County of Ozaukee

                      
                           Deep State Corruption of Judges and Attorneys
 

• Property Rights Advocate Steven Alan Magritz imprisoned on known false charges.
• Judge and Prosecutor, with malice aforethought, conspire to:   
  • Conceal crimes committed by fellow attorney;
  • remove exculpatory evidence from court file;
  • conceal exculpatory evidence from jury;
  • fail to give notice of hearings;
  • deny assistance of counsel;
  • threaten and gag the defense;
  • prevent testimony to the jury;
  • deny witnesses for defense;
  • order defense witness off witness stand;
  • suborn false testimony;
  • enter a “Liar’s Plea” over objection in order to create a “controversy”;
  • imprison innocent man after state’s star witness testifies there is no corpus delicti;
  • falsely imprison man without personal or subject matter jurisdiction;
  • And much, much more.  

 
                                 Habeas Corpus to the Court of Appeals
 

• Appellate Judges protect corrupt lower court judge and prosecutor;
• Judges stonewall for months when they are required to act immediately;
• Judges repeatedly issue fraudulent “opinions” and “orders”;
• Judges demand second filing fee for timely filed amended petition;
• Judges say go back to corrupt judge who exhibited animus and acted without jurisdiction.

                          
                           Writ of Error to supreme court
 

• Constitutionally secured (Article I, section 21) Writ of Error filed January 16, 2018;
• Gatekeeper attorneys (commissioners) conceal Writ of Error from supreme court justices.
• Gatekeeper attorneys fraudulently convert writ of error to a “petition for review”;
• Gatekeeper attorneys then dismiss fraudulently created “petition for review” on January 18;
• Magritz notifies supreme court justices of unlawful conduct of commissioners on January 26.

 
                           The documents shown below are in the order of most recent to the oldest:

1)  Notice to supreme court justices titled:  “NOTICE OF:  UNLAWFUL CONDUCT BY SUBORDINATE  
…..ATTORNEYS, AND, DEMAND FOR REMEDY via WRIT OF ERROR”.

2)  “Refused For Fraud” the commissioners fraudulent conversion and subsequent “dismissal”.

3)  SC Commissioners fraudulent conversion of “Writ of Error” to statutory “petition for review”.

8)  AMENDED Petition For Common Law Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum (Word format).

10)  Exhibits for habeas corpus petition (PDF format). 

11)  Documents #1 through #7 above.

Steven Alan Magritz                                                                                                                                                  January 26, 2018 A.D.
c/o Street                                                                                                                                                                7016 0750 0001 1946 0861
City, Wisconsin
 
                                NOTICE OF:  UNLAWFUL CONDUCT BY SUBORDINATE ATTORNEYS,
                                              AND, DEMAND FOR REMEDY via WRIT OF ERROR
 
To:       Patience D. Roggensack, supreme court chief justice
            16 East, State Capitol
            Madison, WI 53702
 
TAKE NOTICE:  I, Steven Alan Magritz, charge attorneys Nancy A. Kopp, Julie Anne Rich, David W. Runke, and Mark Anthony Neuser, commissioners/appointees of the state supreme court, with fraudulent conversion, deprivation of rights with malice aforethought, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy against rights, breach of fiduciary duty, misconduct in public office, obstruction of justice, denial of access to the court, denial of substantive due process, perjury of oath by a fiduciary of the public trust, violation of DR’s and EC’s, unlawful concealment from the justices [n1], abuse of power, and, defiance of, and rebellion against, the federal and state constitutions [n2].
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS:  In the late afternoon of January 16, 2018 A.D., I filed a twelve page Writ of Error, signed under penalty of perjury, along with a one hundred and twenty-five page Appendix, with the clerk of the supreme court located at 110 E. Main St., Suite 215, Madison, Wisconsin.  I filed seven original signature writs, one for each justice, with an Appendix for each justice, plus 2 sets of Writ and Appendix which the deputy clerk stated she “needed”.  I filed the Writ of Error following the denial of my “AMENDED Petition For Common Law Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the constitution of Wisconsin, 1848 A.D.” by the COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT II. 
The deputy clerk further stated she had never seen a Writ of Error, did not know what the fee might be, and that the clerk would send me a “bill” for any fee.  In the afternoon of January 18, 2018 A.D., I called the office of the clerk and talked with Carrie Janto.  Janto stated that the court commissioners had dismissed my Writ of Error and that a letter to that effect had just been mailed out to me.  I asked Janto the names of the commissioners who had dismissed my writ, but she stated she did not know.
On January 22, 2018 A.D., I received an unsigned letter on “OFFICE OF THE CLERK” letterhead indicating that the “Commissioners” had fraudulently converted my Writ of Error, a constitutionally secured writ, to a discretionary statutory privilege called a “petition for review”, and then dismissed the created by fraud petition.
In the late afternoon of January 22 I called the office of the court commissioners and talked with receptionist Sonja M. Umberger.  I introduced myself, and then asked to speak to the commissioners, first Kopp, then Rich, then Runke, then Neuser.  I was given three different excuses for not be able to talk to the four commissioners.
In the afternoon of January 24, 2018 A.D., I again called the office of the court commissioners.  As I asked to speak to the various commissioners, Umberger’s response became abrupt and her tone of voice became ice cold.  Umberger hung up on me when I asked if she could try ringing me through to Dave Runke.
 
TAKE NOTICE:  In State ex rel Haas v. McReynolds, 252 Wis. 2d 133 (2002), the court say (¶ 15) that a writ of error is the proper way to review the denial of a petition for habeas corpus.  Further, the aforesaid attorneys were twice [n3] given notice and warning that tortfeasors would be charged with trespass as an intentional tortfeasor acting with malice aforethought, but they chose [n4] to ignore the notices, act contrary to Haas, fraudulently convert my Writ of Error to a petition for review, thus knowingly violate my constitutionally secured right to a writ of error under Article I, sec. 21 of the state Constitution. [n5] 
These attorneys spat on the rule of law, acted dishonestly, without integrity, and in bad faith.  Their unlawful acts impugn the reputation, character and integrity of the supreme court itself and destroys the perception that people might have that the court will act justly.   
 
TAKE NOTICE:  Justices of the supreme court are required to be bound by oath to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin by Article IV Section 28 [n6] of the state constitution.  A copy of your oath is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.  I accept your oath as a binding contract that you will protect my God-given rights, which are secured by both federal and state constitutions.
 
DEMAND FOR REMEDY
 
I demand that the justices of the supreme court of Wisconsin instanter provide me remedy as set forth on page twelve of my “Writ of Error, generally, and Order for Remedy”.  
Dated this _____ day of January, 2018 A.D.
 
 
By:  ________________________________
            Steven Alan Magritz
 
Cc:  file, others   

[1] See Presidential Order dated December 20, 2017 with regard to corruption.

[2] See sections three and four of the Fourteenth Amendment for the consequences of rebellion against the Constitution.

[3] See copies of “Praecipe to the clerk” and “Writ of Error, generally, and Order for Remedy”, enclosed herewith and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length herein.  Original signature Writ of Error with 125 page appendix, withheld from the justices by the attorneys, awaits each justice in the office of the clerk of court.

[4] See attached “Order”, incorporated herein by reference.

[5] “Writs of error shall never be prohibited …”

[6] “Members of the legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, except such inferior officers as may be by law exempted, shall before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Wisconsin, and faithfully to discharge the duties of their respective offices to the best of their ability.”

Steven Alan Magritz                                                                                                                           January 26, 2018 A.D.
c/o Street
City, Wisconsin
                                                                                                                       
To:
OFFICE OF THE CLERK, Supreme Court of Wisconsin
110 E. Main St., Suite 215
P.O. Box 1688
Madison, WI 53701-1688
 
 
                             REFUSED FOR FRAUD the “order” dated January 18, 2018, No. 2017AP1531-W, “Magritz v. Litscher”,
 
Dear Unsigned Letter Writer:
 
            Your dolus “order” is returned to you marked “Refused for Fraud”.  The misaddressed envelope was opened by mistake and is also returned to “you”, whoever you are.
            I, Steven Alan Magritz, am not and do not act “pro se”. 
            I will not waste much time on “you”, except to note that your dolus is refused for fraud for the following reasons:  mail fraud, fraudulent conversion, deprivation of rights with malice aforethought, deprivation of rights under color of law, conspiracy against rights, breach of fiduciary duty, misconduct in public office, obstruction of justice, denial of access to the court, denial of substantive due process, perjury of oath by a fiduciary of the public trust, violation of DR’s and EC’s, unlawful concealment from the justices, abuse of power, and, defiance of, and rebellion against, the federal and state constitutions.
            “You” should be ashamed.
 
By: 
 

                                                                              OFFICE OF THE CLERK
                                                                          Supreme Court of Wisconsin
                                                                       110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
                                                                              Madison, WI 53701-1688
                                                                                                                                                                                           January 18, 2018
 
You are hereby notified that the Court, by its Clerk and Commissioners, has entered the following order:
No. 2017AP1531-W         Magritz v. Litscher       L.C.#2011CF236
 
      On January 16, 2018, petitioner, Steven Alan Magritz, pro se, filed a document entitled “Writ of Error, generally, and Order For Remedy.”  Mr. Magritz’s filing complains about the court of appeals’ order of November 7, 2017, which which the court of appeals declined to reconsider by order of December 11, 2017.In spite of the fact that Mr. Magritz denominated his filing as a “Writ,” this court has construed the filing as a petition to review the November 7, 2017 court of appeals’ order.  The petition is untimely pursuant to §§ 808.10 and 809.62(1m), Stats., and First Wisconsin National Bank of Madison v. Nicholaou, 87 Wis. 2d 360, 274 N.W.2d 704 (1979).Upon the foregoing,
      IT IS ORDERED that the petition for review is dismissed, without costs.
 

                                                                                   Steven Alan Magritz
                                                                                           c/o Street
                                                                                      City, Wisconsin
 
                                         In the supreme court of Wisconsin, established 1848 A.D. by
                                  the constitution for Wisconsin (“the” state, the public trust)
 
                                          Writ of Error, generally, and Order for Remedy
 
                                To:  COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT II, “STATE OF WISCONSIN”
 
                                                                      INTRODUCTION
 
Presenting Complainant Steven Alan Magritz, herein I, me, or my, a natural born, living breathing man, on the soil, in the third dimension and beyond the sea, with clean hands, non-corporate, not artificial, not pro se, not self-represented, not represented, to the supreme court of Wisconsin, de jure, established 1848 A.D., with this writ of error generally at common law.  “At common law and under the Constitution, Article I, sec. 21[1], a writ of error is a writ of right and may not be prohibited.”  State v. Raines, 252 Wis. 238 (1948).  In this context, “may not” means “shall never”.  (Emphasis added)
            Take Notice:  WHOEVER construes, considers, determines, treats, conflates, classifies, categorizes, etc., this constitutionally secured writ of error, at common law, as anything other than that, will be charged with trespass as an intentional tortfeasor acting with malice  aforethought.  Anystatutory designation, etc., including but not limited to a “petition for review”, will be deemed a trespass and an intentional constitutional tort.   
            Take Notice:  “He who defies a decision interpreting the Constitution knows precisely what he is doing” (Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91).
 
                                                                     Table of Contents
 
                                                                                                                                                                Page number
Introduction                                                                                                                                                       1
Table of Contents                                                                                                                                               2
Summary                                                                                                                                                           3
The COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT II did error by ignoring:                                                                                   5             
Plain Statement of Facts                                                                                                                                      8
Order For Remedy                                                                                                                                             12
 
APPENDIX:
Order, COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT II (COA), December 11, 2017                                                                       2 pages
Refused For Fraud, COA December 11 “Order”                                                                                                    1 page
Order, COA, November 7, 2017                                                                                                                             4 pages
Refused For Fraud, COA November 7 “Order”                                                                                                      8 pages
Order, COA, July 6, 2017                                                                                                                                      2 pages
Refused For Fraud, COA July 6 “Order”                                                                                                            1 page
Order, COA, June 6, 2017                                                                                                                                     3 pages
Refused For Fraud, COA June 6 “Order”                                                                                                           7 pages                
 
AMENDED Petition For Common Law Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum 
Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the constitution of Wisconsin, 1848 A.D.                                                 34 pages
Notarized Supplement                                                                                                                                            1 page
 
List of Exhibits, Amended petition for Habeas Corpus                                                                                                 1 page
 
Petition                                                                                                                                      
Exhibit                  # of pages           Description                                                                                     Referenced at page number
 
A                             1                              Confirmation Deed                                                                                2, 10, 11                      
B                             2                              Gerol’s False “Criminal Complaint”                                                         12
C                             7                              “12/09/2011 Report of Criminal Activity                                                  15, 17, 20, 24
                                                                By Victim/Witness                                                                          
D                             13                           Petition for Redress of Grievances to                                                       11, 18
                                                                D.A. Adam Y. Gerol, January 10, 2012    
E                              2                              Affidavit (Status & Nonconsent)(Dec 1)                                                    5, 12
F                              13                           Robert C. Braun Affidavit of Missing court files                                          25
                                                                Missing court files                                                    
G                             2                              Tampering with court transcript                                                              25
H                             4                              Amended JOC, JOC & letter to clerk                                                         32
I                               1                              Nonconsent and Nonacceptance                                                              5
J                              1                              Third Party Intervenor                                                                             6
K                             15                           Transcript of Arraignment                                                                        25
 
                                                                                 SUMMARY
 
            I bring this writ of error to the supreme court after being denied the common law writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum by COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT II.  My Petition for habeas corpus is set forth in the appendix and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.  Also, my REFUSED FOR FRAUD and Non-acceptance of the “Offer” dated November 16, 2017 in response to the aforesaid denial is also set forth in the appendix and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, as is my earlier July 15, 2017 Refusal For Fraud.       
            The COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT II did error by acting in opposition to numerous federal and state supreme court decisions, infra, mandating the protection of the right of liberty of the people by and through the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.  The COURT stonewalled, for months, action on my petition for the writ of habeas corpus, a prerogative writ which is supposed to be acted upon immediately, without delay.  The COURT unlawfully restricted my common-law use of habeas corpus, Servonitz v. State, 133 Wis. 231, and, “responded” to my petition with blatant dolus, as set forth herein and in my refusals for fraud.   
The COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT II did error by ignoring the malicious prosecution by state actors Williams and Gerol in the lower court, the want of personal jurisdiction, the want of subject matter jurisdiction, and the numerous violations of constitutionally secured rights which would have resulted in loss of the jurisdiction presumed by the sentencing court, had said court had  jurisdiction in the first instance, which it didn’t, including but not limited to violations of or infringement upon unalienable rights secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.  Further, for the “COURT” to require me to seek remedy in the statutory venue of the persecuting “court”, which is foreign to me and into which I was forced against my will, over my objection, and without my consent, from attorneys who acted lawlessly and intentionally caused me harm, is nonsensical.  It not only would it be futile, but would compound the illegality and criminality by the court’s officers.
The COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT II did error by ignoring, by way of example and not an all inclusive listing, the following constitutional torts by state actors Sandy A. Williams and Adam Y. Gerol, the “judge” and prosecutor, respectively, of the lower court:  I was persecuted under the guise of a prosecution for exercising my secured First Amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances (Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees; Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar. Assn.; De  Jonge v. Oregon); abuse and/or misuse of power:  theft and concealment of court documents from behind the locked doors of the clerk of court, presumably by the “judge” or prosecutor or both (“Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law … is action taken under color of state law”, United States v. Classic); concealment of exculpatory evidence and/or prosecutorial misconduct (e.g., Brady v. Maryland; United States of America v. Cliven D. Bundy); denial of the right to a fair trial (Estelle v. Williams); denial of assistance of counsel (Argersinger v. Hamlin; Brewer v. Williams; Powell v. Alabama; Gideon v. Wainwright; Strickland v. Washington; “The guarantee of counsel cannot be satisfied by mere formal appointment”, Evitts v. Lacey); removal and concealment of exonerating and/or exculpatory affidavits from the clerk of court files (State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass’n v. Douglas); failure to give notice (e.g., FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.; Grayned v. City of Rockford); subornation of false testimony (State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass’n v. Douglas); fraud upon the court by an officer of the court (Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.); jury tampering; witness tampering.    
 
                                 The COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT II  did error by ignoring:
 

• The presiding officer, Sandy A. Williams, was biased and failed to recuse herself.  I had filed criminal complaints against Williams at least as far back as July, 2011, and sued her in federal court for breach of fiduciary duty in 2012. 
• The prosecutor, Adam Y. Gerol, was biased.  I had filed complaints because of Gerol protecting an associate, a corrupt attorney, from prosecution, filed criminal complaints against Gerol as far back as December, 2011, and sued him in federal court for breach of fiduciary duty in 2012.
• I was not given “fair notice” that anyone could or would construe that correcting my own property deed in the public record was a wrongful act or that I could be prosecuted for any such act, contrary to clearly established law as articulated in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104; Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451; and others.  See Exhibit A, one page, and Petition pages 6, 8, 11, 12, 31, 32. 
• The “criminal complaint” was false, and the person making the false statement therein failed or refused to testify for the state at trial after his false statement was exposed.  See Exhibit B, two pages, Petition pages 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 26, 30, and, 23 Am Jur 2nd Deeds § 11 (2011).
• I was subjected to a malicious prosecution for exercising my secured First Amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances.  State actors Williams and Gerol converted a secured right into a crime.
• I was gagged by presiding officer Williams from presenting my First Amendment defense of petitioning government for redress of grievances from an earlier void judgment, notwithstanding the fact the prosecutor had “opened the door” to my defense in his criminal complaint and the void judgment was the foundational premise of his suit.
• I was threatened by Williams from presenting my defense; Williams made good her threat by stopping the proceedings more than once, clearing out the jurors, and haranguing me not to present my First Amendment defense or introducing or testifying about my exonerating affidavits which were removed from the court file and concealed.
• My “12/09/2011 Report of Criminal Activity By Victim/Witness” (sworn affidavit) mailed December 9, 2011 to Scott Walker, Rebecca Kleefisch, Glenn Grothman, Daniel R. LeMahieu, J.B. Van Hollen, A. John Voelker, J. Mac Davis, Mary Lou Mueller (filed with the court), Paul V. Malloy, Tom R. Wolfgram, Sandy A. Williams, Jeff Taylor, and unnamed others, and filed a second time with the court on January 5, 2012, was removed from the court file and concealed.  This affidavit reported criminal activities of attorneys Sandy A. Williams (d/b/a judge) and Adam Y. Gerol (d/b/a District Attorney) and others.  See Exhibit C, seven pages.   
• Adam Y. Gerol was estopped from prosecuting Ozaukee County case no. 2011CF236 which Gerol filed December 1, 2011, by failing to respond to my two affidavits and Notice that his “Criminal Complaint” was false, which were served upon him on January 10, 2012.  Gerol’s failure to withdraw his false complaint evidences his bad faith and malicious prosecution.  See Exhibit D, thirteen pages, petitioning Gerol for redress of grievances, and Petition pages 6, 17, 18. 
• I received no notice of the preliminary hearing, was caught by surprise, had no assistance of counsel, was restrained and unable to examine the witness, and was denied a reopening of said hearing.  See Petition pages 20, 21, 22, 23.
• Prosecutor Gerol suborned false testimony at the preliminary hearing, which both he and presiding officer Sandy A. Williams had known for four (4) years was false.  See Petition pages 21, 22.
• My counterclaim as a third-party intervenor against the falsely testifying witness was dismissed by presiding officer Williams.
• My counterclaim as a third-party intervenor against Gerol and the State was ignored by presiding officer Williams.
• I was denied an evidentiary hearing.
• I was expressly, explicitly, repeatedly denied assistance of counsel at arraignment by presiding officer Sandy A. Williams.  See Petition pages 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32, and Exhibit K, transcript of hearing.
• Presiding officer Williams refused to hear my plea for my natural person of “Nonassumpsit, by way of Confession and Avoidance”.  Williams entered a “Liar’s Plea” of not guilty for the “defendant”, which was not me, thereby creating a “controversy” which the court could “hear”.  See Exhibit K, 15 pages, transcript of arraignment, and Petition pages 19, 24, 26, 29.
• I was denied witnesses for the defense of my natural person by Williams quashing my subpoenas while the prosecutor was allowed the same or similar witnesses.  See Petition pages 7, 16, 27, 28, 29, 30. 
• My exonerating and exculpatory affidavits were twice filed and twice removed from behind the locked doors of the clerk’s office and thereafter concealed.  I was threatened by presiding officer Williams to not mention or testify about them.  The only persons known to have means, motive and opportunity for their removal (a felony) and concealment (another felony) are Sandy A. Williams and Adam Y. Gerol.  See Exhibit C, seven pages, and Petition pages 5, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 24, 29.
• Williams and Gerol prevented me from introducing exhibits, such as the twice removed and concealed affidavits, at trial for the defense of my natural person.
• Williams ordered my witness off the witness stand when she found he was about to testify about exonerating evidence removed from the court file.
• Williams coached from the bench a hostile witness I had subpoenaed.
• The state’s expert witness, an attorney, testified to the fact there was no corpus delicti.
• Both presiding officer Sandy A. Williams and prosecutor Adam Y. Gerol committed fraud upon the court.
• I was denied adequate time for opening and closing statements, adequate voir dire questions, access to the jury, and the ability to present a defense.

This list is not all inclusive.  See my 34 page Petition, including 61 pages of exhibits.   
 
                                                                     PLAIN STATEMENT OF FACTS 
 
            I am an informant, whistleblower, victim, and witness of crimes committed by state actors acting under color of law.
            I have informed and reported to the highest officials in Wisconsin the malversation of public officers who denied, defied, and acted in opposition to the constitutions of both the United States of America and Wisconsin and have thus breached their required oath of office.  One such sworn Report, a material, significant and substantial item in my Petition for habeas corpus, is set forth in the appendix and is incorporated herein by reference.
            As a result of my reporting on crimes of public officers I was subjected to a malicious prosecution by two of the public officers I had reported upon and had filed sworn charges against.  During the persecution by Williams and Gerol, exculpatory affidavits were twice removed from the court files of the clerk of court and thereafter concealed from the court and the jury.  The only people I know with means, motive, and opportunity to remove the exculpatory evidence and then gag me from testifying thereto are Williams and Gerol.  Williams and Gerol acted under color of law, without personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction, retaliated against, persecuted, and imprisoned me, and did so without me having committed a crime, nor causing an injury, nor causing damage, nor having any intent to cause an injury or damage.  Williams and Gerol openly and flagrantly violated my rights secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the constitution of the United States of America.
I was abducted, kidnapped (see Deuteronomy 24:7) from the land and jurisdiction of my nativity and taken by force into the foreign jurisdiction of the corporation named “State of Wisconsin”, held for ransom, and subjected to persecution based upon identity theft, transmogrification, and a false alleged “criminal complaint”.  I was not the defendant, nor the surety, nor fiduciary, nor agent, nor representative, etc., for the defendant in Ozaukee County case no. 2011CF236, nor did I ever act for or on behalf of the defendant or any other artificial entity, nor did I ever consent to the proceedings.  I was threatened, gagged, denied assistance of counsel, prevented from presenting a defense, denied witnesses in my defense, prohibited from introducing exculpatory testimony, documents, and witnesses, subjected to star-chamber proceedings, and unlawfully imprisoned, all of which is set forth in my “AMENDED Petition For Common Law Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the constitution of Wisconsin, 1848 A.D.” which is included in the appendix and incorporated herein by reference.  See also transcript of “arraignment” Ozaukee County case no. 2011CF236, the Judgment of Conviction, and related documents in the appendix, all incorporated herein by reference.
            During July, August and September 2016 I attempted to file an original action for the common law writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum with the supreme court of Wisconsin.  My attempts were blocked on the doorstep by the clerk of court and unknown named others by a wall of silence.  My suit was mischaracterized, the names of the parties were changed against my will and over my objections; the suit was misfiled in the Court of Appeals as some sort of supervisory proceedings, case no. 2016AP1522-W, and, I received no response from the individual justices or the clerk to my several imprecations for justice and remedy.  The “matter” was dismissed when I refused to pay the fee demanded for the fraudulent “proceedings”.
            On or about January 23, 2017 I mailed a hand-written petition for the common law writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum to the Clerk of Court of Appeals.  On February 2, 2017 the clerk received the filing fee.  After being noticed, the clerk corrected her errors in the caption of the names and address.  On February 15, I wrote to judges Mark Gundrum, Brian Hagedorn, Paul Reilly and Lisa Neubauer requesting execution of the writ.  I received no response.  On March 6 I filed a Demand for a hearing.  I received no response.   On March 27, I filed a Motion to Expedite Action on Petition For Writ.  I received no response.  On April 4, I mailed 4 typed copies of my petition to help the judges in the reading of it.  I received no response.  On April 18 I mailed another 4 typed copies, this time with the paragraphs numbered.  Again, I received no response.  Also on April 18, 2017, I filed a Motion to Be Informed “to inform me, posthaste, of any omission or commission on my part which may be in any way causing the court to delay or not act on my petition, grant me a hearing, and provide me remedy pursuant to my Request For Remedy.”  Again, I received no response.  On June 6, 2017, I visited the clerk of court to obtain copies of documents I had filed.  “Coincidentally” that very same day the COURT, after stonewalling since January on my prerogative writ, issued an “Order” denying my typed petition stating:  “The petition is oversize. … The petition is denied for this reason.”  I refused for fraud the dolus of the COURT, and further advised the COURT they falsely construed my typed copy as replacing my hand-written petition.  On July 6, 2017, the COURT denied my hand-written petition for also being “oversize”.  On August 1, 2017, before the “Remittitur” date, I filed via registered mail a typed 34 page “Amended” Petition for habeas corpus.  The clerk assigned a new case number and demanded another filing fee, contrary to Article I section 9 of the state constitution.  On September 9, 2017, I re-filed the Amended Petition along with the extorted filing fee.  On November 7, 2017, the COURT regurgitated its false and fraudulent claim that I had to return to the corrupt state actors Williams and Gerol by whose malicious prosecution and persecution I was restrained of my liberty.  The COURT could have directly and accurately quoted State ex rel. Haas v. McReynolds, by including the words “other adequate”, but instead they misstated the ruling, which I believe was intentional since I had previously exposed and chided them for their false and fraudulent reference.  The fact that the members of the COURT would TWICE make a false representation, especially after being called on it the first time, indicates to me the lack of honesty, integrity, good faith, and clean hands that they are required to display towards me as a beneficiary of the Public Trust.
            Incorporated herein by reference are all of my documents set forth in the appendix hereto, especially my AMENDED Petition For Common Law Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the constitution of Wisconsin, 1848 A.D., and all exhibits thereto, and my Refusals For Fraud dated June 15, July 31, November 16, December 19, 2017.

                                                        Order For Remedy
 
          I demand the supreme court forthwith Adjudge that:

1. I, Steven Alan Magritz, by whatever “name” restrained, immediately be set at liberty;
2. Any and all restraints on my liberty by State of Wisconsin and/or Department of Corrections and/or any other department or agency of the public corporation named State of Wisconsin be declared null and void, and of no force and effect;
3. Ozaukee County Circuit Court had no personal jurisdiction over me in case no. 2011CF236;
4. Ozaukee County Circuit Court had no subject matter jurisdiction in case no. 2011CF236;
5. Sandy A. Williams infringed upon or violated my constitutionally secured rights;
6. Adam Yale Gerol infringed upon or violated my constitutionally secured rights;
7. Ozaukee County case no. 2011CF236 is VOID ab initio;
8. The record of conviction be expunged;
9. I be awarded compensation for 12,936 hours of false imprisonment;
10. Sandy A. Williams and Adam Yale Gerol are tortfeasors vis-à-vis me;
11. Any and all other additional and lawful or equitable remedy the Court has authority to provide.

 
I, Steven Alan Magritz, declare under the pains and penalties of perjury of the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing facts are true and correct, and as for any statements made upon information, reason or belief, I believe and so charge them to be true and correct.        Executed this _____ day of January, 2018 A.D.
 
 
          ________________________________  
          By:  Steven Alan Magritz

[1] “Writs of error shall never be prohibited …”
 

Steven Alan Magritz                                                                                                                                                     November 16, 2017
c/o Street
City, Wisconsin
                                                                                                                       
To:
Diane M. Fremgen, Clerk of Court of Appeals
110 E. Main St., Suite 215
P.O. Box 1688
Madison, WI 53701
 
                REFUSED FOR FRAUD and Non-acceptance of the “Offer”, the “opinion and order” dated November 7,
                    2017, mailed November 8, 2017, case no. 2017AP1531-W, presumptively by Lisa Neubauer, Paul F.Reilly, and Brian Hagedorn.
 
Dear Clerk Fremgen:
 
           This is my timely REFUSAL FOR FRAUD and Non-acceptance of the unsigned “offer” dated November 7, 2017 on letterhead of “OFFICE OF THE CLERK WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS, denoted an “opinion and order”, presumptively mailed by you or upon your authority, in the case captioned “State of Wisconsin ex rel. Steven Alan Magritz, Petitioner, v. Jon Litscher, Respondent”.  The offer was mailed in an envelope with the name of the sending party being a commercial entity located at 10 E. Doty St. in Madison.  Both the offer and the misaddressed envelope it was mailed in via United States mail, which was opened by mistake, are appropriately marked “Refused for Fraud” and/or “Your offer is not accepted” , and returned to you herewith.  
            Take notice:  All public officers are fiduciaries of the Public Trust and are required to display, at all times, honesty, integrity, and good faith towards me, a beneficiary of the Public Trust.  The sole legitimate purpose of public officers is to protect the unalienable rights of the people – read the Declaration of Independence of 1776.  Lisa Neubauer, Paul F. Reilly, and Brian Hagedorn have failed to do so.    The “opinion and order” is refused for fraud.  It also should be noted that twice repeating a previously exposed false and deceitful statement, constituting 44% of the verbiage of said “opinion and order”, is troubling.   
            Take notice:  The current offer is unsigned.  No signature, no risk, NO AUTHORITY, NO VALIDITY.
            Take notice:  On or about January 23, 2017 I filed a hand-written petition for Common Law writ of Habeas Corpus which was assigned case number 2017AP189-W.
            Take notice:  On or about August 1, 2017 I filed an amended (shortened) petition for Common Law Writ of Habeas corpus which was assigned case number 2017AP1531-W.
            Take notice:  On September 14, 2017, I again submitted the “Amended Petition For Common Law Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the constitution of Wisconsin, 1848 A.D.” along with a “pay to” instrument clearly conditioned for use only as payment for said Common Law Writ of Habeas Corpus.  The Court accepted the tendered payment, thus creating a contract, which the officers of the court then breached by not issuing the Common Law Writ of Habeas Corpus.
            Take notice:  My petition for Common Law Writ of Habeas Corpus was also purposed to make known to the Court crimes as required to be reported pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 4, Misprision of Felony.  Thus I reported to Lisa Neubauer, Paul Reilly and Brian Hagedorn crimes including but not limited to tampering with public records, tampering with a witness, subornation of false testimony, concealment from the court constituting fraud upon the court, misprision of felony, retaliation against a victim or witness, et cetera, to which they turned a blind eye and a deaf ear.     
 
            Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit—and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial,
            757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir.1985)—includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official
            is  a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material    
            information from them he is guilty of fraud.  US v Holzer, 816 F.2d 304, 307.
               
           Fraud in the common law sense of deceit is committed by deliberately misleading another by words, by acts, or, in some instances–notably where
           there is a fiduciary relationship, which creates a duty to disclose all material facts–by silence.  US v Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168.  [Italics added].
 
            On or about January 23, 2017, I, Steven Alan Magritz, filed a handwritten petition under the COMMON LAW for the Great Writ, habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.  It was assigned case number 2017AP189-W.  A Petition for such a writ must to be acted upon immediately – without delay.  Further, I tendered valuable consideration to the court for the issuance of the Great Writ, which the court accepted, thereby creating a contract which the officers of the court thereafter breached.
            My letter to the clerk dated September 14, 2017 filed in case No. 20171531-W which set forth intervening events, my motions, and the Court’s stonewalling in case No. 2017AP189-W, is incorporated herein by reference verbatim as if set forth at length herein.         
I received no response from the court for four (4) months, and then not until after I notified the clerk I wanted to have copies from the court file.  How “coincidental” that the very same day I visited the office of the clerk, June 6, 2017, an ex parte “opinion and order” was entered denying my petition with the non-constitutional excuse of being “oversize” and totally ignoring its merits.  No reason was given for the four (4) months of stonewalling by the court. 
Also within the aforesaid “opinion and order” were numerous false statements, including but not limited to the deceitful and false statement which was regurgitated in the November 7, 2017 “opinion and order”.  I timely refused for fraud that “opinion and order” and exposed the deceit of falsely quoting from the Haas case.  My June 15, 2017 Refused for Fraud, case number 2017AP189-W is incorporated herein by reference verbatim as if set forth at length herein.
            On August 1, 2017 A.D., prior to “Remittitur” on August 7, 2017, thus prior to closing of case number 2017AP189-W, I filed an amended petition titled “AMENDED Petition For Common Law Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the constitution of Wisconsin, 1848 A.D.” via registered United States mail.  This amended petition was, and is, less than thirty-five (35) pages and less than 8,000 words; therefore it was not “oversize”.  The clerk’s office refused to file my amended petition in case number 2017AP189-W notwithstanding it having been received prior to August 7, 2017, the date of “Remittitur”, and filed it as a new case assigning it No. 2017AP1531-W. 
            On or about August 12, 2017 A.D., I received from Clerk Fremgen an “Acknowledgement of Filing of Writ/Petition” with case number 2017AP1531-W.  My amended petition in case number 2017AP189-W had been treated as a new case filing by the clerk.  This “Acknowledgement” was dated August 3, 2017 A.D. and was accompanied by an order also dated August 3rd stating “The Filing Fee in the above matter has not been received as required by Rule 809.25(2).  IT IS ORDERED that unless within five (5) days of the date of this order, the filing fee is received by the clerk of the court of appeals, the action will be subject to dismissal under Rule 809.83.”  Both the acknowledgement and “order” were dated August 3rd, but they were not mailed until August 9th, as evidenced by the postmark, a date outside of the “ordered” five (5) day time frame, thus making it absolutely impossible to respond within the five (5) days and raising a question of intent.  Not only was this “order” untimely mailed, it failed to state a sum certain to be tendered, thus leaving the door open to concluding that since the state was the plaintiff and I was merely the relator, no fee was required pursuant to Rule 809.25(2)(b).  The court dismissed this petition for failing to pay the unstated sum certain.
            As stated above, on September 14, 2017 I again filed a complete copy of my August 1 amended petition, this time accompanied by the aforesaid “pay to” instrument, which the court apparently treated as a re-opening of case No. 2017AP1531-W, and which Neubauer, Reilly and Hagedorn refer to in their “order and opinion” dated November 7, 2017 as having been filed on September 18, 2017.
The dolus or fraud in the November 7, 2017 “opinion and order” includes, but is not limited to the following: 
 
On pages 1-2 of the “opinion and order” – court statements in quotes:
 
1.  “Our June 6, 2017 order in State ex rel Magritz v. Champagne, No. 2017AP189-W, denied Steven Magritz’s (sic) petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from his (sic)  February 2016 Ozaukee County conviction for criminal slander of title after a jury trial.”  

• Fraud:  My name is Steven Alan Magritz, not Steven Magritz, a fact well known to anyone reading my Petition.  See Petition section titled “Parties”.  I have one, and only one, name, which is Steven Alan Magritz.  The continued identity theft and transmogrification of my name, started by attorneys Gerol and Williams for the purpose of presuming jurisdiction without a contract, an injury, injured party, or common law crime, is fraud.
• Fraud:  “his (sic) … conviction”.  I, Steven Alan Magritz, was not convicted, as I was not the defendant, nor was I the fiduciary, trustee, representative, agent, accommodation party, surety, or acting in any way for, or on behalf of, any artificial entity, including but not limited to the defendant.  See section titled “Parties” and Exhibit I, incorporated therein by reference, and Petition pages 2, 6, 12, 14, 23, 27.  I, Steven Alan Magritz, did not see, nor was I ever presented with, any document created by a state actor or issuing from the tribunal in Ozaukee County case no. 2011CF236 bearing my name.  There was no summons, complaint, capias, Notice, Information, Accusation, Indictment, witness list, motion, Order, Judgment, Judgment of Conviction, etc. bearing my name.  I requested evidence that the tribunal had jurisdiction over my person, but no evidence was ever presented.
• See Petition pages 6, 12, 27.  Both my unrebutted sworn testimony and my unrefuted sworn 34 page Petition with 61 pages of exhibits incorporated therein stand as true.

 
On page 2 of the “opinion and order” – court statements in quotes:  
 
2.       “The pending habeas petition seeks relief (sic) from the criminal conviction.”

• Fraud:  I petitioned for remedy, not “relief”.  Attorneys should know the difference.

3.         Footnote 2:  “In April 2016, the State Public Defender denied Magritz’s (sic) request for counsel.  Thereafter, Magritz took no steps to act upon or otherwise preserve (via an extension request) his (sic) RULE 809.30 direct appeal rights”

• Fraud:  I, Steven Alan Magritz, did not pursue any 809.30 “direct appeal rights” as I was not the defendant in the malicious prosecution which resulted in my false imprisonment, and said rule is applicable to, in particular, “A defendant seeking postconviction relief in a criminal case.”  (809.30(1)(b)(1.))  Further, my signature is not on any notice of intent or request for public defender.
• Fraud:  The State Public Defender did not deny “my” request for counsel, as I did not request their counsel.  CCAP actually reads:  “04-22-2016.  Letters/correspondence.  From Wisconsin State Public Defender to Defendant stating SPD cannot appoint a lawyer for the appeal case.”

4.        “Magritz asks this court to void his conviction (sic) due to the errors (sic) he alleges.”

• Fraud:  The judgment of the circuit court is void for want of jurisdiction.  I requested the court “Adjudge that Ozaukee County Case no. 2011CF236 is VOID ab initio”.
• Fraud:  “Errors”?  Really?  “Errors”?  And “alleges”?  Lisa Neubauer, Paul Reilly, and Brian Hagedorn, being highly trained in the law and bound by oath to support both the federal and state constitutions, deny, defy, and rebel against the same (see section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the repercussions set forth in section 4), by claiming that the unrebutted facts set forth in my petition substantiating obvious and egregious infringement upon and denial of my constitutionally secured rights, including but not limited to those set forth in the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, are “errors”?  Even if the acts and actions of Sandy Williams and Adam Yale Gerol were not the conscious, deliberate, intentionaltrespass upon or deprivation of my unalienable rights, which they were, they certainly cannot be called “errors”.  Call them what they are:  Constitutional Torts resulting in forfeiture of jurisdiction, if it ever existed. 

 
How many of the following are Constitutional Torts?  I will specifically identify only several.  An attorney would/should have no problem categorizing each of them.
 

• The presiding officer, Sandy A. Williams, was biased.  I had filed criminal complaints against Williams at least as far back as July, 2011, sued her in federal court for breach of fiduciary duty in 2012, and featured her as a corrupt attorney on www.OzaukeeMob.org in 2013.  Denial of due process, Fifth Amendment purviewed through the Fourteenth.
• The prosecutor, Adam Y. Gerol, was biased.  I had filed complaints because of Gerol protecting a corrupt attorney from prosecution, filed criminal complaints against Gerol as far back as December, 2011, sued him in federal court for breach of fiduciary duty in 2012, and featured him as a corrupt attorney on www.OzaukeeMob.org in 2013.
• I was not given “fair notice” that anyone could or would construe that correcting my own deed in the public record was a wrongful act or that I could be prosecuted for any such act, contrary to clearly established law as articulated in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239; Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104; Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S.451; and others.  See Exhibit A, one page, and Petition pages 6, 8, 11, 12, 31, 32.  Violation of the First Amendment.
• The “criminal complaint” was false, and the person making the false statement therein failed or refused to testify for the state at trial after his false statement was exposed.  See Exhibit B, two pages, and Petition pages 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 26, 30.
• I was subjected to a malicious prosecution for exercising my secured First Amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances.  State actors Williams and Gerol converted a secured right into a crime.
• I was gagged by presiding officer Williams from presenting my First Amendment defense of petitioning government for redress of grievances from an earlier void judgment, notwithstanding the fact the prosecutor had “opened the door” to my defense in his criminal complaint and the void judgment was the foundational premise of his suit.
• I was threatened by Williams from presenting my defense; Williams made good her threat by stopping the proceedings more than once, clearing out the jurors, and haranguing me not to present my First Amendment defense or introducing or testifying about my exonerating affidavits which were removed from the court file and concealed.
• My “12/09/2011 Report of Criminal Activity By Victim/Witness” (sworn affidavit) mailed December 9, 2011 to Scott Walker, Rebecca Kleefisch, Glenn Grothman, Daniel R. LeMahieu, J.B. Van Hollen, A. John Voelker, J. Mac Davis, Mary Lou Mueller (filed with the court), Paul V. Malloy, Tom R. Wolfgram, Sandy A. Williams, Jeff Taylor, and unnamed others, and filed a second time with the court on January 5, 2012, was removed from the court file and concealed.  This affidavit reported criminal activities of attorneys Sandy A. Williams (d/b/a judge) and Adam Y. Gerol (d/b/a District Attorney) and others.  See Exhibit C, seven pages.  Denial of due process. 
• Adam Y. Gerol was estopped from prosecuting Ozaukee County case no. 2011CF236 which Gerol filed December 1, 2011, by failing to respond to my two affidavits and Notice that his “Criminal Complaint” was false, which were served upon him on January 10, 2012.  Gerol’s failure to withdraw his false complaint evidences his bad faith and malicious prosecution.  See Exhibit D, thirteen pages, petitioning Gerol for redress of grievances, and Petition pages 6, 17, 18. 
• I received no notice of the preliminary hearing, was caught by surprise, had no assistance of counsel, was restrained and unable to examine the witness, and was denied a reopening of said hearing.  See Petition pages 20, 21, 22, 23.
• Prosecutor Gerol suborned false testimony at the preliminary hearing, which both he and presiding officer Sandy A. Williams had known for four (4) years was false.  See Petition pages 21, 22.
• My counterclaim as a third-party intervenor against the falsely testifying witness was dismissed by presiding officer Williams.
• My counterclaim as a third-party intervenor against Gerol and the State was ignored by presiding officer Williams.
• I was denied an evidentiary hearing.
• I was expressly, explicitly, repeatedly denied assistance of counsel at arraignment by presiding officer Sandy A. Williams.  See Petition pages 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32, and Exhibit K, transcript of hearing.  Violation of the Sixth Amendment.
• Presiding officer Williams refused to hear my plea for my natural person of “Nonassumpsit, by way of Confession and Avoidance”.  Williams entered a Liar’s Plea of not guilty for the “defendant”, which was not me, thereby creating a “controversy” which the court could “hear”.  See Exhibit K, 15 pages, transcript of arraignment, and Petition pages 19, 24, 26, 29.
• I was denied witnesses for the defense of my natural person by Williams quashing my subpoenas while the prosecutor was allowed the same or similar witnesses.  See Petition pages 7, 16, 27, 28, 29, 30.  Violation of Sixth Amendment.
• My exonerating and exculpatory affidavits were twice filed and twice removed from behind the locked doors of the clerk’s office and thereafter concealed.  I was threatened by presiding officer Williams to not talk or testify about them.  The only persons known to have both motive and opportunity for their removal (a felony) and concealment (another felony) are Sandy A. Williams and Adam Y. Gerol.  See Exhibit C, seven pages, and Petition pages 5, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 24, 29.
• Williams and Gerol prevented me from introducing exhibits, such as the twice removed and concealed affidavits, at trial for the defense of my natural person.
• Williams ordered my witness off the witness stand when she found he was about to testify about exonerating evidence removed from the court file.
• Williams coached from the bench a hostile witness I had subpoenaed.
• The state’s expert witness, an attorney, testified to the fact there was no corpus delicti.
• Both presiding officer Sandy A. Williams and prosecutor Adam Y. Gerol committed fraud upon the court.
• I was denied adequate time for opening and closing statements, adequate voir dire questions, access to the jury, and the ability to present a defense.

This list is not all inclusive.See my 34 page Petition, including 61 pages of exhibits.  
 
On page 3 of the “opinion and order” – court statements in quotes:
 
4.         “A party cannot have habeas relief if the party did not pursue an alternative remedy.  State ex rel Haas v. McReynolds, …”

• Fraud:  This is a misstatement obviously intended to deceive by omission of two words, i.e., “other adequate”.  The court actually stated in the Haas case:  “We have long and consistently held that the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is not available to a petitioner when the petitioner has other adequate remedies available.”  (Emphasis added).  In the Haas case, Haas had filed a petition for habeas corpus with the circuit court which was denied.  The Supreme Court stated his adequate remedy was to continue his initial appeal of the habeas denial instead of withdrawing it and filing a (new) second petition with the court of appeals.
• Fraud squared:   Since this court has repeatedly incorrectly, deceitfully, falsely “cited” the Haas case, first on June 6, 2017 and now twice on November 7, 2017, I can only conclude that it was perpetrated intentionally and purposely in order to deny me remedy and cause me injury or harm.

5.     “Magritz (sic) may still seek WIS. STAT. § 974.06 relief from his (sic) conviction to the extent he has constitutional and/or jurisdictional issues to raise.”

• Fraud:  The author(s) of the “opinion and order” attempt to induce me, a beneficiary of the public trust of which they are fiduciaries, into accepting a statutorily created counterfeit of the Corporation named “STATE OF WISCONSIN” (Wis. Stat. §706.03(1)(b)), a subunit of the Public Trust created in 1848 A.D., which supplants the Great Writ, habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, thus denying me remedy secured by Article I Section 9 Clause 2 of the federal Constitution, The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50 of the Statutes at Large, and Article I Section 8 of the state Constitution, when he/they know, should know, and have reason to know after reading my petition, that remedy by motion to the sentencing court would be inadequate and/or ineffective to test or remedy my unlawful restraint of liberty.
• Fraud:  The judges of the Court of Appeals, District II know, should know, and have reason to know that the sentencing court was not only wholly without jurisdiction, but acted so lawlessly that requiring me to return to that forum would only compound the illegality.
• Fraud:  The judges of the Court of Appeals, District II know, should know, and have reason to know the statute provides no relief to a person attacking, for example, sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, error in admission of evidence or other procedural errors, and know that I have raised such issues in my petition for writ of habeas corpus, thus knowingly denying me remedy for wrongs.
• Fraud:  Lisa Neubauer, Paul Reilly and Brian Hagedorn know that tortfeasors Williams and Gerol would admit no wrongdoing since their acts and actions were purposeful and intentional in the first instance, that I would be denied remedy by them, and further that I would be foreclosed in their corporate venue from subsequently petitioning for habeas corpus.   

 
I presume the judges of the Court of Appeals have read my petition; thus, it must be obvious to them that I am the victim of “misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, [which] is action taken ‘under color of’ state law”, United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, a malicious prosecution, and that, using the oft-repeated terminology of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I have no other adequate remedy available in the law other than habeas corpus, and that issued by a court other than the sentencing court.
 
I have evidenced facts to this court, by way of my sworn 34 page “Amended Petition For Common Law Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the constitution of Wisconsin, 1848 A.D.”, that I have no adequate remedy available by returning to the sentencing court.
Take Notice: 
      When an adequate remedy or forum does not exist to resolve disputes or provide due process, the courts can fashion an adequate remedy.  Collins v. Eli Lilly Co., 324 N.W.2d 37.
      Notwithstanding the statute’s purpose being to supplant habeas corpus, the statute contemplates that in certain circumstances, a prisoner’s remedy may lie in an application for habeas corpus and not in a motion for post-conviction relief under the statute.  State v. Johnson, 305 N.W.2d 188.
      By the language of the statute itself, relief under sec. 974.06, Stats., is available only to a prisoner attacking the imposition of his sentence. The statute provides no relief to a prisoner attacking, for example, sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, error in admission of evidence or other procedural errors. Peterson v. State, 54 Wis.2d 370, 381, 195 N.W.2d 837, 845 (1972). Further, by the language of the statute itself, the grounds for attacking the imposition of the sentence are limited to matters of jurisdictional or constitutional dimensions. Id.  State v. Johnson, 305 N.W.2d 188.
      Such issues as sufficiency of the evidence, jury instructions, error in admission of evidence, and other procedural errors cannot be reached by a sec. 974.06 motion.  The question of sufficiency of evidence was reached on a habeas corpus proceeding here in the recent case of State ex rel. Kanieski v. Gagnon (1972), 54 Wis.2d 108, 112, 113, 194 N.W.2d 808. This was possible under the unusual circumstances of that case in which the scope of habeas corpus was expanded to include that question.  Peterson v. State, 195 N.W.2d 837.
      When one alleges that he or she is being unlawfully restrained, notions of comity should not interfere with that person’s right to a swift determination of the legality of the detention. A person’s right to liberty is paramount to a judge’s concern for comity.  JV by Levine v Barron, 332 N.W.2d 796.
            AND, since the court has repeatedly incorrectly, deceitfully, falsely “cited” State ex rel. Haas v. McReynolds, here is an actual cite from Haas:  “The writ of habeas corpus has its origins in the common law, and its availability is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the Wisconsin Constitution, and by state and federal statute. … Habeas corpus is essentially an equitable remedy, which is available to a petitioner when there is a pressing need for relief or where the process or judgment by which a petitioner is held is void.”
             
 
_________________________
Steven Alan Magritz