WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 3 ____________________________________________________________ STATE OF WISCONSIN Plaintiff-Respondent, Appeal No. 2007AP001940 CR Vs. Circuit Court Case No. 06 CM 300 KENNETH LEROY DRIESSEN Defendant-Appellant ____________________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION AND DENIAL OF POST-CONVICTION RELIEF ENTERED BY THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR SAWYER COUNTY THE HONORABLE JUDGE NORMAN YACKEL, PRESIDING ____________________________________________________________ REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT ___________________________________________________________ ARGUMENT I. Warrant Arrest The Sawyer County District Attorney (DA) did error on page two, paragraph 3 of the brief he wrote, "The defendant was not charged with felony bail jump in the state of Wisconsin," while in fact and in the Appellant's Appendix page two, exists a true copy of State of Wisconsin, case number 2006CF120. I am no longer being held on the $250,000 bail noted on an 'Order To Appear' which was handed to this Defendant on May 30, 2006, see: Appellants Appendix page 3. Since I was released on the Wisconsin charges necessary to have held me in a Wisconsin jurisdiction were dropped because Montana did not want to extradite me on their warrant and when Montana's wheels of justice finally turned dismissing their case, this so obviously leaves the Hayward officer with no probable cause to have searched me on May 26, 2006. Furthermore when comparing the DA's logic with the Defendant, Driessen's, the good Judge(s) will notice that page 5, line 3 of the State's brief is contrary to fact. On Feburary 18, 2004, the State of Idaho determined that the State of Montana failed to meet its burden, not Idaho failing to meet Idaho's burden as the DA representing the State of Wisconsin wrote. In the same first paragraph of page 5, the DA writes about California convictions, I would ask the Judge(s) to notice that it is not the California misdemeanor convictions listed on true documents, including page 6 of Driessen's Brief Appendix, that pertain to this case through the means and invalidity Montana warrant, it is the felony dismissals that have bearing just as Driessen wrote on the first page of the Argument of his Appellant's Brief. The Wisconsin felony fugitive charges as well as the Montana felony fugitive were eventually dismissed because they were not valid after April 6, 2004 when the felony charges were dismissed because after that time there were no felony charges to be fugitive from. Other than through the miss shuffling of paperwork between states, there was no warrant and no probable cause for the arrest, search and seize Driessen's belongings on May 26 2006. If whatever a police officer presumed, believed or thought, was always right and beyond doubt, we would not need district attorneys, judges or juries, would we now? An obviously inactive warrant being activated by request of a law officer on a weekend to a law officer of another state, which was previously dismissed in a third state, and dismissed in the state where the fugitive warrant originated because the original felony charges has been dropped in a fourth state years prior to the incident is not a valid arrest in a court of law. The trial judge and DA both should have been able to figure this out, suppress the evidence and dismiss the case well before the jury trail took place. Although the circuit court may have wanted it to appear so, the obvious conclusion that the Appeals Court should overturn the verdict and Judgment of conviction is not rocket science. II. CIRCUIT COURT ORDER As explained above and in several ways, through writing and verbal word, to the Sawyer County DA and the Circuit Court Judge, it is fact that the felony charges, which brought about the fugitive charges used to arrest Driessen, search and seize, what has been presumed to be his private belongings on May 26 of 2006 were dismissed as of April 6, 2004. Although the Sawyer County authorities never provided him with proper papers stating and proving that their fugitive felony complaint number 2006CF120 against him has been dismissed, that complaint does mention a Toole County Montana felony fugitive complaint which was dismissed in Idaho on February 18, 2004 and in Montana by the 11th day of October 2006. If judges are to view some obscure case law such as Rady v. Lutz to give themselves "absolute privilege" therefore the power to ignore their oaths of office to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, they become criminals within the framework of that same Constitution and 42 USC §1983. The DA and the Judge may have conspired together to use false statements against Driessen because by the time this case went to jury trial the felony fugitive warrants had been dismissed and that is a fact. Also Article I Section 3 of the Wisconsin State Constitution does say, immediately following a semicolon; says, "and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact". The rules of law are dependent upon rules of language and a semicolon shows an interdependence of two parts of a thus completed sentence (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicolon). Another word that is both a grammatical and logical operator, in Article 1 § 3, is 'or', "In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libel"; in other words juries have the right to determine the law and the fact in all criminal prosecutions. It is common for groups of people such as 'legal professionals' to work together to exclude and reign over other groups; to forbid such inequalities is precisely why constitutions are written as the basis of law. If the Judge(s) do not like the people of the jury having the right to hear both law and fact, they can petition the legislature to change the state Constitution; until such changes are made, it is obvious that the trial judge's order of April 17, 2007 as pertaining to this matter is an abuse of his authority. Under the Heading II of the States Brief the DA continues to state, "Driessen did enjoy the right to be heard by himself," I admit this is out of context but it explains the bogus jury trial to a tee. I, Ken Driessen inadvertently did not attach the CD copies of the Jury trial to the Appellant's brief. At $1.25 or more a page, I could not afford the jury trial transcripts and believe the price they charge per page for such papers is a travesty of justice in itself. I here state that the trial Judge did instruct the jury, at numerous times during the jury trial, to disregard and ignore my words, which expressed fact and law necessary to my defense. Being that in the State's Brief, the DA introduced written rhetoric about the actual wording of the trial, I decided it would be fair and pertinent to now include those CD copies of the August 9, 2007 jury trial. If the Appellate Court does not want to listen to the CDs they can order the Trail Court and Sawyer County government to deliver copies of the Jury Trial transcripts at the expense of the respondent. These are two additional resources Appeals court may use to hear and decide whether or not this Appellant received a fair trial by an impartial jury. III. UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF MARIJUANA POSSESSION AND PARPHENELIA LAWS The DA cited only one case in his effort to defend the constitutionality of Wisconsin statutes criminalizing the possession and use of marijuana. In actuality even according to the DA's own application of State v. Peck, this case has to do with a person growing large quantities or marijuana, not simple possession and use. This defendant does concede that the state and federal governments have a right to control the commerce, sale, taxation and distribution of, coffee, aspirin, alcohol, tobacco and certainly marijuana. It is the government's refusal to regulate marijuana in itself that is a crime being perpetrated against the people under the color of the law including the current ludicrous criminalization of people who choose to possess and use marijuana. As cited in Driessen's Appellant's Brief, marijuana use has been proven safe by the fact that according to the government's own statistics that over 94 million Americans have tried marijuana without one overdose death (Appellant's Brief pg. 13). Although the DA could have cited many studies on marijuana paid for with DEA and ONDCP funds, which would lead one to believe that marijuana rots the users brain, like made cow disease, the vast majority of such studies reveal attempts of the prohibitionists to justify their salaries rather than to produce and publicize scientifically factual data. The 1944 La Guardia Report and the 1988 Francis Young, DEA, Administrative Law Judge Report, also sighted in Driessen's Brief, are authorities that successfully refute the perceived dangers of marijuana that the State Respondent relies on to support the notion of protecting "compelling societal interests" as a reason to criminalize, disenfranchise and dehumanize this Appellant by taking his driver's license, fining him and recording him as a criminal. The interest that compels individuals within our government to uphold the criminality of marijuana use are derived from their own self-serving desire to have absolute power over a large percentage of the population. Whether inadvertently or with purpose, it is certain that the Respondent's brief attempts to gain a favorable decision for the state in this case, which would result in retaining power and collecting money for individuals employed in a specific government sector. A small group of individuals responsible for criminalizing a common human behavior resulting in profits for those individual members of that group, at the expense of the society at large, certainly have made themselves members of a "suspect class". In other words a group of judiciary and law enforcement agents who found themselves in control of the minds and bodies of citizens who believe as described in: Genisis 1:29: God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it", now refuse to give up such unconstitutional control. It is preposterous for the prosecution to deny Driessen a classification as a human being because he is a member of a group of persons who tried marijuana, which is approaching half of the total number of adults in the US population. Make no mistake, in his brief; Driessen has provided the legal authority, being the foundation for all US laws including case precedence are to be based upon; and that my fellow citizens is the Constitution of these United States. Part of Article 6, Section 2 states in as many words that all laws are to be made pursuant to the constitution and those that are contrary not withstanding. The writers of the constitution knew that greedy, weasel like, bad spawn individuals would band together to amass great power to threaten these rights bestowed upon each individual citizen; so they also repeated the ideology that unconstitutional laws are void and incorporated such wording as contained in the 9th Amendment retaining our rights and the 14th Amendment instructing the States not to make or enforce any laws abridging my privileges as a citizen. Although Driessen did not list the many court cases, law and case precedence he mentions in his Argument, as outlined in the Appellate rules, to also be cited in the table of authorities at the beginning of his Appellant's Brief; those cases do tend to lead a rational person believe that the State of Wisconsin laws and federal laws prohibiting the possession of marijuana and paraphernalia are indeed unconstitutional and therefore void of force and affect according to those supreme legal authorities he does cite in at the beginning of his Appleant' Brief as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In the only marijuana case law the DA uses, the State of Wisconsin conceded that marijuana has been used for religious purposes and prohibition of such use by criminal sanction does put a burden on a person's first amendment rights. In this State v. Peck case, the judges mention an "overriding interest". The only over riding interest here again are the interests of the legal communities power over the average citizen which aligns itself with the goals of a powerful private prison and police state. Also, yes, contrary to the Respondent's Brief, I am a member of a suspect class whose right to the control of our minds and bodies has been compromised by a group of persons who continue to profit through unconstitutional activities relating to their occupation. I am one of over 94 million very human citizens who have tried marijuana according to the government's own statistics and I am not a criminal. Maybe no defendant-appellant as has ever brought to this Court's attention before that marijuana prohibition was indeed enacted due to a combination of: prejudice against Hispanic, African American and lower income Caucasian persons who regularly smoked marijuana when it was legal to do so, the whims powerful industrialists who wanted to dismantle the hemp industry to the favor their own industries, and propaganda designed to keep a large unnecessary police and federal agent force employed after the end of alcohol prohibition. Little be known by many a public servant; in theory and law government workers are to serve the public, not the other way around. CONCLUSION Although, I am not a legal professional and past usurpations of my rights as a US citizen by government agents has caused me to be quite cynical when it comes to the US legal system, truth and fact can be discovered within the Appellant's Brief, the Respondent's Brief and this Reply Brief. Those facts will lead a reasonable person to the determination that the May 26, 2006 arrest, search and seizure of Driessen was not legal; that the trail Judge's order was not constitutional; and Driessen did not receive a fair and impartial jury trial on August 9, 2007. Even if it will be a tough job to stand up to one's peers and break rank from the marijuana prohibitionist majority within the judiciary community; to declare such laws that criminalize possession of the most therapeutically active herb known to mankind unconstitutional; it is the only responsible decision a Judge can make within their oath of office when considering this Appeal. Relief Sought (1.) A State of Wisconsin Court of Appeals Order: Overturning, reversing or overruling of the
hmm, so is this establishing a precedent or something? I'm far too lazy to read anything but the conclusion.
