Letter To Wisconsin Supreme Court

We encourage you to read the home page of the website if you haven't already, which provides a basic introduction to the complete letter to the Wisconsin Supreme Court that follows. The letter that follows may have been slightly modified from the letter delivered to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in regards to formatting for the web only, or as otherwise notated (i.e., footnote 1), but is otherwise identical to that which was delivered to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Hand-Delivered

January 4, 2007

Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson
Wisconsin Supreme Court
16 E. State Capitol
Madison, WI 53702-0001

Dear Justices:

Introduction

This letter is being provided to all justices currently sitting on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I have decided to run for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This decision was triggered by the realization of how deeply the ‘Rule of Law’ is threatened in Wisconsin. It is often said that in America the ‘Rule of Law’ reigns as in no other place on earth. But the ‘Rule of Law’ is often a fragile thing predicated foremost upon two concepts: 1) no one is above the law; and 2) those in positions of public responsibility will be held accountable. If the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR), under the auspices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, is permitted to disregard the Supreme Court Rules and engage in possible criminal conduct, then the ‘Rule of Law’ in Wisconsin is in serious jeopardy; and I submit with all due respect that this Court has an affirmative obligation to act.

I realize what I am asserting is very serious. I also realize what I am asserting can be easily substantiated. I am confident because within the past few weeks numerous individuals from all walks of life, i.e. political, religious, media, legal, etc., received the documentation that you are being provided with. All have been in agreement that the documentation substantiates that OLR filed, in exceedingly bad faith, a falsified Count 1 in their complaint against me. There has not been a single dissenter. There has been, however, the question of “why?”

What forces outside or within OLR could have produced this result? Why would OLR staff be so audacious and cynical as to file a falsified complaint, especially when it can be so easily verified? Why would they be confident that they would be permitted to get away with it? A month ago I provided the documentation to the individuals with oversight responsibility for OLR. As of yet, I have received no response. Why would individuals with direct responsibility in regard to OLR be so indifferent when presented with evidence of serious misconduct within OLR? With all due respect, the question becomes, what is going on, and what, if anything, will this court do about it?

Background And Context

As will be substantiated later, OLR falsified Count 1 in their complaint against me. Before spelling this out in detail, I believe context is critical. I have been outspoken publicly in my belief that the Dane County District Attorney’s Office and Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Paul Humphrey are out of control. I have also been outspoken about the disturbing trend to criminalize (non-drunk driving) traffic accidents. These prosecutions are troubling because: 1) they often utilize sham science; 2) defendants often plead because they cannot financially afford to take their cases to trial; 3) civil attorneys have a financial stake in these prosecutions because convictions can greatly impact subsequent civil claims; and 4) ADA Paul Humphrey has a verified history of commencing a prosecution that financially benefited the well-connected individuals urging the criminal prosecution.

ADA Paul Humphrey’s serious misconduct in the prosecution of Adam Raisbeck in Dane County Case No. 02 CF 2708 has been acknowledged by: 1) his superiors in the DA’s Office; 2) the courts; and 3) OLR. Remarkably, as of this date Paul Humphrey has been unscathed, and there is no indication that anyone truly intends to rein him in. There also appears to be no concern that the beneficiary of his misconduct (if Raisbeck had been convicted of vehicular homicide) would have been Hausmann-McNally SC. This law firm, which represented civilly the surviving passenger, as this court is surely aware, is no ordinary firm. Charles Hausmann, its senior partner, was relatively recently convicted federally in Milwaukee for a kickback scheme which involved poor victims being defrauded of over $70,000. Atty. Hausmann received a two month prison sentence, and this court suspending his license for one year. Is it legitimate to wonder whether Humphrey’s systematic misconduct in Raisbeck is connected to who would have benefited if Raisbeck had been convicted?

Is it also legitimate to be disturbed by the criminalization of a traffic accident over twenty months after the fact in State v. Watson, Dane County Case No. 04 CF 876? In that matter the defendant was an elderly African-American woman with no criminal record, and there was no indication that she was driving under the influence. The apparent cause of the accident was Ms. Watson’s reaction to her medication.1This sentence was added to my original letter to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. There was no loss of life, nor any permanent injury. Why did the Dane County District Attorney’s Office and ADA Paul Humphrey decide that this accident needed, so long after the fact, to become a crime? Was this due to civil negotiations stalling? Was this due to the civil attorney representing the victim being Democratic Assemblyman Gary Hebl?2My source that the attorney was Gary Hebl is none other than his client. The specter of prosecutions being pursued as favors so that others can make money is frightening to any right-thinking person. If one says this could never occur in Dane County or in Wisconsin, consider the following.

Paul Humphrey’s Prosecution For The Benefit Of The Dane County Humane Society

It is a verifiable fact that Paul Humphrey commenced a prosecution that financially benefited the well-connected individuals urging the prosecution. Roughly a decade ago Mr. Humphrey was the litigant in a matter that cost Wisconsin taxpayers over $100,000. This matter did receive some press, but for the most part was swept under the rug, although it resulted in a lawsuit filed in the Western District of Wisconsin. In Porter v. Diblasio, Dane County Humane Society, Humphrey, Dane County, Case No. 96-C-264-S, it was alleged that ADA Humphrey conspired with the director of the Dane County Humane Society to have horses transferred in violation of the law from their out-of-state owner to the control of the Dane County Humane Society. This purported conspiracy utilized a criminal prosecution against the horses’ caretaker to set matters in motion.

The collective worth of the horses seized was later acknowledged by the Attorney General’s Office as being at least $135,000. The horses’ ownership was transferred to the Humane Society director, her friends and her family members for a sum total of “adopting fees” of $675. ADA Humphrey’s star witness to the alleged mistreatment of the horses was a veterinarian who received one of the horses with a value of at least $18,000 for the mere sum of $25. ADA Humphrey subsequently benefited from what occurred in a more minor sense in that, as he later admitted under oath, one of the horses was used for riding lessons for one of his children. After the owner sued in federal court, Humphrey was represented by the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office, then headed by current Governor Jim Doyle. The matter resulted in the aforementioned $100,000 plus settlement.

It is difficult to comprehend why this matter did not result in a public outcry. It is difficult to comprehend how Humphrey apparently escaped all sanctions, let alone kept his job. His ability to escape sanctions for serious misconduct continues, as shown by the following.

The Easily Verifiable Misconduct Of ADA Paul Humphrey In The Prosecution Of Maria Ledezma-Martinez

Judge Paul Higginbotham in a written order and memorandum characterized ADA Humphrey’s ‘routine style of lawyering’ as ‘stretching the true facts beyond recognition.’ Judge Daniel Moeser acknowledged to OLR that in his opinion ADA Humphrey has “always operated on the edge ethically.” ADA Humphrey has been accused of serious misconduct by a number of Dane County defense attorneys, including ex-DA Brian Brophy. Despite all of this, neither Humphrey’s superiors, the courts, nor OLR show any true inclination to hold him accountable. The situation gets even more troubling in light of the easily verifiable misconduct Paul Humphrey was allowed to get away with in the prosecution Maria Ledezma-Martinez.

In Dane County Case No. 03 CF 1675 Ms. Ledezma-Martinez, a Mexican immigrant, was charged with vehicular homicide in regard to a traffic accident that took place on July 18, 2003, just off the capital square. The victim was a German tourist, and the case received instant press. Ms. Ledezma-Martinez was immediately jailed. And because she was unable to post her cash bail which was set at $10,000, she was held in the Dane County Jail until her case was finally resolved. Her jury trial was set to commence on November 26, 2003. This matter, however, was not resolved on November 26, 2003, and would never be resolved by a jury. The reason was the misconduct of Paul Humphrey.

The woman’s attorney, Luis Cuevas, could not adequately prepare for the November trial date because, although Paul Humphrey provided in discovery a diagram prepared by the officer accident reconstruction expert on July 18, 2003, this diagram did not contain the necessary measurements/ distances. Due to this, on October 17, 2003 Atty. Cuevas filed a motion to compel Humphrey to provide the necessary measurements and other evidence Atty. Cuevas believed was being withheld. The effect of this motion was to force the trial date to be pushed back in order to permit a pre-trial hearing to determine whether Humphrey was withholding evidence that Atty. Cuevas was legally entitled to and needed in order to prepare for trial.

The hearing was held on January 20, 2004. This hearing was one of the few instances where Humphrey’s actions received some public scrutiny. The Capital Times ran an article the following day with the headline: ”Prosecutor says data missing on traffic death scene.” This article correctly captured what occurred in court that day. On that day Judge James Martin was indeed skeptical and found it incredulous that Paul Humphrey could be claiming that the measurements of the accident scene had not been preserved, despite these measurements having been necessary for the completion of the diagram that Humphrey provided, and obviously necessary for the defense to have in order to prepare for trial.

On January 20, 2004, Humphrey repeatedly insisted in court that the measurements had not been preserved, and he likewise claimed that he had been told this by the Madison Police. Subsequent to the hearing, it was revealed that Paul Humphrey’s assertions were false. The measurements had indeed been preserved. In fact, the officer who had done the accident reconstruction created a second diagram on July 18, 2003 (the same date of the accident and the creation of the other diagram), wherein she preserved and spelled out the measurements in question. A review of this document clearly substantiates that the measurements were being preserved on what anyone would call a diagram, a diagram that was obviously intended to accompany the first diagram. Humphrey excused its withholding by claiming that this second diagram was but a “note.” He has never been forced to explain why he withheld this diagram and why he repeatedly asserted that the measurements had not been preserved.

It appears that Ms. Ledezma-Martinez had a very viable defense, and would have stood a good chance of prevailing with a jury. However, on April 2, 2004 she pled out and received technically a year sentence. In real terms, she served nine months, and when she pled was just shy of what is commonly characterized as time-served. As those in the legal world know, a time-served sentence is the forever safety valve of a prosecutor with a weak case. Upon her conviction, Ms. Ledezma-Martinez was deported.

If a prosecutor is permitted by his superiors, the courts, and OLR to get away with such misconduct, especially when it is so easily verifiable, is not the ‘Rule of Law’ threatened in Wisconsin? Are not the Ms. Ledezma-Martinezes of the world entitled to fair play? Regardless of the answers to these questions, it now should be more understandable why Paul Humphrey would expect he would be able to get away with systematically engaging in misconduct in Raisbeck, even to the point of repeated criminal conduct.

OLR’s Easily Verifiable Bad Faith In Their Investigation Of The Dane County DA’s Office’s Misconduct In The Raisbeck Prosecution

OLR has filed a complaint against Paul Humphrey in regard to his conduct as the prosecutor in Raisbeck wherein they alleged: 1) Humphrey fabricated in an affidavit in regard to the availability of the photographic evidence; 2) Humphrey interfered with subpoenaed photographic evidence for an August 22, 2002 motion hearing and misled the court on that date about the location of the photographic evidence; and 3) Humphrey impermissibly withheld from the defense a witness statement pertaining to a Kevin McCoy. Despite Counts 1 and 2 pertaining to what would be criminal violations, OLR is recommending that ADA Humphrey merely receive a public reprimand.

What is most troubling about OLR’s investigation, and something easily verifiable, is what they refused to investigate. You are being provided with a copy of the letter and the outline of the documentation that I provided to OLR on May 31, 2005 (and re-provided on September 13, 2006). You are also being provided with OLR’s translation to what was being alleged. A mere review of these few pages will substantiate that OLR did not proceed in good faith.

In particular, just two of the matters OLR took off the table were the following:
1) The Dane County DA’s Office’s primary expert, Robert Krenz, when deposed on April 8, 2005, acknowledged that he told Humphrey, contemporaneously to Raisbeck being bound over for trial, that the evidence Humphrey was using was invalid to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, as shown by the photographic evidence.3OLR’s complaint against Humphrey never provides an explanation as to why Humphrey withheld the photographic evidence and filed a false affidavit on its availability. Krenz’s testimony provides the answer.
2) Humphrey subordinated perjury on April 7, 2003, when he had Mr. Krenz testify to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there was no evidence indicating Raisbeck’s brakes had been locked, and that the expert summary provided by Humphrey accurately captured Krenz’s professional opinion. When deposed on April 8, 2005, Mr. Krenz testified that in fact his true opinion was that the photographic evidence was indicative of locking, and that, contrary to his testimony of April 7, 2003, he could have never testified to the accuracy of the expert summary provided by Humphrey.4OLR’s complaint against Humphrey never informs the reader that Humphrey’s actions prevented the defense from becoming aware at the August 22, 2002 hearing of the specific photographic evidence indicative of locking, evidence invalidating the expert summary Humphrey provided for Krenz.

What can be more serious than a prosecutor commencing a case on evidence that he knows to be invalid, and subordinating perjury to cover up for a false expert summary? Why would OLR take the most serious allegations against Paul Humphrey off the table? Equally disturbing is the following.

On October 21, 2004, Judge Daniel Moeser made a finding that e-mails between Paul Humphrey and Expert Robert Krenz substantiated that Humphrey had “intentionally misrepresented” Krenz’s opinion on the all-important issue of braking in an expert summary and in letters to both the court and the defense. Judge Moeser’s findings resulted in a news story the following day in both Madison papers. How can it be that OLR is giving Humphrey a pass on this?

A possible answer may be related to the fact that although the e-mails indeed prove that Humphrey misrepresented Krenz’s true opinion on the issue of braking, it was not Humphrey, but Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard, who was personally responsible for the e-mails being withheld from the court and the defense. This is not the only instance where it appears that OLR has possibly given Humphrey a pass to cover up for misconduct on the part of DA Brian Blanchard.

You are being provided with a copy of DA Brian Blanchard’s reprimand letter to Paul Humphrey dated January 20, 2004.5Ironically, the date of the letter was the same date of the motion hearing in Ledezma-Martinez. If you review this letter you will see that DA Blanchard concluded that Paul Humphrey had seriously abused his power during the Raisbeck prosecution because he illegitimately obtained a warrant on a Kevin McCoy that could have subjected McCoy to harassment by being illegitimately held in jail. Can there be any dispute that this is a very serious matter? Why would OLR give Humphrey a pass on serious misconduct for which he was reprimanded by his superior?

The explanation may be that, despite the contents of his letter, DA Blanchard and his deputy DAs later withheld from both the public and the court what they conceded internally. Twice in open court the DA’s Office’s deputies, with DA Blanchard sitting behind them, were asked about the McCoy warrant’s legitimacy. On neither occasion did they acknowledge what they acknowledged internally. Could OLR’s conduct in this matter, as well as the withheld e-mails, be related to covering up for DA Blanchard?

OLR’s Falsified Count 16Only Count 1 of 3 has been detailed in this letter. The additional Counts have been detailed below for completeness.

I would submit that by any objective analysis OLR’s treatment of Paul Humphrey is inexplicably lenient. Contrast this leniency to OLR’s extreme dishonesty toward me as spelled out below. As you will see, OLR’s complaint relied upon extreme selective editing of documents and suppression of other evidence contained in OLR’s file. What can explain it? What forces within or outside of OLR are responsible?

If you review the OLR complaint against me, you will see that the gist of Count 1 was that I in bad faith alleged in a motion dated May 4, 2004 that the evidence indicated that a Kevin McCoy was not under subpoena for the trial set for the week of October 27, 2003 in State v. Raisbeck, Dane County Case No. 02 CF 2708. OLR alleges that this was in bad faith because OLR infers McCoy was undisputedly subpoenaed for the October 27th trial date on October 7, 2003. If you simply review the documentation I am providing, I am confident you will agree that this allegation was in exceedingly bad faith, and that this is indeed easily substantiated.

Probably the most disingenuous selective editing of OLR’s complaint was how it misleads to what was actually being asserted in my motion of May 4, 2004. OLR’s complaint infers that I was alleging that there was no evidence that McCoy had ever been subpoenaed. But in fact, if you review my May 4, 2004 motion, you will see that what I was actually alleging was that Kevin McCoy had been subpoenaed, not for the trial, but instead twice to the DA’s Office, in June of 2003 and for October 21, 2003 to force him to submit to interrogations. I was also alleging that this illegal use of the subpoena power was part of a pattern of harassment of McCoy that culminated in the DA’s Office obtaining a fraudulent warrant on McCoy, with this warrant then being used to coerce McCoy to agree to change his original innocuous witness statement in order to get out of the Dane County Jail. My assertions were based upon a Det. Greiber’s report, other court documents, and multiple sworn affidavits from first-hand witnesses to the DA’s Office’s treatment of McCoy.

If you review the provided documentation, you will see that OLR’s assertion that McCoy was subpoenaed on October 7, 2003 for the trial date of October 27, 2003 is not remotely an undisputed fact. OLR’s complaint selectively withheld the fact that the only claim from the Dane County DA’s Office of McCoy being subpoenaed on October 7, 2003 came in a letter dated March 15, 2004 wherein Dane County DDA Timothy Verhoff, in the very same paragraph, conceded that the served subpoena could not be located. OLR’s complaint withheld the fact that Paul Humphrey claimed that McCoy was not served on October 7, 2003, but rather on October 21, 2003 when he was interviewed by Detective Greiber and himself. OLR’s complaint selectively quoted Det. Greiber’s report pertaining to that interview, while omitting the all-critical fact that almost immediately following the quotation utilized by OLR, Greiber’s report indicated that Kevin McCoy was not under subpoena for the trial!

OLR’s complaint also suppressed the critical fact that the subpoena that DDA Verhoff claimed could not be located in March of 2004 was provided eight months later to OLR by Humphrey. There has never been an explanation as to where Humphrey obtained a subpoena that DDA Verhoff had claimed earlier to both the defense and the court could not be located. This subpoena, and something suppressed by OLR in their complaint, did not contain any proof of service, and therefore is actually evidence indicative that McCoy was not under subpoena for the trial date of October 27, 2003. Lastly, OLR’s complaint selectively edited ADA Paul Humphrey’s sworn affidavit of November 6, 2003 to obscure that Humphrey obtained the warrant on Kevin McCoy by withholding information from the court and by asserting a transparently false basis for why the warrant was necessary.

Is it not legitimate to wonder whether OLR’s outlandish attempt to whitewash the true extent of Paul Humphrey’s and the Dane County DA’s Office’s misconduct, in conjunction with OLR’s falsified complaint against me, is connected to the concerns I have tried to make public? In whose interest is it to protect Paul Humphrey and the DA’s Office? In whose interest is it to falsify a complaint against me? I would respectfully submit that the issue of whether unwarranted and corrupt influences have penetrated OLR is a matter that directly impacts the ‘Rule of Law’ in Wisconsin. And therefore, I respectfully assert that this court has an affirmative obligation to investigate what occurred within OLR and why.

Sincerely,

Joseph L. Sommers

---

Supporting Materials

The above letter references additional documents and materials that were presented to the Wisconsin Supreme Court that have not been included here. Any party interested in reviewing these additional materials is invited to email a request to have them sent.

Footnotes

1. (Return to letter.) This sentence was added to my original letter to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
2. (Return to letter.) My source that the attorney was Gary Hebl is none other than his client.
3. (Return to letter.) OLR’s complaint against Humphrey never provides an explanation as to why Humphrey withheld the photographic evidence and filed a false affidavit on its availability. Krenz’s testimony provides the answer.
4. (Return to letter.) OLR’s complaint against Humphrey never informs the reader that Humphrey’s actions prevented the defense from becoming aware at the August 22, 2002 hearing of the specific photographic evidence indicative of locking, evidence invalidating the expert summary Humphrey provided for Krenz.
5. (Return to letter.) Ironically, the date of the letter was the same date of the motion hearing in Ledezma-Martinez.
6. (Return to letter.) OLR's Falsified Count 1. There were two other counts in the OLR complaint. The second related to the proceedings that occurred on May 24, 2004 wherein I accused Judge Pekowsky of running a "kangaroo court" in Raisbeck. On that date Judge Pekowsky refused to address serious issues of prosecutorial misconduct, refused to enforce his own prior orders, and went so far as to place pressure on Raisbeck to plead out. While I readily concede that my outburst was inappropriate, my comments to Judge Pekowsky were sincere and in good faith. And in fact, Judge Pekowsky was running a "kangaroo court," something with which others in the courtroom, including John Benson, are in agreement with. The third count relates to my efforts to alert the public and the authorities to the misconduct the court was permitting the DA's Office to get away with in Raisbeck. Some of these efforts are correctly attributed to me, while others are not. My efforts were also necessary due to the distorted press coverage Raisbeck was receiving. These efforts were targeted to a limited audience, and the proof of this is that not a single prospective juror was aware of these efforts. Counts 2 and 3 do contain some misrepresentations and omissions, but not to the egregious extent of Count 1. It is my belief that part of the purpose of the falsified Count 1 is to undermine my defense on Counts 2 and 3 that: 1) Raisbeck was indeed being subjected to a kangaroo court; and 2) the public needed to be alerted to the fact that the court was permitting the District Attorney's Office to get away with systematic, even criminal, misconduct.