• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

congrats mkegal

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
AFAIK, her conditions were modified so that she may posses a firearm in her home or during instruction in an institutional setting but may not transport. All complete B.S. mind you. After all, CCW violation isn't even a felony! I think it's worth a separate 1983 action just for the conditions.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
I don't think the judge understands the laws applying to firearms possession, which is kinda scary since he's going to be judging me w/r/t those laws.

This change allows me to possess firearms in my home, which is an improvement, esp. w/ Castle Doctrine.

But the BS about the "institutional setting" & not having a firearm in my car (not even unloaded & in a locked case in the trunk!) pretty much means nothing has changed as far as teaching.
BTW, can anyone find a definition in WI law of "institutional setting"??? I've tried.

I can't possess (legally) while in a community college, like he & the ADA were talking about, since they're taxpayer-owned buildings & I can't yet get a WI cc license. (Or does the judge's ruling overrule state law, so I would be legal?)

IF I could set up a class at a private college, or even a private K-12 school, then I could possess while teaching (but would still have to hire someone else to bring them to class).

Thing is, my lawyer worked out with the ADA that it would be OK to possess while teaching.
He even told the judge, in court & on the record, that he agreed to it.
Then when he learned that I do classes at my student's convenience, in their settings, he didn't like that so he went back on his word. :mad:
The class is the same no matter where I teach.

Overall, the restrictions on me about possession are illegal since they don't conform to state law [969.02 (3) (d)]. But as with other problems of this sort, that's going to be dealt with down the road in other litigation [1983's] instead of directly with the problem-makers.
[removed discussion of abuse of power by various agencies]

WI law says that bail conditions are OK in order to:
1) assure a person's appearance at hearings,
2) protect the public from "serious bodily harm", or
3) prevent intimidation of witnesses.
There's no evidence that I wouldn't appear at hearings, even the ADA admits he's not worried about me being a danger to anyone, & the only other witnesses to what happened are cops.
If little ol' me can intimidate a precinct of cops all by my lonesome, we need new cops.
And any arguments to the effect of "but you're armed" cut both ways.

If anyone's interested in writing a (polite, calm, factually-supported & well proofread) letter to the judge, I've looked up the address, etc. from publicly-available sources:
Judge Daniel Konkol; Milwaukee County Courthouse; 901 N 9th St., room 629; Milwaukee, WI; 53233-1425

***

BTW, this is the Milwaukee PD detective who is accused of driving drunk (0.15BAC) plus accused of operating / possessing a firearm while intoxicated [941.20 (1) (b)]:
Randall Chicks; case #2011CM006568
His punishment does not include a prohibition on possession, though his charges include actually doing something dangerous with a gun... and he was in front of the same judge!
Doesn't seem to have a prohibition on possessing or driving motor vehicles (but he is required to have a valid license, which leads me to wonder if he was driving w/o a license?).
Strange, since he's also charged with OWI & "imprudent speed". Seems like keeping him away from motor vehicles would be reasonable & prudent for the protection of the community, since he was actually doing dangerous things with a car too. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Citing a d-bag as a defense is a bad idea. Judges really do not like being called on that. Unfortunately your 'further litigation' is the best course. Get your lawyer, (a different one?) to address that judges inconsistent application of punishment for disparate offenses in front of a different judge. Good luck and keep up the good fight. you got the shaft, straight up plain and simple.
 

smithman

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
718
Location
Waukesha, Wisconsin, USA
MKEgal, you are the victim here of an overzealous police force who likely filed false police reports (I suspect this but haven't seen the reports) and a judge who is overstepping the law. I pray you will prevail and your future endeavors to petition your government for a redress of grievances is very successful.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
OC for ME said:
Citing a d-bag as a defense is a bad idea.
Not exactly a defense, more of an example of unequal protection / treatment.
If the punishment (before conviction) of having a 'weapon' involved in whatever you're charged with is to be prohibited from possession, then that should go for everyone.
If it's done on a case by case basis, looking at things like employment (use of gun therein), criminal history, threat to society, why am I prohibited?

inconsistent application of punishment
Bingo - and why am I being punished for something of which I've not been convicted?
And the punishment before conviction is more severe than what I'd be legally subjected to (w/r/t firearms) if I were convicted.

It has no relationship to the 'crime' I'm accused of committing. If the judge doesn't want me to carry concealed until this is settled, he can tell me not to carry concealed until this is settled. No skin off my nose to carry openly. :D
There's no reason to prevent me from teaching, or transporting, or getting a license which lets me protect myself around the city or into a state park.

smithman said:
... likely filed false police reports...
I have copies. I'm sure Rebecca will bring up in court several points to further discredit the one officer who has admitted she wasn't observant, yet claims I was concealing.
Won't point out the inconsistencies & flat-out lies here until after the case is settled.

OC for me said:
Get your lawyer, (a different one?) to address that judges inconsistent application of punishment
Rebecca is a criminal defense lawyer. I don't think she'd even try to take on a civil rights case, any more than a brain surgeon would try to do a colonoscopy. Yes, I have someone in mind.


As for Ms.Navy vet, I've found the ignore function works well.
Don't even see posts unless they're quoted.
 
Last edited:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
MKEgal: Just something to think about, been done before...now that they have "punished" you by restricting your access to your teaching impliments, if they try to fine you, plead double jepardy, you have already been fined. They have effectively taken something of value from you already.

remember a case here in WA where the game warden confiscated the guys rifle (he shot an Elk insted of a deer on his deer tag) and when they went to court and tried to fine him too, he said, give me my rifle back, or it's double punishment for the same crime...and won.
 
Last edited:

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
What a wonderful post, I am sure the DA will use it to their advantage.
Plankton said:
I am sure you will be forwarding it to him.
No need to forward it - they have people reading these boards.
As proof, they were quite worried that the incident was taped by someone other than the officers.
Even asked Rebecca to ask me about it.
(With a member here as witness to her asking me.) :D
Since I hadn't mentioned my camera, & people here on that thread had, I think that's pretty clear evidence we're being monitored.
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
Doing a colonoscopy to gain access to the brain of a liberal is more common that you may think
Haa-haa-haa-haa-haa!
2880cur.jpg
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
Makes me angry. The police statement about the concealed weapon is absurd. Anyway Krista I am happy you have at least a fraction of your improperly refused rights returned.
 
Top