Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Margaret Bach, Petitioner v. Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, et al.

I.]

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Margaret Bach

-

PETITIONER

vs.

Circuit Court for Milwaukee County RESPONDENTS

-

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

Wisconsin Supreme Court

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Margaret Bach

10321 West Manitoba St.

West Allis, WI 53227

margaretbach@mac.com

414-702-3985

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Can a circuit court hide evidence of their misconduct by forging

transcripts and denying discovery?

Should a higher court investigate when a party alleges a conspiracy

with a proof of lies in the transcripts, and the possibility transcripts

have been forged?

Can a court charge an indigent, aggrieved party a cost to challenge an

illegal order violating their constitutional rights and sending them to

jail?

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties involved in this Office of Lawyer Regulation case do not appear in

the caption of the case on the cover page. The parties also include:

Judge David Borowski

Court Reporter Carol Serota-Bodi

Milwaukee County

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................1

LIST OF PARTIES ...............................................1

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED .................................3

OPINIONS BELOW ..............................................6

JURISDICTION ...................................................6

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS ..................6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................................8

REASONS FOR GRANTING REVIEW .............................12

I.

Corruption In The Courts Must Be Investigated ..............12

II.

No Party May Hide Relevant Evidence .....................13

III. The Evidence Was Sufficient To Warrant Investigation ........15

Integrity Of Accuser ..................................15

Court History of Illegal Orders ..........................15

Conspiracy. Seen With Lies By The Judge, Corporation

Counsel, Guardian ad Litem, Adversary Counsel, And

Guardian's Attorney ..................................22

IV.

No Court Can Impose High Fees Restricting An Indigent.

Aggrieved Party From Accessing The Courts ................23

CONCLUSION .................................................24

2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

.13

Dane Chty. DHS v. Mable K., 2013 WI 28, ¶ 60, 346 Wis.2d 396,

828 N.W.2d 198 ................................................19

Eccles v. Free High School Dist. Of City of Kaukauna, 162 Wis. 162,

155 N.W. 957, 958 (1916) ........................................12

Estelle v. Gamble, supra, at 102 ...................................25

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, (2007) ...........................12

Griffin v. IL., supra at 351 U.S. 19 .................................23

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 496 (1965) ....................16

In the Matter of the Guardianship of R.S., 162 Wis.2d 197, 210,

470 N.W.2d 260 (1991) ..........................................14

Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571,579 (CA8 1968) .....................25

Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77, 95 (1949) ...........................16

Kristi L.M. v. Dennis E.M., 2007 WI 85, 1 17, 734 N.W.2d 375 ..........16

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) ..............................14

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 429 (1982) .............18

Martindale v. Ripp, 2001 WI 113, ¶ 2932, 246 Wis.2d 67,

629 N.W.2d 698 ................................................14

McCurdy v. Dodd, 352 F.3d 820, 825 (3rd Cir. 2003) ...................19

Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, at 399

16

Neylan v. Vorwald, 121 Wis.2d 481, 360 N.W.2d 537 (Ct. App. 1984)..

.

.

20

Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2071 (2015) ....................12

Olmstead v. L.C., 138 F.3d 893, 527 U.S. 581 (1999) ..................22

3

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 470 (1928) ............ 14-15, 24

Powers v. Summers, 226 F.3d 815, 820 (7th Cir. 2004) ................18

Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at 541 ................................16

Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 710-11 (1961) ......................23

Soranno's Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989).... 18

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (9172)... 19

State ex.rel. Friedrich v. Circuit Court For Dane County, 192 Wis.2d 1,

10, 531 N.W.2d 32 (1995) ..........................................12

State v. Mitchell, 169 Wis.2d 153, 163-64, 485 N.W.2d 807 (1992) .......19

Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) ............................14

United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) ..........................13

United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) ........................13

Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 367........................24-25

Wengerd v. Rinehart, 114 Wis.2d 575, 587, 338 N.W.2d 861, 868

(Ct. App. 1983) .................................................20

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016) ...........12

Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 77 S.Ct. 1064 (1957)..

.

23

...........

Wis. Stat. § 48 ..................................................19

Wis. Stat. § 51.13(5) ..........................................18, 20

Wis. Stat. § 51.51(1)(cm) .........................................20

Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(f) .............................................20

Wis. Stat. § 51.51(1)(h) ..........................................20

Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(p) ..........................................20

4

Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(t)

.20

Wis. Stat. § 808.03(1) ............................................18

Wis. Stat. § 809.30 ..............................................18

Wis. Stat. § 809.51 ............................................11, 23

Wis. Stat. § 813.025(1) ...........................................18

Wis. Stat. § 901.03 ..............................................14

Wis. Stat. § 904.02 ...............................................14

Wis. Stat. § 940.285 ..............................................18

SCR40.15 ..................................................15, 17

First Amendment ...........................................6, 17-21

Eighth Amendment ...............................................6

Ninth Amendment ...............................................7

Fourteenth Amendment ....................................... 7, 19

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 .......................... 7, 21

42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2), (5) .......................................21

42 U.S.C. § 12132 ................................................21

28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) ................................................6

28 CFR § 35.130(d) ...............................................22

42 U.S.C. § 1983 ..............................................8, 18

www.cnn.com/2013/l0/l1/world1asia/bae ............................16

5

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the

judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court appears at Appendix 1 to the

petition.

JURISDICTION

The date on which the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided my case was

September 11, 2017. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28

U.S.C. § 1257(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of

the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

government for a redress of grievances.

Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel

and unusual punishments inflicted.

6

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed

to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Fourteenth Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein

they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor

deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment,

State and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities,

transportation, and telecommunications.

Title II requires that State and local governments give people with

disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs,

services, and activities (e.g. public education, employment, transportation,

recreation, health care, social services, courts, voting, and town meetings).

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504

The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in

programs conducted by Federal agencies, in programs receiving Federal

financial assistance, in Federal employment, and in the employment

practices of Federal contractors. Section 504 states that "no qualified

individual with a disability in the United States shall be excluded from,

denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under" any program

or activity that either receives Federal financial assistance or is conducted by

any Executive agency or the United States Postal Service.

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,

or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within

the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

redress.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a case of a disabled child with a rare brain tumor, whose mother

has fought Milwaukee County for years to ensure his safety. Each year the

injustice and harm increase. Numerous examples of judicial estoppel by

judges, guardian ad litems, adversary counsel attorneys, and the guardian's

attorney are evidence of corruption and conspiracy.

Judge Flanagan took Margaret Bach's guardianship away because she

deemed AB unsafe with less than 3 staff, and Bach could only get 2 staff

approved by Milwaukee County. Now AB is often alone, and has only one

staff. Judge Flanagan assumed a corporate guardian would work more

agreeably with Milwaukee County to ensure AB's safety.

The opposite happened. The corporate guardian chosen by Milwaukee

County took AB from his home with no notice as required by state and

federal law; reduced his care; sent him to a mental institution when he has a

brain tumor, not a mental disorder for a long 3 years even after Judge Carroll

said he should not stay there longer than 6 months; and harm increased for

AB and those around him. AB was denied visits and phone calls. His rich

life of daily outings and time with family ended. He has less community

integration in much more restrictive placements. His aggressive incidents

increased 21 fold. He needed urgent brain surgery after increased falls being

left alone regularly; he bit a man's ear off he ran away missing for several

hours; and had several broken bones. None of these dangers happened while

AB lived at home with his mother.

AB loves his mother, and desperately wants to see her and speak to

her. In November 2015 he asked to call his mother to ask how old she was

because he said he was afraid she would die before he was allowed to see her

again. The group home and guardian rules, supported by illegal court orders,

would not let AB call his mother. So he ripped off his fingernail, after his

staff left him alone. Nothing has been done to prevent this painful injury

from recurring, or any of the dangers listed above.

With no higher court intervention, the injustice has grown now with

forged transcripts. Bach ordered transcripts from Judge Borowski's court

reporter, Carol Serota-Bodi for hearings held 2-9-16, 5-12-16, 9-20-16, and 221-17. Bach recognized numerous errors and spoke to Carol Serota-Bodi

about it, but she denied any errors. The most striking omission was a

moment Bach will never forget: Judge Borowski stated on 2-9-16 that it was

wrong they had not let her see her son in 3 years. He did not give Bach eye

contact. He lookeddôwn at his desk and spoke in an oddly solemn,

sympathetic, embarrassed tone. Bach will never forget that statement and

the significance it had for her case. She even brought it up in subsequent

hearings asking Judge Borowski how he could sign an order to prevent her

from ever seeing her son again when h6 had earlier said the past deprivation

was wrong. He never denied he made the past statement or explained the

contradiction.

It is unlikely any court reporter would take it upon themselves to risk

their career by changing the transcripts they have a duty to report

accurately. Bach did noticed an unusually friendly relationship between

Judge Borowski and his court reporter in the past. The missing statements

Bach is aware of would have helped her on appeal.

Another error Bach noted was the adversary counsel waived her son's

appearance at the hearing 2-21-17, but the transcript reflected the guardian

ad litem, ("GAL") attorney had. Adversary counsel Reed Martin argued to

10

the Office of Lawyer Regulation that he knew only the GAL could waive AB's

appearance, so had not done so 2-21-17. Yet in the hearing 1-9-18 he waived

AB's appearance when there was no GAL there, even though it was

undisputed in the record that AB wanted to be there and had participated

meaningfully at other hearings.

In comparing Bach's notes and memory to the transcripts she found

numerous errors, as if the court' reporter printed out the real transcripts and

the judge went through them striking what he didn't want anyone to see.

Bach filed a motion under Wis. Stat. § 809.51 for a supervisory writ to correct

the injustice: void the illegal orders, order a new unbiased judge outside

Milwaukee County, and order an examination of the transcripts.

Bach spoke to an expert in court reporting who founded Gramann

Reporting in Milwaukee. He said the original reporting done is always

preserved, but the difficulty is each court reporter often develops their own

unique shortcuts. He recommended to do what is done when a court reporter

dies and has not yet transcribed his or her notes. They bring in 2-3 unbiased

court reporters and between them they can always rebuild the correct

original transcript.

Bach asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to order this be done

immediately and prevent further injustice with another hearing pending

before Judge Borowski 9-8-17. But they refused to do so calling Bach's

motion "baseless allegations". So at the hearing on 9-8-17 Judge Borowski

11

was visibly upset over Bach's allegations and sent her to jail. (Contempt

Order in Appendix 5)

REASONS FOR GRANTING REVIEW

I.

Corruption In The Courts Must Be Investigated

This is a serious allegation reflecting upon a serious corruption of the

judiciary. Bach does not make it lightly. The FBI uncovered serious

corruption of numerous judges in Chicago not long ago. It happens. It must

be addressed. The courts have a "duty and inherit power to preserve the

integrity of the judicial system, to ensure and if necessary to provide at public

expense adequate legal representation, and to oversee the orderly and

efficient administration of justice;" State ex rel. Friedrich v. Circuit Court For

Dane County, 192 Wis.2d 1,10, 531 N.W.2d 32 (1995). "Bias or prejudice of a

judge as to the parties constitutes in the law a disability of such judge for the

discharge of his duties." Eccles v. Free High School Dist. Of City of

Kaukauna, 162 Wis. 162, 155 N.W. 957, 958 (1916). "But as Schuette also

said, '[tihe freedom secured by the Constitution consists, in one of its

essential dimensions, of the right of the individual not to be injured by the

unlawful exercise of governmental power." Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, 135

S.Ct. 2071 (2015) "Court retains an independent constitutional duty to

review factual findings where constitutional rights are at stake." Whole

oman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292, 2310 (2016), Citing Gonzales

v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, (2007).

12

The United States Supreme Court should take jurisdiction because this

serious infraction deserves their immediate attention. No lower court has

addressed the ongoing corruption for years. With the recent decision against

Bach in St. Vincent's Hospital, 2015AP1221 requiring Bach to pay $24,000 in

fees they know she cannot afford before being able to file anything further in

circuit or appellate court, Judge Borowski and his court reporter likely felt

bolder in their action. (Appendix 2) It must stop.

As Justice Brandies stated, "If we desire respect for the law, we must

first make the law respectable."

II.

No Party May Hide Relevant Evidence

Denying Bach access to the real transcripts by having a review done by

other court reporters, denies her the exculpatory evidence she is due iinder

Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). She already went to jail once because

of it with no chance to appeal based on past orders by this court.

In Brady, this Court held "that the suppression by

the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused

upon request violates due process where the

evidence is material either to guilt or to

punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad

faith of the prosecution." 373 U. S., at 87. We have

since held that the duty to disclose such evidence is

applicable even though there has been no request

by the accused, United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S.

97, 107 (1976), and that the duty encompasses

impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory

evidence, United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667,

676 (1985). Such evidence is material "if there is a

reasonable probability that, had the evidence been

disclosed to the defense, the result of the

proceeding would have been different." Id., at 682

13

see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419, 433-434

(1995). Moreover, the rule encompasses evidence

"known only to police investigators and not to the

prosecutor." Id., at 438. In order to comply with

Brady, therefore, "the individual prosecutor has a

duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to

the others acting on the government's behalf in this

case, including the police." Kyles, 514 U. S., at 437.

Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280-81 (1999)

All relevant evidence must be admitted under Wis. Stat. § 904.02. The

real transcripts are relevant and prove Bach was right in accusing the court

of corruption. "Section 901.03 provides that error may not be predicated on a

ruling that admits or excludes evidence "unless a substantial right of the

party is affected." Martindale v. Ripp, 2001 WI 113, ¶ 29-32, 246 Wis.2d 67,

629 N.W.2d 698. Bach had substantial rights at risk: her ability to see and

speak to her son, her right to access the courts, and her very life and liberty.

For after Judge Borowski sent her to jail she had to go 18 hours without food

and water, and 24 hours without medication in solitary where she passed out.

She could have died. (See note from her physician, Appendix 9)

Rules of evidence take on an increased importance in cases like this

where a liberty interest is at stake. In the Matter of the Guardianship of

R.S., 162 Wis.2d 197, 210, 470 N.W.2d 260 (1991).

The evidence is right there proving Bach is right, she is just denied

access to it. The party at risk of losing his career and reputation, Judge

Borowski, is preventing Bach from accessing this relevant evidence. This

cannot stand. "It is desirable that criminals should be detected, and to that

14

end that all available evidence should be used." Olmstead v. United States,

277 U.S. 438, 470 (1928). Judges can be criminals too. They are not above

the law.

III. The Evidence Was Sufficient To Warrant Investigation

Integrity Of Accuser

Bach has never lied to the court, as all other parties have. She has

sacrificed greatly to keep her son safe losing her 401K, all savings and

pensions, needing multiple surgeries, and indescribable emotional pain. One

Milwaukee County physician even held Bach against her will afraid she

would harm herself because the facts of this case she had endured were

"beyond what a reasonable person could bear".

Bach is an attorney and as such remembers her oath to always be

truthful and follow the laws, and has always done so. SCR 40.15

Bach has a good memory with neuropsychological testing after a fall

from a horse placing her memory in the top 2% nationally. She takes copious

notes at each hearing with her son's life in the balance. Her written notes

and memory should have been sufficient to prompt an investigation of her

serious allegation that transcripts were forged.

Court History of Illegal Orders

There is no precedent to support this cruel over 4-year deprivation of a

mother and child's right to see each other. Guidelines in Appendix 7 and

Judge Borowski Orders in Appendix 3-4.

15

The integrity of the family unit has found

protection in the Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v. Nebraska,

supra, at 399, the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment, Skinner v. Oklahoma,

supra, at 541, and the Ninth Amendment, Griswold

v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 496 (1965) (Goldberg,

J., concurring).

Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77, 95 (1949)

A father thought to, be abusing his child was ordered by the court to be

allowed visitation. Kristi L.M. v. Dennis E.M., 2007 WI 85, ¶ 17, 734 N.W.2d

375.

Even North Korea allowed a mother more. Kenneth Bae was arrested

in North Korea in November 2012, but they recognized a mother's right to, see

her son, and a prisoner's right to visitors by allowing three visits in July

2013. CNN reported,

As a mother, I worry endlessly about his health,"

said his mother Myunghee Bae in a videotaped

statement. "I want to see him, comfort him and

hold him in prison. I miss him so much. It's hard

to describe the agony of the past year since my son

has been imprisoned in the DPRK, she said in a

released statement. I spend every day thinking

about him and praying for his homecoming.

www.cnn.com/2013/10/11/world/asia/bae

Bach asks this court to show the same humanity North Korea affords

their prisoners.

No government interest has been alleged; there has been no mention of

the benefits the government gains, or if they are narrowly tailored and tied to

16

the restrictions on Bach and AB's right to free speech and freedom of

association. And no sufficient evidence produced to support this continued

cruel deprivation. Had AB been in a North Korea prison Bach would have

seen her son 3 times a year, but in a Wisconsin group home she is denied all

visits for over 4 years. Something is very wrong. The United States Supreme

Court must address this injustice and violation of basic civil rights.

The court order from 11-2-6 states "Ms. Bach shall refrain from

discussing with AB any court proceedings and shall, not suggest'to AB that

any action taken by the Court, Life Navigators, or any other person

constitutes a violation of the law." This is outrageous. It violates Bach's

right to free speech under the First Amendment, her duty as an attorney

under SCR 40.15, and gives immunity to those violating the law. No court

order can violate the law, but this order makes allowances for that

anticipated fact.

At the 2-21-17 hearing, Judge Borowski denied Bach and AB had a

right to see and speak to each other by changing the facts, stating many adult

children may decide not to speak to their parents. (Trans. 2-21-17, p. 17 -19)

Bach pointed out their facts are different for AB functions as a second grader

and desperately wants to see and speak to his mother. (Id. at 17) There is no

precedent to deny a disabled child from seeing and speaking to his mother, as

this court has done for over 4 years now.

17

At the hearing 9-20-16, Bach asked: "I'd like to know what the reason

would be why I can't see my son. It's been over three years. There have been

no reported incidents from any witness that I've ever upset hirii." (Trans. 920J6, p. 7) Judge Borowski responded, "The best way for this to move

forward is you continue to comply with my orders; don't trump up false

narratives, don't appeal for no reason, don't waste the time of the Court of

Appeals, don't file 300 page briefs with this Court, comply with this Court's

Orders. The attorney for Life Navigators said that you had been complying"

(Trans. 9-20-16, p. 9). This proves the court retaliated against Bach for filing

a 300 page brief, which violates no local rule or statute, and appealing, which

is her right under Wis. Stat. § 808.03(1), Wis. Stat. § 809.30, Wis. Stat. §

51.13(5), Wis. Stat. § 813.025(1), and Wis. Stat. § 940.285.

"Retaliation against an individual for filing a complaint violated his

access to the courts, subsumed under the First Amendment right to petition

-

the government for redress of grievances, and was actionable under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and the First Amendment." Soranno's Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d

1310, 1314 (91h Cir. 1989). "Any deprivation under color of law that is likely

to deter the exercise of free speech.

.

.

is actionable." Powers v. Summers,

226 F.3d 815, 820 (7th Cir. 2004). "[Alccess to the courts is an entitlement or

a necessity." Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. at 1154. 455 U.S. 422, 429

(1982).

18

Our country and state place a great value on free speech. The First

Amendment of the United States Constitution states bluntly: "Congress shall

make no law.

.

.

abridging the freedom of speech." State v. Mitchell, 169

Wis.2d 153, 163-64, 485 N.W.2d 807 (1992).

Bach has a constitutional right to see her son, who functions at the 2nd

grade level. "The Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Tenth Circuits have

recognized the parental liberty interest." Cited in McCurdy v. Dodd, 352 F.3d

820, 825 (3rd Cir: 2003). The Due Process Clause extends to a parent's

interest in the companionship of his child as long as the child does not

assume that critical decision-making responsibility for himself or herself. (Id.

at 829)

Wisconsin provides special protections for parents before taking their

parental rights under Wis. Stat. § 48, which no guardianship proceeding can

ignore. "Parents.

.

.

require heightened legal safeguards to prevent

erroneous decisions." Dane Cnty. DHS v. Mable K., 2013 WI 28, ¶ 60, 346

Wis.2d 396, 828N.W.2d 198. "Stanley was entitled to a hearing on his

fitness as a parent before his children were taken from him and that, by

denying him a hearing and extending it to all other parents whose custody of

their children is challenged, the State denied Stanley the equal protection of

the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment." Stanley v. Illinois, 405

U.S. 645, 649, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (9172)

19

Bach never got these protections of a jury trial, fact-finding hearings,

etc. but the affect is the same

she has not been allowed to see her son for

-

over 4 years, with only very limited phone calls. (3ca11s allowed in 2016)

The order from 2-21-17 denied Bach her right to free speech by ordering

she could not make any disparaging comments about parties like the

guardian, group home, etc. This violates her right to free speech and

numerous state law protections/duties. Bach has discussed with AB she was

writing a book to gain justice for them since the courts have denied them, and

he agreed it was a good idea. This order makes it illegal for Bach to write the

truth about her and AB's story in a book. This cannot happen in the United

States of America.

Any court order must list what the consequence is for violating it, but'

this order from the 2-21-17 hearing does not. "The due process clause of the

Fourteenth amendment requires at least a fair and adequate warning by

court rule or notice of the imposition of the sanctions or penalties to be

invoked for failure to comply with a court order." Neylan v Vorwald, 121

Wis.2d 481, 489-490, 360 N.W.2d 537 (Ct. App. 1984). "Judgments entered

contrary to due process are void." (Id. at 488, Citing Wengerd v. Rinehart,

114 Wis.2d 575, 587, 338 N.W.2d 861, 868 (Ct. App. 1983).

AB is protected by the Patient Bill of Rights in Wisconsin, which also

allows protections to his loved ones affected by a violation of his rights. Wis.

Stat. § 51.13(5) states, "any person who is aggrieved by a determination or

20

order under this section and who is directly affected thereby may appeal."

There can be no debate Bach is aggrieved, not being able to see and speak to

her son. Wisconsin's Patient Bill of Rights guarantees AB:

-

-

-

-

-

Prompt and adequate treatment appropriate for his condition. Wis.

Stat. § 51.61(i)(f)

Reasonable access to a telephone. Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(p)

Be permitted visitors each day. Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(t)

To send and receive sealed mail. Wis. Stat. § 51.51(1)(cm)

To be free from unnecessary or extensive medication at any time...

medication may not be used as punishment, for the convenience of

staff." Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1)(h)

Judge Borowski's orders have denied AB all of these rights, but the

legislature has determined Bach has a right to appeal these violations that

affect her, which no court can overrule.

Federal Law must be adhered to. No judge can overrule the law, and it

provides AB must have the most community integration in the least

restrictive placement. AB does not have this. "In the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 ADA, Congress described the isolation and

segregation of individuals with disabilities as a serious and pervasive form of

discrimination." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2), (5). Title II of the ADA, which

proscribes discrimination in the provision of public services, specifies, inter

alia, that no qualified individual with a disability shall 'by reason of such

disability', be excluded from participation in, or be denied benefits of, a public

entity's services, programs, or activities. § 12132. A public entity is required

21

to administer.. programs.. in the most integrated setting appropriate to

.

.

the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. 28 CFR § 35.130(d)."

Olmstead v. L.C., 138 F.3d 893, 527 us. 581 (1999).

AB was out in the community much more while in his home and never

bit anyone's ear off or ran away missing for hours as has happened since AB

was taken from his home and had his care reduced.

This is just some of the court history in this case, which support Bach's

allegations of corruption, conspiracy, and forging of transcripts.

C. Conspiracy Seen With Lies By The Judge, Corporation Counsel,

Guardian ad Litem, Adversary Counsel, And Guardian's

Attorney

Judge Borowski stated, "Judge Carroll, again, as I recall, basically

barred Ms. Bach from seeing AB, justifiably at the time, probably correctly.

correct me if I'm wrong, anybody." (Trans. 2-21-17, p. 15-16) Then he got

confirmation from every party: Lynn Wagner with Life Navigators; Attorney

Meylink, AB's GAL; Attorney Blise for Life Navigators; Attorney Reed

Martin, AB's Adversary Counsel; and Attorney Dewey Martin as Corporation

Counsel for Milwaukee County. (Id. at 16) But the truth is Bach was never

barred from seeing her son until Judge Borowski's orders. In fact on 29-16

Attorney McGinnity, Attorney Blise's colleague stated, "It did not bar her

altogether from seeing or talking to AB, but setting restrictions". (Trans. 2-916, p. ii) Every attorney has therefore, demonstrated they are corrupt,

willing to agree with anything Judge Borowski says regardless of their legal

22

duty to argue AB's best interests as Attorney Meylink must, or AB's wishes

as Attorney Reed Martin must, or answer honestly as every attorney must.

These transcripts are not in dispute and support Bach's allegations of

conspiracy, corruption, and forged transcripts.

"[Ain unlawful combination and agreement becomes a positive crime

only when some of the proved conspirators enter the field of action pursuant

to the criminal design." Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 77 S.Ct. 1064

(1957). All parties cited above are guilty of this positive crime.

IV.

No Court Can Impose High Fees Restricting An Indigent.

Aggrieved Party From Accessing The Courts.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court fined Bach $195 for filing a motion

under Wis. Stat. § 809.51 because they considered it without merit, despite

the undisputed evidence Bach is indigent and her liberty is at risk.

There can be no equal justice where the kind of

trial a man gets depends on the amount of money

he has," Griffin v: Illinois, supra, at 351 U. S. 19,

and consequently that "[tihe imposition by the

State of financial barriers restricting the

availability of appellate review for indigent

criminal defendants has no place in our heritage of

Equal Justice Under Law.

Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 710-11 (1961)

No party should be denied relevant exculpatory evidence, and then

denied appeal because they are poor. The United States Supreme Court

should address this injustice and inequity.

23

CONCLUSION

Judicial integrity is vitally important at a divided time in our country

with surveyed respect for the courts very low. The Catholic Church tried to

hide their corruption for years, and it eventually became public and hurt

them. The truth will come out. Bach asks the United States Supreme Court

to take this case and clean the corruption now, before it gets worse.

As Justice Brandies put it,

Decency, security and liberty alike demand that

government officials shall be subjected to the same

rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.

In a government of laws, existence of the

government will be imperiled if it fails to observe

the law scrupulously. Our Government is the

potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill,

it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is

contagious. If the Government becomes a

lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites

every man to become a law unto himself; it invites

anarchy. To declare that in the administration of

the criminal law the end justifies the means

to

declare that the Government may commit crimes in

order to secure the conviction of a private criminal

would bring terrible retribution. Against that

pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set

its face.

-

-

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928)

Everything described herein and in the record support the court

violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Denying

all contact between Bach her son is cruel and unusual punishment for having

a brain tumor for AB, and advocating for her son for Bach. Federal law

Prohibits penalties that are grossly disproportionate to the offense, Weems v.

24

United States, 217 U. S. 349, 367, as well as those that transgress today's

"broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity and

decency." Estelle v. Gamble, supra, at 102, quoting Jackson v. Bishoj, 404

F.2d 571, 579 (CA8 1968). Everything detailed herein supports the courts

past deprivation of AB and Bach's right to see each other denies dignity,

civilized standards, humanity and decency.

Bach asks the United States Supreme Court to address this serious

threat to judicial integrity with her life and her son's at risk. This affects

millions of other disabled citizens and their families being abused.

Respectfully submitted,

fi41A44A— 3cc

Margaret Bach

Dated: February 11, 2018

25