Defendants conspired to commit fraud and then subsequently actually did commit fraud. See infra 1-293 and COUNT I. Defendants actions were deliberately executed by defendants against plaintiff to deprive plaintiff of rights protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions and for the purpose of convicting plaintiff by any means necessary. See infra COUNT I. G. (specifics omitted pending completing of Office of Lawyer Regulation Investigation).

H.

Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of the

Right to Counsel or Self Representation.

839. Between the dates of April 30th, 2013, and October 20th, 2014, defendants Stiller, Cohn, Adelman, Wilmouth, Hunt, Santelle, Sanfilippo, Carr, Johnson, Kwaterski, Kanter, Joseph, Dietrich, Stawski and John S., conspired with each other by all remaining on the “same page” with each other through various forms of communications medias and direct verbal communication, and functioned in

184 of 191.

synergenic cooperation with one another and with state officials, deliberately to deprive plaintiff of the Constitutional Rights to counsel and the right to self representation. See infra 1-293; COUNT V. and VIII. Defendants executed unlawful actions against plaintiff and deliberately failed to take actions which they had a duty to take as being paid government employees under the law. Over the entire adjudication of case 13-CR-99, in a concerted effort to deliberately deprive plaintiff of the right to counsel or to effective self representation, defendants conspired to, and then subsequently took actions that deprived plaintiff of his rights protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions to counsel and self representation. See infra COUNT V. The general purpose of defendants’ conspiracy and subsequent unlawful actions against plaintiff, was to prosecute and convict plaintiff by any means necessary.

I.

Conspiracy to Slander, Defame, Harass, and Humiliate Plaintiff.

840. Over the entire approximate 18 month adjudication of case 13-CR-99, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with private actors and state officials, acting under the color of law, conspired to unlawfully slander, harass, defame, humiliate, attack and destroy plaintiff’s character and reputation and image of how plaintiff’s character is perceived by the public and by the court. Defendants unlawfully attacked plaintiff’s character and injected false information in to the court record to manipulate and prejudice the court. Defendants executed an unlawful slander campaign against plaintiff to unlawfully obtain power over the plaintiff’s life at that time, the plaintiff’s future, and the fate of case 13-CR-99. The purpose of defendants slander campaign was to destroy the plaintiff’s credibility, deny the plaintiff the opportunity to clear his name, justify malicious and unlawful tactics of prosecution and ultimately convict plaintiff by any means necessary; for the sake quenching defendants own thirst for power and desire to convict plaintiff for the sake of their own glory and prestiege (and to chalk another high profile conviction up on their resume). Defendants Santelle, Johnson, Sanfilippo, Dietrich and Carr, and unknown government entities conspired to conduct an unlawful slander campaign and ultimately executed the conspiracy by actually conducting the slander campaign of plaintiff, for the purpose of convicting the plaintiff by any means necessary. Defendants’ unlawful attacks and devious conspiring against plaintiff, to intentionally damage plaintiff’s life and deny and deprive the plaintiff of Constitutional Rights through ruthless slander tactics, were a violation of Wisconsin Law. See infra 1-293 and COUNT III.

185 of 191.

J.

Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of Access to the Courts.

841. Over the 18 month long perpetuated and prolonged adjudication of case 13-CR-99, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, Santelle, Carr, Johnson, Adelman, Sanfilippo, Dietrich, Kwaterski, Kanter, Hunt, Wilmouth, Cohn, Stiller, Stawski, and John S., functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with private and state officials, acting under the color of law, in their personal capacities or under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, conspired to unlawfully deny and deprive plaintiff of the right of access to the courts. Defendants systematically conspired and then took deliberate actions against plaintiff, for the purpose of denying plaintiff access to the courts and for the purpose of convicting plaintiff by any means necessary. Defendants denied plaintiff access to the courts and silenced plaintiff (violating plaintiff’s right to free speech), by forcing ineffective counsel onto plaintiff that was hostile to plaintiff’s best interests; by refusing to recognize plaintiff as a legitimate member of the courtroom workgroup while plaintiff represented himself under pro se status; by denying plaintiff compulsory process; by denying pro se plaintiff access to Law Libraries and basic legal resources; by unlawful thefts and seizures of plaintiff’s property including legal and medical records and material evidence; by transfers that deliberately obstructed plaintiff from making progress and stopped plaintiff from making progress moving forward on case 13-CR-99 and stopped plaintiff from having the ability to effectively represent himself; by denying plaintiff access to original court documents; by not bringing the plaintiff to scheduled court appearances (see infra 25); by intentionally refusing to effectively represent plaintiff (Cohn, Wilmouth, Hunt); and by refusing to correspond with plaintiff. See infra 1-828. Defendants deliberately conspired to violate plaintiff’s right of access to the courts then took unlawful actions that ultimately denied and deprived plaintiff of his right of access to the courts by actually denying plaintiff access to the courts. See infra 1-293 and COUNT VI. Defendants’ unlawful actions were deliberately executed against plaintiff for the purpose of convicting plaintiff by any means necessary. Defendants’ unlawful actions against plaintiff as well as the conspiracy to commit and cover up those unlawful actions, violated plaintiff’s rights protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. Plaintiff’s right of access to the courts is protected under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. See infra 1-293 and COUNT VI.

K.

Conspiracy to Infiltrate Case 13-CR-99 with Damning

False Facts Portraying Plaintiff’s Character in a False Light. #2.

842. On July 14th and 15th, 2014, plaintiff was approached by four government officials, defendants “Burton” and “Doug” (U.S. deputy Marshals) and two Dodge County state corrections officials “Gabel” and “Riter”; all within a 24 hour time

186 of 191.

period. These officials told plaintiff that if plaintiff requested bail/bond, the Eastern District of Wisconsin court would grant plaintiff bail and plaintiff would be released. At the July 29th, 2014, status hearing, defendants Santelle by proxy Johnson, offered to allow plaintiff out on bond if plaintiff signed the “plea agreement” (which wasn’t really an ‘agreement’ because the federal prosecutors dictated all of the terms and refused to compromise). Plaintiff refused to sign the agreement and after a side bar in the judge’s chambers, with only federal government defendants Adelman, Dietrich and Santelle by proxy Johnson, a damning statement was read into the court record by Adelman against the plaintiff, prejudicing the record of case 13-CR-99 and the court with untrue misrepresented false facts, that negatively portrayed the plaintiff’s character in a false light. See infra COUNT IV. and COUNT VIII. G. and K. Defendants deliberately orchestrated the unlawful manipulation tactic by lying to plaintiff. Defendants conspired to prejudice the record of case 13-CR-99 and prejudice the court by entering an untrue statement into the record, in retaliation for plaintiff’s decision not to accept the unreasonable “plea agreement” and continue towards trial invoking his Constitutional Rights to trial, self representation, due process, and right to free speech; all protected rights under Article One sections One, Three, Seven and Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution and under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Defendants conspired to manipulate and extort a plea of guilt out of plaintiff by unlawfully using the plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights, and plaintiff’s Liberty interest in reasonable bail protected under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and protected under Article One section Six of the Wisconsin Constitution, unlawfully, as leverage, in defendants’ attempts to obtain a conviction, by any means necessary. When plaintiff wouldn’t agree, defendant’s denied plaintiff bail and read a damning slanderous statement into the record against plaintiff, attempting to simultaneously justify their unlawful manipulation of judicial process and justify denying plaintiff constitutionally protected Liberty. Defendants conspired with state actors to effectuate an unlawful ‘legal manacling’ of plaintiff. Defendants unlawful prosecution tactics, which involved conspiring to deprive plaintiff of rights and then actually denying and depriving plaintiff of those same rights, was unlawful under state and federal law; Wisconsin Statutes 134.01, 939.31, and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985(3); and under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions. Defendants unlawful conspiracy orchestrated against plaintiff was executed for the ultimate purpose of obtaining a conviction of plaintiff, by any means necessary. See infra 1-293.

L.

Conspiracy to Deny Plaintiff Medical Care and to

Perpetuate a Misdiagnosis.

843. Between the dates of April 30th, 2013, and October 21st, 2014, defendants Carr and unknown government officials, functioning jointly and in concert with state officials and private medical personal, unlawfully conspired to deny plaintiff

187 of 191.

medical care and to perpetuate a misdiagnosis to justify the denial of that medical care. See infra 1-293 and COUNT I. H.

844. Defendants Carr and deputy U.S. Marshals proximately functioning by and through Carr, unlawfully forwarded private medical documents and bogus fraudulent medical paperwork, for the purpose of justifying and denying plaintiff medical care, including standard investigation into real physical symptoms and signs of disease (purple bags under his eyes, rash on crotch, extreme weight loss, slight jaundice, blood in stool, muscle atrophy and other signs, in addition to numerous symptoms of disease. Carr, functioning jointly and in concert with unknown entities, took deliberate steps to cover up plaintiff’s condition and deliberately deny plaintiff the right to appropriate medical care protected under state and federal law.

845. In the Waukesha County federal facility, plaintiff received a recommendation by two separate doctors to receive a CT scan of his chest, due to constant dull intense pain in the greater chest region of plaintiff’s body. Shortly after plaintiff received these recommendations by Dr.’s Chen Noto and Dr. Vijayapal, plaintiff was transferred out of Waukesha County and under the authority of the Dodge County federal facility and Sheriff Ninnman and Dr. Fugiki who told plaintiff that there was nothing wrong with him and denied any further testing into plaintiff’s symptoms and signs of disease. Fugiki ordered one blood test after plaintiff demanded that the Dodge County facility comply with the previous Dr.’s recommendations. When Dodge County jail nurse “Austin” came to draw plaintiff’s blood, he stabbed plaintiff 5 times with a syringe (3 in the left arm and 2 in the right arm). Plaintiff grieved the injury he suffered (five red marks puncture wounds and black and blue blotches on the inside of both arms for approximately 4-5 days) and cut all ties with the Dodge County medical staff for fear of further injuries. Plaintiff notified Carr, Adelman and the Dodge County Sheriff. Carr refused to transfer plaintiff out of Dodge County despite 19 requests in writing to be transferred.

846. Defendants Carr and unknown U.S. Marshals deputies also, over the 18 month long adjudication of case 13-CR-99, unlawfully violated plaintiff’s rights to confidentiality in medical records by forwarding bogus medical records, that were allegedly plaintiff’s medical records, to subsequent federal holding facilities without plaintiff’s permission or consent. See infra COUNT I. H. Car conspired with unknown government entities, acting as vectors, enabling the perpetuation of plaintiff’s confidential medical records against plaintiff’s will and without plaintiff consent.

847. Defendant Carr, unknown U.S. deputy Marshals, private medical personal and state corrections officials deliberately conspired to deprive plaintiff of his right to medical care and ultimately did deprive plaintiff of appropriate medical care. Defendants orchestrated the perpetuation of the fraudulent medical record and the cover up of plaintiff’s condition and denial of further investigation into plaintiff’s symptoms and signs, further investigation recommended by two

188 of 191.

different doctors, for liability purposes; shielding themselves from liability at the expense of plaintiff’s current and future health. Plaintiff suffered physical injury resulting from the unlawful conspiracy and unlawful actions taken against plaintiff. See infra 1-293 and COUNT XII. A.-L.

848. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ unlawful conspiracy and unlawful actions in furtherance of that conspiracy deprived plaintiff of Liberty and injured plaintiff. Defendants are liable for the injuries plaintiff suffered, the losses plaintiff suffered, and for the Constitutional Rights violations systematically executed against plaintiff by defendants. Plaintiff has the right to seek relief and does so at this time.

M.

Conspiracy to Deny Plaintiff Compulsory Process.

849. In July o f2014, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Adelman, Santelle, Johnson, Kwaterski, Kanter, and Carr, functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with state officials, including Dodge County Sheriff Ninnman, acting under the color of law and under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, unlawfully conspired to deny and deprive plaintiff of the right to compulsory process and due process when they refused to allow plaintiff to depose defense witness Ruth Witzlib. Ruth Witzlib was unable to attend court due to age and illness. Pro se plaintiff followed the proper procedures specified in the United States Code Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. All parties were notified accordingly. Defendants systematically denied and deprived plaintiff of the right to due process and right to equal protection, rights protected under the Wisconsin Constitution Article One sections One, Seven and Nine and under the United States Constitution’s Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants conspired and then effectuated their conspiracy by executing unlawful actions against plaintiff (denying transport to scheduled deposition August 7th, 2014) deliberately depriving plaintiff compulsory process. See infra 1-293. Defendants conspired to deny plaintiff access to the courts and conspired to deny plaintiff of the right of access to the courts by conspiring and ultimately denying plaintiff access to compulsory process, when defendants denied plaintiff of the right to depose defense witness Ruth Witzlib who was at the scene of the incident and could offer testimony that would prove the police reports were false. False police reports are legally vulnerable to impeachment; invalid police report affidavits would thus render the warrant invalid and the evidence would have to be suppressed by the court under the law. See infra 1-293 and Exhibit 27. Defendants conspired to deny plaintiff the right to depose Ruth Witzlib and then actually executed the conspiracy by denying the properly scheduled deposition from taking place. Defendants essentially forced plaintiff to plead instead of going to trial by defendants constant unlawful obstructions of plaintiff’s attempts to clear his name, including accessing the courts and denying plaintiff compulsory process regarding witness depositions. Defendants conspired

189 of 191.

to violate plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights and then actually violated plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights to counsel, of access to the courts, of access to material evidence, of access to compulsory process and of the right to self representation. See infra 1-293 and COUNT I.-XI.

850. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ unlawful conspiracy and unlawful actions in furtherance of that conspiracy deprived plaintiff of Liberty. Plaintiff suffered injuries and losses directily resulting from defendants’ unlawful actions against him and the conspiracy that facilitated those unlawful actions and enabled those unlawful actions to be executed against plaintiff. Defendants are liable for the injuries plaintiff suffered, the losses plaintiff suffered, and for the Constitutional Rights violations systematically executed against plaintiff by defendants. Plaintiff has the right to seek relief and does so at this time.

N.

Conspiracy to Deprive Plaintiff of Intellectual Property, Theft.

851. Between the dates of February 20th and April 4th, 2014, (Ozaukee County federal holding facility); and between the dates June 5th and October 21st, 2014, (Dodge County federal holding facility); and on August 27th, 2014, and on January 8th, and April 11th, 2014, Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants Carr, Wilmouth and unknown federal government entities (computer technicians) jointly in concert with state officials (corrections officers and computer technicians), acting under the color of law or under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, unlawfully conspired to deprive plaintiff of intellectual property and tangible property; and effectuated their conspiracy by actually depriving plaintiff of property (legal records, medical records, artwork, poems, drawings, inventions, “appellate brief”, original affidavits, short literary pieces . . . ) without due process on those specific dates and over the course of those specific time periods. See infra 1-293. Under Wisconsin law, defendants’ actions of taking plaintiff’s property without his permission and against his will fall under the definition of theft. See infra 1-293 and COUNT II. Defendants conspired to steal plaintiff’s intellectual property and actually stole plaintiff’s intellectually property. Defendants conspired against plaintiff and executed unlawful actions in furtherance of that conspiracy for the purpose of obstructing the plaintiff from clearing his name, convicting the plaintiff by any means necessary, weakening plaintiff’s position to defend himself in the adjudication process, strengthen the government’s position, depriving plaintiff of future opportunities and depriving plaintiff of valuable intellectual property in a vindictive effort to oppress plaintiff. Defendants’ systematic thefts and unlawful seizures deprived plaintiff of constitutionally protected Liberty and violated plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights. See infra COUNT I. I. and Count II.

852. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants’ unlawful conspiracy and subsequent unlawful actions in furtherance of that

190 of 191.

conspiracy deprived plaintiff of Liberty. Defendants are liable for the injuries plaintiff suffered, the losses plaintiff suffered, and for the Constitutional Rights violations systematically executed against plaintiff by defendants. Under Article One section Nine of the Wisconsin Constitution plaintiff has the right to seek relief through the courts via civil action for damages and does so at this time.

O.

Unlawful Conspiracy. COUNT XII. A.-L.

853. Over the 18 month prolonged adjudication of case 13-CR-99, and in specific incidents specified in COUNT XII. A.-N., Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants, functioning in synergenic cooperation with each other and jointly in concert with private entities and state officials, acting under the color of law, or under the colors and authority of the United States federal government, conspired to deprive plaintiff of Constitutional Rights and of Liberty. Defendants conspired, and then executed unlawful actions against plaintiff (COUNT XII. A.-N.); that injured plaintiff and violated plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights. Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy and the actions defendants took that were a direct product of the defendants conspiratorial conduct behind closed doors, succeeded in denying and depriving plaintiff of Constitutional Rights. See infra 1-293 and COUNT XII. A.-N. Plaintiff suffered injuries directly caused by the unlawful conspiracy orchestrated against him by defendants. Plaintiff suffered injury to his physical health, extreme emotional distress, mental anguish, anxiety, depression, humiliation, nightmares, extreme weight loss, muscle atrophy, migraines, big bags under his eyes, damaged skin, grey hair, hair loss, wasting and deterioration of overall physical health and well being, sadness, loss of Liberty, and defamation of character caused by defendants unlawful conspiring against him and defendants subsequent unlawful actions that were a product of the conspiracy. See infra 1-293 and COUNT XII. A.-N. Plaintiff suffered loss of property, time, opportunities, and was unlawfully deprived of Liberty, directly caused by defendants unlawful conspiring and then the subsequent executing of unlawful actions against plaintiff by defendants. Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution defendants deliberately, intentionally, willfully, and maliciously conspired to deny plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights, deprive plaintiff of Liberty, cover up unlawful police misconduct, cover up false informant statements, cover up defendants own manipulations of the court record, steal plaintiff’s property, cover up fraudulent documents, conceal material evidence, prevent plaintiff from initiating a non-frivolous civil action, slander plaintiff, deny plaintiff access to the courts, deny and deprive plaintiff of his right of access to the courts, deny plaintiff equal protection of and under the law, deny plaintiff the appropriate medical care, deny plaintiff reasonable bail, deny plaintiff due process, deny plaintiff equal protections and to retaliate against plaintiff for plaintiff’s exercising of his Constitutional Rights for the purpose of convicting plaintiff by any means necessary. See infra 1-293; COUNTS I.-XI. and COUNT XII. A.-N.

191 of 191.

854. Pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes 134.01, 893.57, 895.043, 939.31 and under the Wisconsin Constitution, Article One section Nine, and under the United States Constitutions First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985(3), defendants are liable for the injuries plaintiff suffered and losses plaintiff incurred in damages; caused by defendants unlawful conspiracy and actions in furtherance of that conspiracy that were deliberately orchestrated and executed against plaintiff for the purpose of securing a conviction of plaintiff in case 13-CR-99. Plaintiff has the right under the law to seek relief through the courts and plaintiff has the right to commence civil action through the courts in the interest of justice and does so at this time.

“I swear under penalty of perjury the foregoing complaint is 100% true.”

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice, plaintiff Bodie Witzlib, requests the following relief against the Eastern District of Wisconsin Federal Governmental Institution Unit and against defendants in their personal capacities:

(1) Judgment for plaintiff on claims set forth in the complaint; COUNTS I.-XII.

(2) An award of compensatory damages of no less than $ .00. (dollar amount omitted)

(3) An award of punitive damages of whatever amount the court deems appropriate.

(4) An award covering all of the costs of court and attorneys.

(5) Any other relief the court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 38, plaintiff demands a jury trial of all issues set forth in the complaint which are triable of right by jury.

Dated in Wisconsin, this 21st day of November, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,

BY THE PLAINTIFF:

Bodie Witzlib

_______________

Bodie Byron Witzlib

Plaintiff Pro se

556 Colgate Road

Colgate, WI 53017

(262) 628-1395

Email: [email protected]