G
Guest
Guest
The courts have disregarded all my petitions. Here is a copy of my statement of claims I filed in federal court.
III. STATEMENT OF CLAIM
In September of 2011, I filed a case under certiorari review (CASE 11-CV-245) to overturn a zoning decision made by the common council of the City of New Holstein. The key issue of this case was the city's irresponsible policy of granting carte blanche to a non-conforming business. This business has been allowed to consistently violate city ordinances and state statutes to the detriment of the surrounding community. This business was allowed to erect structures without building permits on property that did not possess the proper zoning to house such structures. Variances were not issued for these structures even though they are legally required in order to preserve the safety of the citizens. Since no variances were issued, the city was able to avoid holding the legally required public hearings during which the variances must be addressed. This was a violation of our due process and has had a detrimental impact on our community's financial security and quality of life.
One of the responsibilities of the courts is to determine whether or not an act is contrary to the public benefit. The courts are required to adhere to the principle of fundamental fairness, but they have not even attempted to do so over the course of this case. Instead, they have unquestioningly supported a legislative body's claim that the rezoning is of public benefit even though they have been unable to provide any argument in support of that claim. The Wisconsin courts have turned their back on the people in order to protect a city government which is actively violating our laws and constitutional rights. This is a violation of their oath of office.
The City of New Holstein has claimed that the rezoning has rendered all of the ordinance and state statute violations moot. Their only defense throughout these two cases has been that a legislative body has the right to rezone any area for the public benefit. However, the city has been unwilling or unable to demonstrate even a single legitimate benefit that this rezoning would grant to the citizens of this city. Yet two courts have still seen fit to uphold the common council's rezoning decision in spite of the negative impact it will have on the city's local inhabitants.
The court's decision defies all logic. They have upheld a legislative body's decision without seemingly considering the legislative intent of the ordinances or civil procedures. The statement that all the violations are moot simply because the courts have upheld this rezoning decision demonstrates that the true intent behind the rezoning was indeed to attempt to shield the violations from legal scrutiny. Ordinances specifically exist for the purpose of protecting the citizens and it is therefore the responsibility of the courts to uphold ordinances. The Wisconsin courts have repeatedly ignored the ordinance violations that I have exposed over the course of this case. By ignoring these violations, the courts are effectively supporting them and are thereby violating my rights to due process and equal protection. As far as I am concerned, this flagrant disregard for the rights protected under our Constitution is a treasonable offense.
Case 13-CV-31 is a lawsuit against the City of New Holstein for their violation of my rights to due process and equal protection for the above issues. I would like to note that my first act was to request for the convening of a board of appeals to address the rezoning and ordinance violations. The board of appeals also would have been called upon to address the structures that are to be erected on the rezoned property as these structures will require variances in order to be legally constructed. However, my request for a board of appeals was unlawfully denied. It is my right to ensure that there will be no further violations to ordinances. Denying me the protection of our legally-binding ordinances is a violation of my rights to due process and equal protection.
I have presented true controversies and constitutional issues to the Wisconsin courts. Their only response to these legitimate issues has been to ignore them and levy legal fees against me in an effort to oppress my attempts to protect our laws and rights. This is a violation of my rights under the 1st Amendment. How can a judge be allowed to disregard the rule of law, their code of conduct, their oath of office, and the Constitution?
I am demanding a jury trial as these issues should be addressed by the people of this state. It is the people who should decide whether or not it is acceptable for the courts to endorse a city government which is ignoring civil procedures and violating our ordinances and constitutional rights.
In order to demonstrate that none of the important issues in this case were ever addressed, I will be submitting some of the evidence in the form of transcripts and final orders.
END STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Can somebody tell me the meaning of redress under the 1st Amendment.
III. STATEMENT OF CLAIM
In September of 2011, I filed a case under certiorari review (CASE 11-CV-245) to overturn a zoning decision made by the common council of the City of New Holstein. The key issue of this case was the city's irresponsible policy of granting carte blanche to a non-conforming business. This business has been allowed to consistently violate city ordinances and state statutes to the detriment of the surrounding community. This business was allowed to erect structures without building permits on property that did not possess the proper zoning to house such structures. Variances were not issued for these structures even though they are legally required in order to preserve the safety of the citizens. Since no variances were issued, the city was able to avoid holding the legally required public hearings during which the variances must be addressed. This was a violation of our due process and has had a detrimental impact on our community's financial security and quality of life.
One of the responsibilities of the courts is to determine whether or not an act is contrary to the public benefit. The courts are required to adhere to the principle of fundamental fairness, but they have not even attempted to do so over the course of this case. Instead, they have unquestioningly supported a legislative body's claim that the rezoning is of public benefit even though they have been unable to provide any argument in support of that claim. The Wisconsin courts have turned their back on the people in order to protect a city government which is actively violating our laws and constitutional rights. This is a violation of their oath of office.
The City of New Holstein has claimed that the rezoning has rendered all of the ordinance and state statute violations moot. Their only defense throughout these two cases has been that a legislative body has the right to rezone any area for the public benefit. However, the city has been unwilling or unable to demonstrate even a single legitimate benefit that this rezoning would grant to the citizens of this city. Yet two courts have still seen fit to uphold the common council's rezoning decision in spite of the negative impact it will have on the city's local inhabitants.
The court's decision defies all logic. They have upheld a legislative body's decision without seemingly considering the legislative intent of the ordinances or civil procedures. The statement that all the violations are moot simply because the courts have upheld this rezoning decision demonstrates that the true intent behind the rezoning was indeed to attempt to shield the violations from legal scrutiny. Ordinances specifically exist for the purpose of protecting the citizens and it is therefore the responsibility of the courts to uphold ordinances. The Wisconsin courts have repeatedly ignored the ordinance violations that I have exposed over the course of this case. By ignoring these violations, the courts are effectively supporting them and are thereby violating my rights to due process and equal protection. As far as I am concerned, this flagrant disregard for the rights protected under our Constitution is a treasonable offense.
Case 13-CV-31 is a lawsuit against the City of New Holstein for their violation of my rights to due process and equal protection for the above issues. I would like to note that my first act was to request for the convening of a board of appeals to address the rezoning and ordinance violations. The board of appeals also would have been called upon to address the structures that are to be erected on the rezoned property as these structures will require variances in order to be legally constructed. However, my request for a board of appeals was unlawfully denied. It is my right to ensure that there will be no further violations to ordinances. Denying me the protection of our legally-binding ordinances is a violation of my rights to due process and equal protection.
I have presented true controversies and constitutional issues to the Wisconsin courts. Their only response to these legitimate issues has been to ignore them and levy legal fees against me in an effort to oppress my attempts to protect our laws and rights. This is a violation of my rights under the 1st Amendment. How can a judge be allowed to disregard the rule of law, their code of conduct, their oath of office, and the Constitution?
I am demanding a jury trial as these issues should be addressed by the people of this state. It is the people who should decide whether or not it is acceptable for the courts to endorse a city government which is ignoring civil procedures and violating our ordinances and constitutional rights.
In order to demonstrate that none of the important issues in this case were ever addressed, I will be submitting some of the evidence in the form of transcripts and final orders.
END STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Can somebody tell me the meaning of redress under the 1st Amendment.
Last edited by a moderator:
