Interesting Discussion

Hi Timothy, Thank you for your e-mail. Speaker Vos always appreciates hearing from Wisconsinites about the issues that are important to them. As a state office, we do not engage in legal matters. The concerns that you have raised would be best handled by the Attorney General’s office. You can file a complaint with the AG’s office or you can contact the Office of Open Government, also housed in the Attorney General’s office with open meetings and open records request inquiries. Thanks again for contacting Speaker Vos’ office. Best regards, Moriah Thiry Office of Assembly Speaker Robin Vos 608-266-9171, 1-888-534-0063 Moriah.Thiry@legis.wisconsin.gov From: Rep.Vos <Rep.Vos@legis.wisconsin.gov> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2019 9:46 PM To: Rep.Vos <Rep.Vos@legis.wisconsin.gov> Subject: the form Contact Robin was submitted Message Dear State Rep Robin Vos - When will the State of Wisconsin investigate the criminal government which rules Racine County, prosecute the criminal State Actors, and restore Law and Order to Racine County? The more we know about efforts by officials in Racine to shield public records from public view, the more outrageous it seems. In late January, the office of Racine City Attorney Scott Letteney disclosed a summary of records it has fought tooth and nail to keep secret. It showed these to be ordinary email communications, mainly between Racine Ald. Sandra Weidner and her constituents. In one email, Weidner asked the city attorney’s office whether a given contract would need city council approval. Another attached a resolution regarding the creation of a redevelopment authority. There were also emails concerning a bar license and a constituent's claim for garage damages. These are the kinds of records routinely released by local governments throughout the state. Yet Letteney’s reaction suggests the emails contained vital national security secrets, perhaps the nuclear launch codes. He believes, apparently, that any communication from within city government that intersects with the work of his office is top secret. Racine County Circuit Judge Eugene Gasiorkiewicz showed bad judgment in keeping routine records from the public, writes Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. Letteney’s bad judgment was matched by that of Racine City Judge Eugene Gasiorkiewicz, who agreed to seal the entire file of Weidner’s lawsuit challenging the city attorney’s actions. Even the judge’s ruling, which found that some of these records should be public, was filed under seal. The public was literally denied the right to know about a lawsuit regarding its right to know. And when Weidner did the courageous thing and went public with information about the case, Letteney demanded and Gasiorkiewicz imposed a contempt of court charge against her. It gets even worse. A request from the Racine Journal Times for records showing how much city taxpayers were paying an outside law firm to go after Weidner was denied, on grounds that these were filed under seal. A state appeals court is now reviewing Weidner’s records suit and contempt conviction. News organizations including the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, USA Today Network-Wisconsin, Wisconsin Broadcasters Association, Wisconsin Newspaper Association, and Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (of which I am president) filed a motion to intervene, asking that the case and documents be unsealed. This led to a determination that the vast majority of case records must be made public, as they should have been all along. As the Journal Times reported, the released invoices show Racine taxpayers have shelled out nearly $18,000 to fund Letteney’s crusade against Weidner. This went to pay two attorneys $350 and $205 an hour, respectively, for about 68 hours of work. Weidner’s attorney, Terry Rose, deemed these fees “excessive in light of the issues involved,” noting that his defense of Weidner, at $300 an hour, came to less than $3,500. Let us be clear about what has happened. City Attorney Letteney, with Judge Gasiorkiewicz’s help, has wasted many thousands of taxpayer dollars to embrace a shocking level of official secrecy. Weidner and media organizations have, at their own expense, pushed back against this, and thus far prevailed. But the wrong that has been done here has not yet been righted. There ought to be consequences for the bad judgment shown by Letteney and Gasiorkiewicz, as well as by Racine Mayor Cory Mason — who, as far as I can tell, has sat on his hands as this outrage has played out in his city. The violation of the public trust here has been severe. The repercussions should be also. https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2019/02/07/racine-officials-kept-routine-public-records-secret/2794235002/ I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Tim & Cindy Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original May I ask you this question - If I choose to be a Non-Voter - am I Sovereign? Speaker Vos was elected by Voters to Speak for them and enact Legislation and ensure it is enforced. If I do not Vote for a Representative Speaker - then I am not Subject to the Legislation proposed or approved by those Speakers. If, as a Non-Voter, I would be subject the Legislation of an Elected Speaker - then does a State of War exist? Why should I be subject to the Legislation of someone who I did not Elect, or even participate in the Voting for - What if my best interest is not yours? Whose Will shall bend? Based upon what? A Non-Voter would have NO standing in a State Court - as he is Sovereign. Just a question. See also: The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is: http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm