Appendix — Schottler v. Wisconsin

Table of contents Appendix

1 Affirmation of order District Court.

2 Court of Appeals 7th Circuit order

3-5 Court of Appeals 7th circuit judgment

6-10 District Courts Judgement

11-16 Constitutional provisions in question

17 letter from United States Commission on

Civil Rights

18-19 letter to Judicial Commission.

20 Letter from Governor

21 Second Denial of petition for Review.

22 Attorney generals letter stating they would

represent the state, in responce to coplaint

sent to Judge Ziegler.

23 WI Sup Crt Denial of petition

24-25 letter from attorney general apposed to

Wisconsin Supreme Court Review

26-31 Exerpts from State Circuit court

transcripts that are defective.

32-34 State Circuit court instructions for

Disorderly Conduct.

35 Adresses of parties to be served.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Patrick J. Schottler

plaintiff,

Vv. ORDER

99-C-638-S

State of Wisconsin Chief Shirley

Abrahamson, Donald W. Steinmetz,

William A. Bablitch, John P.

Wilcox, Ann Walsh Bradley, David

Prosser, Mary E. Burke, James E.

Doyle, Tommy Thompson. P.f Cane,

Thomas Cane, Eric J. Lndell, Dennis

Erickson, C.A. Richards, Scott

Needham and Patrick Crooks.

defendants.

The Court having now received the mandate in

the above entitled matter affirms the order and

judgment previously entered herein on July 6,

2000.

Entered this 3ist day of July, 2000.

BY THE COURT:

JOHN C. SHABAZ

District Judge

4

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

On Juiy 18, 2000

No. 99-4364

Before

Hon. John L. Coffey, Circuit Judge

Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge

Hon Terence T. Evans, Circuit Judge

Order ; 6

Plaintiff-appellant filed a petition for

rehearing on July 5, 2000. All of the judges

on the panel have voted to deny rehearing. the

petition for rehearing is there fore DENIED.

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

No. 99-4364

submitted june 19, 2000

Decided june 26, 2000

Before

Hon. John L. Coffey, Circuit Judge

Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge

Hon Terence T. Evans, Circuit Judge

After release from prison, where Wisconsin had

confined him for 90 days following his

conviction for disorderly conduct, Patrick

Schottler filed this action under 42 U.S.C.

$1983 demanding the expungement of his

conviction and $30 million in damages. The

district court dismissed the action on the

pleadings, ruling that the state judges have

absolute immunity, and that the Rooker-feldman

doctrine, which holds that federal courts may

not review the judgments of state courts,

blocks Schotler’s remaining claims. See Rooker

v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923);

foot note by Judge

After an examination of the briefs and the

record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary, and the appeal is submitted on the

briefs and the record. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

3

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

We start with the claim against Wisconsin. The

Eleventh Amendment would be relevant if a state

were & “person” within the scope of §1983, for

then the court would have to decide whether §5

of the fourteenth Amendment authorizes Congress

to execise such a power. But the Supreme Court

has held that a state is not a “person,” so

that no constitutional question arises. See

Arizonans for Official English V. Arizona, 520

U.S. 43, 69 (1997); Will v. Miohigan Department

of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). The claim

against Wisconsin must be dismissed because

$1983 does not apply.

As for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine: although

federal courts (other than the Supreme Court)

may not review state-court decisions in civil

litigation, they regularly review the validity

of criminal convictions, see 28 U.S.C. $2241,

$2254, and this is one thing Schottler wants.

His problem is not the Rooker-Feldman doctrine

but the lack of “custody.” Because he waited

until after his release to commence this suit,

federal collateral attack is impossible. And

because his state conviction has not been

overturned on appeal or by collateral attack,

§1983 does not authorize money damages.

Indeed, given Heck V. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

§1983 then would come into being. In that

event the judicial defendants, at least, would

have absolute immunity, but the laok of a claim

means that no affirmative defense is yet

relevant.

Schottler believes that some of the things that

happened to him in prison violate the first

amendment or the eighth Amendment (both applied

to the states through the fourteenth), but none

of the defendants in this case controlled the

conditions of his confinement. These olaims,

to the extent we can decipher them, also appear

to be substantively frivolous. For example,

Schottler contends that Wisconsin violated the

free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

because it would not let him out of prison

every sunday to attend church. If such claims

are made again, say against the prison's

warden, the district court sould consider

imposing sanctions. But we need not pursue the

matter now.

The judgment of the district Court is vacated,

and the case is remanded with instructions to

dismiss the suit against the state with

prejudice (rather than for want of

jurisdiction, as the district court did) and to

dismiss the suit against the individual

__defendants without prejudice under Heck.

JUDGMENT WITH OUT ORAL ARGUMENT

the judgment of the District Court is VACATED

and this cause is REMANDED with instructions to

dismiss the suit against the State with

prejudice and to dismiss the suit against the

individual defendants without prejudice under

Heck, in accordance with the decision of this

court entered on this date. Costs are awarded

in favor of the appelees.

rr

)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Patrick J. Schottler

plaintiff,

v. 99-C-638-S

State of Wisconsin Chief Shirley

Abrahamson, Donald W. Steinmetz,

William A. Bablitch, John P.

Wilcox, Ann Walsh Bradley, David

Prosser, Mary E. Burke, James E.

Doyle, Tommy Thompson. P.J. Cane,

Thomas Cane, Eric J. Lndell, Dennis

Erickson, C.A. Richards, Scott

Needham and Patrick Crooks.

defendants.

Memorandum and order Dec 1, 1999

Plaintiff commenced this civil action on

October 24, 1999 and paid the filing fee. He

seeks thirty million dollars in damages

together with the reversal of his state

criminal conviction.

On November 10, 1999 defendants state of

Wisconsin, Chief Shirley Abrahamson, Donald WwW.

Steinmetz, William A. Bablitch, John P. Wilcox,

Ann Walsh Bradley David Prosser, Mary E. Burke,

James E. Doyle, Tommy Thompson, P. J. Cane,

Thomas Cane, Eric J. Lundell, Dennis Erickson,

C.A. Richards, Scott Needham and Patrick Crooks

moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint.

Plaintiff responded to this motion on November

23, 1999. No further briefing is required.

@

A complaint should be dismissed for failure to

state a claim only if it appears beyond a

reasonable doubt that the plaintiffs can prove

no set of facts in support of the claim which

would entitle the plaintiffs to relief. Conley

V. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). In

order to survive a challenge under Rule 12(b)

(6) a complaint “must contain either direct or

inferential allegations respecting all the

material elements necessary to sustain recovery

under some viable legal theory.” Car Carriers,

Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F. 2d 1101, 1106

(7th Cir. 1984).

FACTS

For purposes of deciding defendant's motion to

dismiss the facts alleged in plaintiff's

complaint are taken as true.

Plaintiff Patrick J. Schottler is an sdult

resident of Wisconsin. Defendants Chief

Shirley Abrahamson, Donald W. Steinmetz,

William A. Bablitch, John P. Wilcox, Ann Walsh

Bradley, David Prosser and Patrcik Crooks are

justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Defendants P. J. Cane and Thomas Cane

are Wisconsin Court of appeals judges.

Defendants Eric J. Lundell, C.A. Richards and

Scott Needham are St. Croix county Circuit

Court judges. Defendant James E. Doyle is the

Attorney General for the state of Wisconsin,

and defendant Mary E. Burke is an assistant

Attorney general Defendant Dennis Erickson is

an assistant district attorney for St. Croix

County. Defendant Tommy Thompson is the

Governor of Wisconsin.

7

In 1995 and 1996 plaintiff was prosecuted in

St. Croix County for disorderly conduct. In

January 1997 plaintiff was convicted and

sentenced to 90 days in jail by defendant Judge

Lundell. Plaintiff's conviction was summarily

affirmed by Judge R. Thomas Cane of The

Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Plaintiff

petitioned for review by the Wisconsin Supreme

Court. Defendants James E. Doyle and Mary E. é

Burke opposed the petition. In Novermber 1997

the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s

petition for review. In January 1998 the Court

denied plaintiff’s motion for a rehearing.

In January 1999 Governor Thompson's office

advised plaintiff that he did not have

authority to become involved in this case.

MEMORANDUM

Defendant State of Wisconsin moves to dismiss

plaintiff's complaint for money damages against

the State of Wisconsin on the basis of Eleventh

Amendment immunity. the State of Wisconsin is

immune from suit for money damages. See Quern

V. Jordan, 440 U.S.C. 332, 337 (1979).

Accordingly, plaintiff's claim against the

State of Wisconsin for money damages will be

dismissed.

Defendant justices Chief Shirley Abrahamson,

Donald W. Steinmetz, William A. Bablitch, John

P. Wiloox, Ann Walsh Bradley, David Prosser,

Patrick Crooks and judges P.J. Cane, Thomas

Cane, Eric J. Lundell, C.A. Richards and Scott

Needham move to dismiss plaintiff's complaint

for money damages on the basis of judicial

immunity. Judges are immune from suit for

money damages for acts taken in their judicial

capacity except when they act in the clear

absence of all jurisdiction. Stump v.

8

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56, reh. Denied,

436 U.S. 9561 (1978). Plaintiff alleges that

the defendant judges were acting in their

judicial capacity. Accordingly, they are

immune from suit for money damages.

Defendants Doyle, Burke and Erickson move to

dismiss plaintiff's claim for money damages on

the basis of prosecutorial immunity. A

prosecutor has absolute immunity for -initiating

a prosecution and presenting the state’s case.

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976).

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Erickson

prosecuted a case against him and that

defendants Doyle and Burke opposed his petition

for review on behalf of the state. These

defendants are absolutely immune from suits for

money damages.

Plaintiff appears to be also asking that his

state criminal case be reversed. This court

lacks authority to review final judgments of a

state court. See district of columbia Court of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 476, 482 (1983);

Rooker v. Fidelity Co., 263 U.S. 413-415-416

(1923). Plaintiff's claim for injunctive

relief, the reversal of his conviction against

the state defendants will be dismissed.

Defendant Tommy Thompson moves to dismiss

plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.

Plaintiff has alleged no facts that support a

claim that defendant Thompson violated

plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint against

defendant Thompson will be dismissed.

a

}

Plaintiff has not stated a claim for relief

under federal law against any of the named

defendants. Accordingly, their motion to

dismiss will be granted.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to

dismiss plaintiff’s complaint is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered

in favor of defendants against plaintiff

DISMISSING his complaint and all claims

contained therein with prejudice and costs.

Entered this ist day of December, 1999,

BY THE COURT:

JOHN C. SHABAZ

District Judge

10

ARTICLE Iil

Section 1. The judicial power of the United :

States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court,

and in such inferior courts as the Congress may

from time to time ordain and establish. The

judges, both of the supreme and inferior

courts, shall hold their offices during good

behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive

for their services, a compensation, which shall

not be diminished during their continuance in

office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to

all cases, in law and equity, arising under

this Constitution, the laws of the United

States, and treaties made, or which shall be

made, under their authority; -to all cases

affecting ambassadors, other public ministers

and consuls; -to all cases of admiralty and

maritime jurisdiction; -to controversies to

which the United States shall be a party; -to

controversies between two or more states;

-between a state and citizens of another state;

-between citizens of different states; -between

citizens of the same state claiming lands under

grants of different states, and between a

state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign

states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other

public ministers and consuls, and those in

which a state shall be party, the Supreme

Court shail have original jurisdiction. In

all the othercases before mentioned, the

Supreme Court shall have appellate

jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with

such exceptions, and under such regulations as

the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of

impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial

1]

shall be held in the state where the said

crimes shall have been committed; but when not

committed within any state, the trial shall be

at such place or places as the Congress may by

law have directed.

aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted

of treson unless on the testimony of two

witnesses to the same overt act, or on

confession_in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the

punishment of treason, but no attainder of

treason shall work corruption of blood, or

forfeiture except during the life of the person

attainted. :

=

ARTICLE VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered

into, before the adoption of this constitution,

shall be as valid against the United States

under this Constitution, as under the

Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United

States which shall be made in pursuance

thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall

be made, under the authourity of the United

States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

and the judges in every state shall be bound

thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws

of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before

mentioned, and the members of the several state

legislatures, and all executive and judicial

officers, both of the United States and of the

several states, shall be bound by oath or

affirmation , to support this Constitution; but

no religious test shall ever be required as a

qualification to any office or public trust

under the United States.

ARTICLE VII

The ratification of the conventions of nine

stats, shall be sufficient for the

establishment of this Constitution between the

states so ratifying the same.

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of

the states present the seventeenth day of

september in the year of our lord one thousand

seven hundred and eighty seven and of the

independence of the United States of America

the twelfth. 3

i

AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

The first 10 Amendments were ratified December

15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill

of Rights”

AMENDMENT I

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.

AMENDMENT VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor

excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual

punishments inflicted.

AMENDMENT IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain

rights, shall not be construed to deny or

disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States

by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to

the states, are reserved to the states

respectively, or to the people.

AMENDMENT XI

The judicial power of the United States shall

not be construed to extend to any suit in law

or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one

of the United States by citizens of another

state, or by citizens or subjects of any

foreign state. :

14

AMENDMENT XIV

(Ratified July 9; 1868)

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be

apportioned among the several states according

to their respective numbers, counting the whole

number of persons in each state, excluding

Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote

at any election for the choice of electors for

President and vice President of the United

States, Representatives in Congress, the

executive and judicial officers of a state, or

the members of the legislature thereof, is

denied to any of the male inhabitants of such

state, being twenty-one years of age, and

citizens of the United States, or in any way

abridged, except for participation in

rebellion, or other crime, the basis of

representation therein shall be reduced in the

proportion which the number of such male

citizens shall bear to the whole number of male

citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. no person shall be a Senator or

Representative in Congress, or elector of

President and Vice President, or hold any

office, civil or military, under the United

States, or under any state, who, having

previously taken an oath, as.a member of

congress, or as an Officer of the United

ee i

States, or as a member of any state legislature,

or aS an executive or judicial officer of any —

state, to support the Constitution of the

United States, shall have engaged in

insurrection or rebellion against the same, or

given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of

each house, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of

the United States authouized by law, including

debts incurred for payment of pensions and

bounties for services in suppressing

insurrection or rebellion, shall not be

questioned. But neither the United States nor

any state shall assume or pay any debt or

obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or

rebellion against the United States, or any

claim for the loss or emancipation of any

Slave; but all such debts, obligations and

claims shall be held illigal and void. -

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to

enforce, by appropriate legislation, the

provisions of this article.

16

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

624 NINTH STREET, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20425

Pat Schottler January 29, 1999

626 Valley View Terrace

Somerset, WI 54025

Dear Ms. Schottiler

The United States Commission on Civil Rights

recently received your complaint.

The Commission was established to conduct

studies, hold hearings, issue reports, and

serve as a national clearinghouse for civil

rights information. As such, the Commission

has no authority to provide direct remedial

assistance or offer an opinion as to the

soundness or individual allegations.

In order to be helpful, we have forwarded your

complaint to:

Ms. Diane Roberts

Correspondence & Record Management Unit

U.S. Department of Justice

10th & Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

This agency is authorized to help resolve the

problem you described. We have requested that

the agency notify you in writing concerning all

actions taken to resolve your complaint. You

should forward any additional information or

correspondence directly to the aforementioned

referral agency or contact Ms. Roberts at (202)

514-3826

Thank you for writing the Commission.

Sincerely, FREDERICK D. ISLER

Ast Stf Dr Office of Civil Rights Evaluation

17

From Pat Schottler

626 Valley View Trail

Somerset WI 54025

To the Judicial Commission

110 E. Main St Suite 606

Madison WI 53703-3328

(Date Unknown after Gov letter January 26, 1999)

I suspect I’m getting the Run around.

I was asked to contact you by the Governors

Office about complaints against Judges. (page

2)

It is my Understanding that this judicial

counsel answers to The Wisconsin Supreme Court

which issues the desicions.

I have had problems with judges under there

super vision not following the laws of the

United States Constitution and did appeal my

case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court who felt

the Lower Judges didn’t need to follow the Laws

of this country & didn’t feel they needed to

review this case.

Esencially my problem is with the Wisconsin

Supreme Court for not maintaining the

Constitution & Allowing the Judges below them

not to maintain it either.

If you read this case you will see that I did

indeed appeal to the Federal Supreme Court in

which the Clerk pulled a routeen clever manuver

so the federal judges would never see it.

I've been in the Run around plenty of times

I know it nearly as well as the people who give

it. Some may not even know there a part of it

such as you.

13

Not to slight the governor but he doesn’t want

to take responsibility (because of the

consiquences) so he gives it to his policy

assistant. who won't take responsibiliyt but

directs it to you.

So as to clarify who & what I am & what I stand

for & EXPECT.

I am the type of person who can would & will

take this case up with the Wisconsin Supreme

Court point out that they screwed up and

EXPECT THEM TO CORRECT IT

OUT OF THERE OWN VOLINTARY ATHOURITY TO DO SO.

eVERY BODY MAKES MISTAKES EVEN i DO WHICH IS

WHY i WAS BROUGHT INTO COURT IN THE FIRST PLACE

i DIDN'T KNOW THE WOMAN WAS MARRIED & i TOLD

THEM sO.

The Constitution garenties I can make mistakes

with woxrds & No law can be passed to abridge

that.

They were not using words when they threw me in

jail & wouldn’t let me go to church.

Foot note by Pat Schottler

(The Judicial Commision NEVER responded)

Ig

STATE OF WISCONSIN

Office of the Governor

January 26, 1999

Pat Schottler

626 Valley View Trail

Somerset Wi 54025

Dear Mr. Schottler:

Thank you for your letter. Governor Thompson

asked me to respond to you directly.

I regret to inform you that it is beyond the

Governors authority to become involved in legal

cases, such as the one you described in your

letter. The Governor’s Office cannot provide

legal advice or counsel If you believe the

judge in your case acted inappropriately,

please contact the Wisconsin Judicial

Commission to register a complaint. Their

address is 110 E. Main St., Suite 606, Madison,

WI 53703-3328. The phone number is

608/266-7637.

Thank you again for contacting the Office of

the Governor.

Sincerely.

BRIAN RIEDL

Policy Assistant

N)

sg

SUPRMEM COURT (OF WISCONSIN)

110 E. Main Street, Suite 715

P.O. Box 1688

Madison, Wisconsin 53701-1688

Telephone (608)-266-1880

Facsimile (608)-267-0640

Mar 27, 1998

To hon Eric J. Lundell

St. Croix County Circuit Court

To Dennis W. Erickson

St. Croix County Asst. Dist. Atty.

To Patrick J. Schottler

Somerset, WI 54025

To Mary E. Burke

Assistant Attorney Gerneral

You are here by notified that the Court has

entered the following order:

No. 97-0289-CR State V. Schottler L.C.#95CM509

Defendant-appellant, Patrick Schottler, has

attempted to refile a petition for review in

this matter, the original petition having been

denied on November 20, 1997 and the subsequent

motion for reconsideration having been

dismissed on January 21, 1998.

IT IS ORDERED that this latest document shall

not be accepted as a properly and timely filed

petition for review. Pursuant to the earlier

- orders, this case is closed in this court. The

clerk is directed to place any further

attempted filing from Schottler into the closed

file with out response.

“ }

2}

REA LDL BIL EE fA BB PEAT 7

|

|

State of Wisconsin

Department of Justice

James E. Doyle

Attorney General

Burneatta L. Bridge

Deputy Attorney General

May 8, 1998

Pat Schottler

626 Valley View Trail

Somerset, WI 54025

Dear Pat Schottler:

Washington County Circuit Court Judge Annette

Ziegler referred your April 28 letter to her to

Attorney General James Doyle for resoponse.

Attorney General Doyle has asked me to respond.

This office likely would represent the state in

any appellate litigation arising from your

criminal conviction or the assertions made in

your letter. For me to comment on your claims

therefore would pose a conflict of interest.

you may wish to contact the state public

defender for further information about legal

resources available to convicted offenders.

That address is:

Wisconsin State Public Defender

Appellate Division

P.O. Box 7862

madison, WI 53707-7862

I am sorry that I cannot be of further

assistance.

Cordially

Mary I. Burke Assistant Attorney General

Director, Criminal appeals Unit

c. Judge Annette K. Ziegler

“~

on é~

SUPRMEM COURT (OF WISCONSIN)

110 E. Main Street, Suite 715

. P.O. Box 1688

Madison, Wisconsin 53701-1688

Telephone (608)-266-1880

Facsimile (608)-267-0640

® Nov 20 1997 ®

To hon Eric J. Lundell

St. Croix County Circuit Court

To Dennis W. Erickson

St. Croix County Asst. Dist. Atty.

To Patrick J. Schottler

Somerset, WI 54025

To Mary E. Burke

Assistant Attorney Gerneral

You are here by notified that the Court has

entered the following order:

No. 97-0289-CR State V. Schottler L.C.#95CM509

A petition for review pursuant to Wis. Stat.

808.10 having been filed on behalf of defendant

appellant petitioner, Patrick J. Schottler, end

considered by the court,

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for review is

denied, with out costs.

w

AyJ

STATE OF WISCONSIN

IN SUPREME COURT

State of Wisconsin

Plaintiff-respondent,

Vv. Oct 23, 1997

Patrick J. Schottler,

Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.

RESOPNSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR REVIEW

Pursuant to Rule 809.62, stats., the State of

Wisconsin, by its undersigned attorneys,

opposes the petition for review ("petition")

for the following reasons:

1. The court of appeals applied the correct

principles of law and correct standards of

appellate review. Ther is no basis for further

review .by this court.

2. This case presents no significant question

of state or federal constitutional law. Rule

809.62(1) (a), Stats.

3. There is no need for this court to

consider establishing, implementing or changing

a policy within its authority. Rule

809.62(1){b), Stats.

4. There is no need for this court to

develop, clarify or harmonize the law. Rule

809.62(1)(c), Stats.

5. The court of Appeals’ decision does not

conflict with controlling precedent. Rule

809.62(1) (d), Stats.

6 There is no need to reexamine current law.

Rule 809.62(1)(e), Stats.

7. The court of appeals’ decision has not

been recommended for publication, and will have

no precedential effect.

8. The interests of justice do not warrant

further review in this case.

THEREFORE, the state respectfully requests that

this court deny the petition for review.

Dated this 23rd day of October, 1997

vt |

James I. Doyle

Attorney General

Mary E. Burke _

Assistant Attorney General

Attorneys for Pliantiff

Respondent

Wisconsin Department of Justice

Pos Office Box 7857

Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857

(609) 266-0323

Foot note by Pat Schottler

I can not let this letter go with out

commenting on Att Generals reason 2.

“this case presents no significant question of

state or federal constitutional law”.

NO SIGNIFICANT QUESTION” means there IS a

question. The attorney general didn’t think it

was an important question. and wrote the

replie to appear as though there were “NO

QUESTION" of Constitutional law.

Second thing according to the state of

Wisconsin words are a crime, Then why aren't

they put in jail for there words?

Third is responce number 7. Since the court of

appeals responce is not recomended for

publication it will have no precedential effect.

This responce voids all previous reasons and

states since no one will find out it doesn’t

matter.

Anyone who has taken an oath to support the

Constitution and follows those laws, would find

this letter as a whole, PROVOCATIVE.

as

=

IN ST CROIX COUNTY COURT OF WISCONSIN

From case 95CM509

State of WI vs Patrick J. Schottler

St. Croix County Jan 6, 1997

Mr. Ericson is the Prsecutor in Wi Circuit

Court of St. Croix County.

Judge Lundel is Circuit Judge. of

St. Croix. County

Defendant is Pat Schottler

This is some exerpts from transcript that is

defective.

THE COURT: — and you were fairly, Okay. Now I

understand -- I can’t imagine anyone who likes

being convicted.. I understand you don’t like

‘it. But the fact is you were convicted, okay.

So we have to go to the next phase here and

that’s the sentencing phase. and --

THE DEFENDANT; I object to the sentencing

under violation of the 6th amendment.

THE COURT: And your objection is denied,

Okay. We are going to proceed. Mr. Erickson

what’s your -—-

THE DEFENDANT: I object to the sentencing upon

the prosecution’s cross-examination or

neglect. Iti:was —- obviously the only evidence

against me was. written-with pen and paper which

falls. under ist Amendment. In which it states

no law shall —- can be passed forbidding

speech. The question are..words written on

paper, speech: Under Supreme Court Rule 60.02

a.Judge should support the United States and

Wisconsin Constitutions and fearlessly observe

and apply their limitations and guarantees. My

~- my case should be dismissed under the Ist

Amendment.

26

THE COURT: All right. So noted. You're

overruled. Motion for new trial ts denied on

that basis.

THE DEFENDANT: That was motion to dismiss the

case. Another motion --

THE COURT Okay, motion to dismiss is denied.

THE DEFENDANT: Another motion to dismiss the

case, I object on the — 9th Amendment as it

states just because the right is not listed

does not mean it’s not covered. In other

words, the ist Amendment is covered and make no

mistakes of it. (Even though attached to the

amendments before it are not necessarily solid

on the people)#. just because it is not listed

here, does not mean it is not covered.

THE COURT: Okay. Motion to dismiss on that

basis is denied.

THE DEFENDANT: Make another motion. And I

object under the 10th Amendment. It states

that the states cannot have laws that are not

protected rights of the constitution. ist

amendment guarantees the freedom of speech.

THE COURT: Okay. That request is motion to

dismiss and that’s denied.

THE DEFENDANT: Another motion is -- not

necessary the motion, but a start in the

process of another two cases under the 14th

Amendment. The government officials must obey

their own laws and interpretation of them since

it is both your and prosecuter’s interpretation

that reads, just because a person is provoked

makes another guilty of a crime. Therefore

(foot note) # transcript error by one who does

not understand the ninth amendment.

27

because I am (provoked )* by both of you and

(prosecutor)* for numerous reasons, one being

responsibility for my conviction, you must obey

your Own laws and be found guilty of disorderly

conduct. This is

law reads because a person is provoked makes

the accused guilty. I wanted --

THE COURT: So what are you asking there?

THE DEFENDANT: I'll have to go toa different

attorney.

THE COURT: okay

Took those letters,

Though I was not totally aware of it at that

time,

that’s when I lost my respect for you.

That’s where I am testing your patience because

23

I did not get a fair trial I don’t deny that

you’re not a good Judge, but that is when you

crossed over my line. I am a pretty reasonable

person.

BREAK TO ANOTHER PORTION OF TRANSCRIPT.

( 2XRREKKKKRRRRRAERRREK)

MR. ERICKSON: As a matter of fact our office

is contemplating additional charges against Mr.

Schottler. And I'm not prepared to say today

just what may or may not happen. But Mr.

Schottler just might as well be aware of that

today.

THE DEFENDANT: Would you care to relate what

was written in the letter.

THE COURT: We’re not handling that matter. We

are handling the former matter first.

------ THE DEFENDANT: See he’s insinuating

that I wrote something of a nature that I wrote

THE COURT: Mr. Schottler.

THE DEFENDANT: -- to Mrs. Metzdorf, and I did

not. I wished ( ) them a Merry christmas

and a Happy New Year --

THE COURT: Mr. Schottler.

THE DEFENDANT: -- and that’s what the letter

said. And they are going to press charges

against me for that, your Honor. Do you

understand I am not being treated fairly here.

THE COURT: Mr. Schottler, that’s another

matter, another day, another time, okay. Let’s

deal with the Metzdorf case first. -—----

24

BREAK TO ANOTHER PORTION OF TRANSCRIPT.

(ARERRERRREREREREKER KE)

THE COURT: Mr. Schottler, we'll note your

desagreement with the charge of disorderly

conduct, Okay, with the defense of ist

Amendment. Unfortunately for you, most all

people disagree with you. Twelve people on the

jury disagreed with you.

THE DEFENDANT: That’s not necessarily true

because they were not told the truth. And

that’s why I’m asking for a new trial.

THE COURT: And that’s been denied, hasn't it.

Okay, let’s proceed.

BREAK TO ANOTHER PORTION OF TRANSCRIPT.

(9 SS Se Se Be Se Se Ree)

THE DEFENDANT: You do understand that I have

not been able to communicate with the person.

THE COURT: I understand that. The issue of

whether you are remorseful to the Metzdorfs I

think perhaps is up in the air. [| know you've

apologized to them, but the problem is you

don’t accept the fact that you've been

convicted of a crime. And once that would

occur I think everything that happens

thereafter you would have to accept the fact

that we live in a society of rules and

regulations and order. And what you've done is

you've caused some disorder amongst those rules.

THE DEFENDANT: Do you understand -- (The ist

Amendment)* -

THE COURT: You're living by a set of rules

that I don’t understand. You're living by your

own set of rules and your own order. And

frankly, you are writing those rules and

setting up the order.

30

THE DEFENDANT: I got to object to that.

THE COURT: And we don't quite understand what

your're getting at here, okay. Now, if you’re

not doing that, that I’ve just tried to explain

here, then the only set of rules and order are

the ones that society has set up and you

violated those rules. You've been convicted

because of that. It is as simple as that.

This is elementary. It is simple. And it’s

fundamental, okay. Pat, you’re simply going to

have to understand that you have to follow

rules whether you like them or not. Whether

you accept them or not, you have to follow

these rules. And you have to follow the record

of society. And

*Not in the Transcript “defendant did say”

part of that includes you don’t write letters

through the U.S. mail or hand -- you could have

handed them to the librarian, it would have

been the same effect here. You can’t do

something which causes someone to be provoked

or disturbed to such an extent that they press

charges.

THE DEFENDANT: How can a person know that.

THE TRANSCRIPT CONTINUES.

3 |

1900 DISORDERLY CONDUCT -- 947.01

Disorderly conduct, as defined in 947.01 (1)

of the criminal code of Wisconsin, is committed

by a person who, in a public or private - place,

engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane,

boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise

disorderly conduct under circumstances in which

such conduct tends to cause or provoke a

disturbance.

Writen as stated by Judge Lundell

Before the defendant may be found guilty of

disorderly conduct, the State must prove by

evidence which satisfies you beyond a

reasonable doubt that the following two

elements were present.

First, that the defendant engaged in (violent)

(abusive) (indecent) (profane) (boisterous)

(unreasonably loud) (or otherwise disorderly)

conduct.

Second, that the conduct of the defendant,

under the circumstances as they then existed,

tended to cause or provoke a disturbance.

The first element of this offense requires that

the defendant engaged in (violent) (abusive) (

indecent) (profane) (boisterous) (unreasonabley

loud) (or otherwise disorderly) conduct. This

element of the offense may include physical

acts or language or both.

‘The general phrase “disorderly conduct” means

conduct having a tendency to disrupt good order

and provoke a disturbance. It includes all

Such acts and conduct as are of a nature to

corrupt the public morals or to outrage the

Sense of public decency, whether committed by

words or acts. Conduct is disorderly although

it may not be violent, abusive, indecent,

32,

profane, boisterous, or unreasonably loud if it

is of a type which tends to disrupt good order

and provoke a disturbance.”

The principle upon which this offense is based

is that in an organized society one should so

conduct himself as not to unreasonably offend

the senses or sensibilities of others in the

community. This does not mean that all conduct

which tends to disturb another is disorderly

conduct. Only such conduct as unreasonably

- offends the sense of decency or prcpriety of

the community is included. It does not include

conduct which is generally tolerated by the

community at large but which might disturb an

oversensitive person.

The second element of this offense requires

that the defendant’s conduct, under the

circumstances as they then existed, tended to

cause cr provoke a disturbance. It is not

necessary that an actual disturbance must have

resulted from the defendant’s conduct. The law

requires only that the conduct be of a type

which tends to cause or provoke a disturbance,

under the circumstances as they then existed.

You must consider not only the nature of the

conduct but also the circumstances surrounding

that conduct. What is proper under one set of

circumstances may be improper under other

circumstances. This element requires that the

conduct of the defendant, under the

circumstances as they then existed, tended to

cause or provoke a disturbance.

33

If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt

from the evidence in this case that the

defendant engaged in (violent) (abusive)

(indecent) (profane) (boisterous) (unreasonably

loud) (or otherwise disorderly) conduct and

that his conduct, under the circumstances as

they then existed, tended to cause or provoke a

disturbance, you should find the defendant

guilty.

If you are not so satisfied, you must find the

defendant not guilty.

This short, to the point, Appendix was prepared

by

Pat Schottler

626 Valley View Trail

Somerset WI 54025

Pro Se

Chief Shirley S Abrahamson

P.O. Box 1688

110 E. Main Street, Suite 715

Madison WI 53701-1688

(608)-266-1880

Donald W. Steinmetz

P.O. Box 1688

110 E. Main Street, Suite 715

Madison WI 53701-1688

(608)-266-1880

William A. Bablitch

P.O. Box 1688

110 E. Main Street, Suite 715

Madison WI 53701-1688

(608 )-266-1880

Jon P. Wilcox

P.O. Box 1688

110 E. Main Street, Suite 715

Madison WI 53701-1688

(608 )-266-1880

Ann Walsh Bradley

P.O. Box 1688

110 E. Main Street, Suite 715

Madison WI 53701-1688

(608)-266-1880

David Prosser

P.O. Box 1688

110 E. Main Street, Suite 715

Madison WI 53701-1688

(608)-266-1880

Patrick Crooks

P.O. Box 1688

110 E. Main Street, Suite 715

Madison WI 53701-1688

(608)-—266- 1880

i

Defendant

Defendant

Defendant

Defendant

Defendant

Defendant

Defendant

Cane, P.J.

P.O. Box 1688

110 E. Main Street, Suite 715

Madison WI 53701-1688

(608)-266-1880

Thomas Cane

P.O. Box 1688

110 E. Main Street, Suite 715

Madison WI 53701-1688

(608)-266-1880

Tommy Thompson

Room 115 East Sttate Capitol

Madison WI 53707

(608)-266-1212

Eric J Lundell

1101 Carmichael Road

Hudson WI 54016

(715)-386-4612

Dennis Erickson

1101 Carmichael Road

Hudson WI 54016

(715)-386-4658

Scott Needham

1101 Carmichael Road

Hudson WI 54016

(715)-386-4612

C. A. Richards

1101 Carmichael Road

Hudson WI 54016

(715)-386-4612 -

Mary E. Burke

123 West Washington Avenue

Madison WI. 53707-7857

(608)-266-0323

5G

Defendant

Defendant

Defendant

Defendant

Defendant

Defendant

Defendant

Defendant

James E. Doyle

123 West Washington Avenue

Madison WI. 53707-7857

(608)-266-0323 : Defendant

David C. Rice

123 West Washington Avenue

Madison WI. 53707-7857

(608)-266-0323 Council of Defendants

Solicitor General of the United States

Room 5614

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington DC. 20530-0001

Attorney General of the United States

Room 4400

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington DC. 20530

(202)-514-2001

4

Wi blll