Wisconsin Law Journal

Wisconsin Law Journal The Wisconsin Law Journal covers the state's legal community. Wisconsin's source for legal news Legal newspaper and website covering the state of Wisconsin.

Operating as usual

The Association of Corporate Counsel-Wisconsin has elected three new board members and a new group of executive officers...
06/24/2021
Luna, Schmidt, Shah elected as ACC-WI board members

The Association of Corporate Counsel-Wisconsin has elected three new board members and a new group of executive officers.

The Association of Corporate Counsel-Wisconsin has elected three new board members and a new group of executive officers. DeAngela Luna, Timothy W. Schmidt and Pranav Shah will oversee the association's Wisconsin chapter as board members. Meet the new board members DeAngela Luna Luna is assistant ge...

A new addition to the Waukesha County courthouse is nearing completion. The county's June newsletter included these phot...
06/21/2021
PHOTOS: Waukesha County courthouse addition nears completion

A new addition to the Waukesha County courthouse is nearing completion. The county's June newsletter included these photos from inside the new four-story addition to the courthouse.

A new addition to the Waukesha County courthouse is nearing completion. The addition to the Waukesha County courthouse adding eight courtrooms like this one. (Photo courtesy Waukesha County Insider Newsletter) The county's June newsletter included these photos from inside the new four-story addition...

A majority of justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a defendant who shot his brother-in-law afte...
06/18/2021
Necessary instructions or ‘limitless loophole’?: Court splits on decision in break-in-gone-bad case

A majority of justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a defendant who shot his brother-in-law after breaking into his house.

A majority of justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a defendant who shot his brother-in-law after breaking into his house. The decision drew a dissent warning that the majority was establishing a "limitless loophole" that would give home invaders the right to shoot first no m...

Lawmakers this week introduced a bill that would allow the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District to build a nearly $1...
06/16/2021
Supreme Court revokes attorney’s license, says profession has ‘no place’ for his behavior

Lawmakers this week introduced a bill that would allow the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District to build a nearly $100 million project to contain contaminated sediment as part of an intensive cleanup of the waterways that feed Lake Michigan.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has revoked the law license of a western Wisconsin attorney with a "considerable" disciplinary history, writing that the legal profession has "no place" for his unethical behavior. Christopher Petros, a solo practitioner at Petros Law Firm in Hudson, can no longer practic...

With abortion and guns already on the agenda, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court is considering adding a third blo...
06/15/2021
Justices defer Harvard case on race in college admissions

With abortion and guns already on the agenda, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court is considering adding a third blockbuster issue — whether to ban consideration of race in college admissions.

By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) — With abortion and guns already on the agenda, the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court is considering adding a third blockbuster issue — whether to ban consideration of race in college admissions. The justices on Monday put off a decision a...

A jury has ruled that a 19-year-old Wisconsin man who pleaded guilty to fatally shooting his grandparents in 2019 is cri...
06/11/2021
Wisconsin man criminally responsible for grandparent deaths

A jury has ruled that a 19-year-old Wisconsin man who pleaded guilty to fatally shooting his grandparents in 2019 is criminally responsible for the deaths.

Alexander M. Kraus, is handed documents by his attorney Gregory Petit on April 16, 2019, during his initial appearance in the Outagamie County Circuit Court in Appleton. (Danny Damiani/The Post-Crescent via AP, File) APPLETON, Wis. (AP) — A jury has ruled that a 19-year-old Wisconsin man who plead...

The Wisconsin Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would prohibit police from using chokeholds, except in life-threate...
06/10/2021
Wisconsin Senate votes to ban police chokeholds

The Wisconsin Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would prohibit police from using chokeholds, except in life-threatening situations or to defend themselves, while also approving a measure that attempts to stop the defunding of police.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers speaks on May 20, 2019, in Madison during a news conference as Democratic state Rep. Sheila Stubbs listens. (AP Photo/Scott Bauer, File) By SCOTT BAUER Associated Press MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would prohibit police from us...

Although the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed a Kenosha company didn't have a claim against the Wisconsin ...
06/09/2021
Plain meaning or ’causes confusion’: Supreme Court disagrees on DOT property damage case

Although the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed a Kenosha company didn't have a claim against the Wisconsin Department of Transportation for property damage in a recent decision, the three dissenting justices said the majority's opinion is going to cause confusion throughout the court system.

Although the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed a Kenosha company didn't have a claim against the Wisconsin Department of Transportation for property damage in a recent decision, the three dissenting justices said the majority's opinion is going to cause confusion throughout the court sy...

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that thousands of people living in the U.S. for humanitarian reasons are ...
06/08/2021
Supreme Court rules against immigrants with temporary status

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that thousands of people living in the U.S. for humanitarian reasons are ineligible to apply to become permanent residents.

By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) — A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that thousands of people living in the U.S. for humanitarian reasons are ineligible to apply to become permanent residents. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that federal immigration law prohibi...

06/07/2021
wislawjournal.com

Juror misconduct involving Internet and social media is more likely to happen during long, complex criminal trials, according to a recent survey and analysis from the National Center for State Courts.

A split Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided an assessor properly valued a contaminated piece of property in downtown Mil...
06/03/2021
Split Supreme Court finds in favor of assessor in contamination valuation

A split Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided an assessor properly valued a contaminated piece of property in downtown Milwaukee when he based his valuation on the potential rental income from its parking lot.

A split Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided an assessor properly valued a contaminated piece of property in downtown Milwaukee when he based his valuation on the potential rental income from its parking lot. The 4-3 majority ruled on Wednesday that the assessor considered the impact of the contamina...

A Watertown attorney could have her law license suspended for failing to use a settlement to pay a client’s dental bills...
06/02/2021
Attorney faced with suspension for waiting years to pay client’s dental bills, using settlement for personal expenses

A Watertown attorney could have her law license suspended for failing to use a settlement to pay a client’s dental bills.

A Watertown attorney could have her law license suspended for failing to use a settlement to pay a client’s dental bills. In March, the Office of Lawyer Regulation filed a four-count complaint against Sandra J. Zenor, a solo practitioner. The complaint said Zenor settled a client’s lawsuit for $...

A Wisconsin juvenile court judge accused of possessing and distributing child pornography was taken into federal custody...
05/20/2021
Wisconsin judge jailed after appearing on child porn charges

A Wisconsin juvenile court judge accused of possessing and distributing child pornography was taken into federal custody after making his initial appearance in court Wednesday.

MILWAUKEE (AP) — A Wisconsin juvenile court judge accused of possessing and distributing child pornography was taken into federal custody after making his initial appearance in court Wednesday. The lawyer for Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Brett Blomme, charged in federal court with two counts of ...

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a major rollback of abortion rights, saying it will decide whether stat...
05/18/2021
Supreme Court to weigh rollback of abortion rights

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a major rollback of abortion rights, saying it will decide whether states can ban abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., agreed Monday to consider a major rollback of abortion rights. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a major rollback of abortion rights, saying it will decide whet...

Sens. Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson have recommended five candidates to fill the open U.S. Attorney position for the Eas...
05/17/2021
5 lawyers recommended for Eastern District US Attorney

Sens. Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson have recommended five candidates to fill the open U.S. Attorney position for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Sens. Tammy Baldwin and Ron Johnson have recommended five candidates to fill the open U.S. Attorney position for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The senators sent a letter to President Joe Biden on Tuesday naming the following five attorneys as candidates: Richard Frohling, the acting U.S. attorn...

A recent survey from the American Bar Association found that more than half of respondents believe the U.S. criminal-jus...
05/13/2021
ABA survey: 52% believe justice system is racially biased

A recent survey from the American Bar Association found that more than half of respondents believe the U.S. criminal-justice system is racially biased.

A recent survey from the American Bar Association found that more than half of respondents believe the U.S. criminal-justice system is racially biased. The ABA's 2021 Survey of Civic Literacy questioned 1,000 adults throughout the U.S. about their opinions on the criminal-justice system. The survey....

The newest graduates of UW Law School said goodbye to an educational experience unlike any other in the university's his...
05/11/2021
UW Law honors 2021 graduates with virtual commencement

The newest graduates of UW Law School said goodbye to an educational experience unlike any other in the university's history.

The newest graduates of UW Law School said goodbye to an educational experience unlike any other in the university's history. UW Law School Dean Dan Tokaji addresses Class of 2021 graduates during a virtual commencement ceremony on Friday. UW Law School celebrated the Class of 2021 with a virtual co...

Wisconsin health officials said Thursday that they’ve ordered only a fraction of the COVID-19 vaccine doses the federal ...
05/10/2021
Wisconsin health officials order fraction of vaccine doses

Wisconsin health officials said Thursday that they’ve ordered only a fraction of the COVID-19 vaccine doses the federal government had set aside for the state for next week, another sign of plateauing interest in the shots.

By TODD RICHMOND Associated Press MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin health officials said Thursday that they've ordered only a fraction of the COVID-19 vaccine doses the federal government had set aside for the state for next week, another sign of plateauing interest in the shots. Interest in the vac...

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its authority when it impos...
05/07/2021
Federal judge strikes down CDC eviction moratorium

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its authority when it imposed a federal eviction moratorium.

Tenants' rights advocates demonstrate on Jan. 13 outside the JFK federal building in Boston. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer, File) By MICHAEL CASEY Associated Press BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its authority when it imposed a f...

Percent change in price of selected cryptocurrencies in 2021
05/06/2021
Cryptocurrency taking off in 2021 (CHART)

Percent change in price of selected cryptocurrencies in 2021

Cryptocurrency taking off in 2021 (CHART) By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF May 5, 2021 2:21 pm cryptocurrency 2:21 pm Wed, May 5, 2021 Wisconsin Law Journal - WI Legal News & Resources WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF

The Milwaukee Common Council on Tuesday approved a $750,000 settlement in a lawsuit brought by former Bucks player Sterl...
05/05/2021
Milwaukee council OKs settlement with former Bucks player

The Milwaukee Common Council on Tuesday approved a $750,000 settlement in a lawsuit brought by former Bucks player Sterling Brown over his 2018 arrest in which he was taken to the ground and shocked with a Taser.

MILWAUKEE (AP) — The Milwaukee Common Council on Tuesday approved a $750,000 settlement in a lawsuit brought by former Bucks player Sterling Brown over his 2018 arrest in which he was taken to the ground and shocked with a Taser. The incident started when Brown was approached by police over a park...

Just a few weeks into a years-long appointment, Judge Rachel M. Blise is finding her place on the bankruptcy court for t...
04/30/2021
Blise settles into 14-year term on Eastern District bankruptcy court

Just a few weeks into a years-long appointment, Judge Rachel M. Blise is finding her place on the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Judge Rachel M. Blise Just a few weeks into a years-long appointment, Judge Rachel M. Blise is finding her place on the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. “It’s been great so far,” Blise said. “Everyone’s been so welcoming and helpful, and I already feel at home here.....

Huge congratulations to Jennifer Tate of Jones Law Firm LLC on building an outstanding legal career and earning the WLJ'...
04/29/2021

Huge congratulations to Jennifer Tate of Jones Law Firm LLC on building an outstanding legal career and earning the WLJ's Up and Coming Lawyer award!

Such an inspirational and knowledgeable group of lawyers! Thank you for sharing your insights at today networking portio...
04/29/2021

Such an inspirational and knowledgeable group of lawyers! Thank you for sharing your insights at today networking portion of the Up and Coming Lawyers / Leaders in the Law awards program.

Such an inspirational and knowledgeable group of lawyers! Thank you for sharing your insights at today networking portion of the Up and Coming Lawyers / Leaders in the Law awards program.

Congratulations to our 2021 Up & Coming Lawyers and Leaders in the Law! This outstanding group encompasses the emerging ...
04/29/2021

Congratulations to our 2021 Up & Coming Lawyers and Leaders in the Law! This outstanding group encompasses the emerging leaders of Wisconsin's legal community and the icons who have paved the way for them. Join us today in celebrating their achievements!

𝕷𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖊𝖗𝖘 𝖎𝖓 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝕷𝖆𝖜
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson — Wisconsin Supreme Court
Robert Gingras – Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs Lawyers
Frederick Geilfuss – Foley & Lardner LLP
Paul Kinne – Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs Lawyers
Kevin Long – Quarles & Brady LLP
Douglas Ross – Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
Kelli Thompson – Wisconsin State Public Defender
Todd Weir – Otjen, Van Ert & Weir

𝖀𝖕 & 𝕮𝖔𝖒𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕷𝖆𝖜𝖞𝖊𝖗𝖘
Anita Boor – Quarles & Brady LLP
Jay Creagh – Godfrey & Kahn
Evann Derus – Godfrey & Kahn
Hannah Dockendorff – Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
Tracy Murn – Axley Attorneys
Kathryn Pfefferle – Boardman & Clark LLP
Matt Pietruczak – Quarles & Brady LLP
Isaiah M. Richie – Schloemer Law Firm, S.C.
Sopen Shah – Perkins Coie LLP
Benjamin E. Streckert – Ruder Ware
Jennifer Tate – Jones Law Firm LLC
Scott Thompson – Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs Lawyers
Hillary N. Vedvig – Foley & Lardner LLP

Congratulations to our 2021 Up & Coming Lawyers and Leaders in the Law! This outstanding group encompasses the emerging leaders of Wisconsin's legal community and the icons who have paved the way for them. Join us today in celebrating their achievements!

𝕷𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖊𝖗𝖘 𝖎𝖓 𝖙𝖍𝖊 𝕷𝖆𝖜
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson — Wisconsin Supreme Court
Robert Gingras – Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs Lawyers
Frederick Geilfuss – Foley & Lardner LLP
Paul Kinne – Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs Lawyers
Kevin Long – Quarles & Brady LLP
Douglas Ross – Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
Kelli Thompson – Wisconsin State Public Defender
Todd Weir – Otjen, Van Ert & Weir

𝖀𝖕 & 𝕮𝖔𝖒𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕷𝖆𝖜𝖞𝖊𝖗𝖘
Anita Boor – Quarles & Brady LLP
Jay Creagh – Godfrey & Kahn
Evann Derus – Godfrey & Kahn
Hannah Dockendorff – Hupy and Abraham, S.C.
Tracy Murn – Axley Attorneys
Kathryn Pfefferle – Boardman & Clark LLP
Matt Pietruczak – Quarles & Brady LLP
Isaiah M. Richie – Schloemer Law Firm, S.C.
Sopen Shah – Perkins Coie LLP
Benjamin E. Streckert – Ruder Ware
Jennifer Tate – Jones Law Firm LLC
Scott Thompson – Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs Lawyers
Hillary N. Vedvig – Foley & Lardner LLP

Congratulations Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs Lawyers team on your exceptional work and impact in the community!
04/29/2021

Congratulations Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs Lawyers team on your exceptional work and impact in the community!

Address

225 E Michigan St
Milwaukee, WI
53202

Opening Hours

Monday 08:00 - 16:00
Tuesday 08:00 - 16:00
Wednesday 08:00 - 16:00
Thursday 08:00 - 16:00
Friday 08:00 - 16:00

Telephone

(414) 225-1801

Products

Wisconsin Law Journal, The Daily Reporter

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Wisconsin Law Journal posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Wisconsin Law Journal:

Videos

About us

Legal magazine and website covering the state of Wisconsin.

Nearby government services


Other Public & Government Services in Milwaukee

Show All

Comments

Shell Companies are all that is cruel and evil and a scourge of society today. Where my employer American Standard Trane US INC., and others used Shell Companies in contrivance with Mossack Fonseca to deny me from obtaining Health or medical aid. See TRANE SA off shore data base. " offshoreleaks.icij.org" As disclosed by the International Consortium of Investigated Journalists. They made a deposition to the Wisconsin Courts that I was employed by TRANE SA a Swiss Shell Company, knowing this was a lie and misrepresentation of the truth. The deposition is as follows :- “At the time of his injury, the applicant was based in Oman and was an employee of Trane S.A. Trane SA. is a Swiss corporation, that does no business in Wisconsin. Trane S.A. is wholly owned by The Trane Company, a Delaware corporation that also conducts no business in the United States. The Trane Company (the Delaware corporation) is wholly owned by American Standard Inc. which is headquartered in New York State. Trane the entity in La Crosse, Wisconsin is a division of American Standard." this deposition was used verbatim by the trial judge in his summation and finding of fact. See Decision of court case. This was a violation of the RULE OF LAW. In this week of NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS DISCUSSIONS. Where are my human rights and civil liberties in al this.
In this week of National Crime Victims Rights Discussion. I had a workplace accident which left me disabled for which I filed a claim for Workers' Compensation, in the Wisconsin Courts. The Respondents wilfully violated State and Federal Rules of Procedure and caused the Obstruction of Justice by the concealment of evidence which threatens the integrity not only of the Rule of Law but the very fabric of the Wisconsin judicial process. My employer American Standard Trane Company a and its parent company Ingersol Rand together with Travelers Insurance and Ernst & Young Accountants in contrivance with the notorious Law firm Mossak Fonseca, lied to the DWD court making a deposition to the court that I was employed by an entity called TRANE SA which was a Shell Company registered in Switzerland. The result of using these Shell Companies denied me from obtaining any Health or medical aid benefits. This was despite of having two separate employment contracts that had been signed in La Crosse, established by fact of a undisclosed Letter of Appointment This being recently disclosed to me by the International Consortium of Investigated Journalists (ICIJ) in the PANAMA PAPERS. See TRANE SA offshore leaks data base. < offshoreleaks.icij.org> See Appendix, Swiss Chamber of Commerce Register 1996 and 2014. showing Ernst & Young were the administrators of this Shell Company. I AM A VICTIM OF CRIME AND NEED HELP and JUSTICE
First and foremost, I would like to extend the fondest of greeting to everyone in the legal community who holds tightly to the idea of "equal justice under law", the foundation of our legal system, and the one thing that often eludes those of us who are a product of poverty-stricken portions of this country who are unfortunate enough to find ourselves at the defendant's table in a courtroom. Prior to the experience that I am looking to rectify, I did not know just how unjust, the justice system in this country truly is. Sure enough, being both someone who grew up in rather poor sections of both Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Chicago, Illinois, and a person of color, you hear stories and notice minor discrepancies, but deep down, I always figured that fairness always won out and that the improprieties grumbled about by others were simply the slanted truths of those who really just wanted to play the victim role to gain sympathy. I am ashamed to admit that now because I have seen just how imbalanced the scales of justice truly can be, and how intensely the deck can be stacked against you when you stumble into the complex procedural gauntlet of the criminal penal system with ignorance and naïveté in both hands. I know many may think that if a person is bold or foolish enough to make poor decisions, they should be prepared to deal with the consequences, and I am no different. I make no excuses for my felonious capers as a younger me. I partook in actions that were quite lousy, and at no time have I been one who is looking to skirt the penalties of my choices, nor deflect responsibility. I know that what I did was immensely improper, and the darkness I introduced into the lives of those I perpetrated crimes against, as well as the others I made into victims due to the ripple effect of my poor decision-making is carried with me each day of my life. They are why I spend every single day working towards being the best man I can! They are my motivation to not fall into that category of being but another man lost to the system, and they will continue to be the driving force behind all the successes I accomplish in my lifetime. They shall never be a forgotten chapter in my Book Of Life. I am here hoping only to expose intense injustices and obtain pointers in relation to a legal argument that I composed and plan to present the courts with. I realize that loads of individuals boxed in will throw clumps of muck at the wall of a judicial system, hoping something will stick to a degree that allows them some kind of reprieve. In truth, I am not one of those individuals. For the most part, I always knew that I was given poor representation while navigating my criminal case. Though I knew nothing about the law when something is not true, you just know it, and there was a multitude of falsehoods said about me and told to me during the court dates. My lawyer at the time told me it was all no big deal, and my appeal lawyer did not look too deeply into the things I said but decided to go about things in a way she deemed fit. As for me, I really did not know much about the law, and if not for my being forced to deal with another legal matter on my own, figuring out how case law works in the process, I would never have come to understand how to attack the issues on my criminal case. Just last summer, after having a medical malpractice lawsuit I filed against staff at the prison I am housed in dismissed in the summary judgment stage, I decided to file an appeal to the 7th district courts in Chicago, Illinois. I felt that the western district federal court in Wisconsin had ruled improperly and that what had happened to me in this prison was so wrong that I just had to fight it with an appeal. I filed the appeal not having much of a clue about what I was doing, yet being forced to do so all on my own due to covid restrictions within this prison. Not only did the appeal courtside with me, granting me a victory and remanding my case back to the lower courts for a jury trial (set for May of 2021), the judge commended me for accomplishing the rare feat of winning an appeal from prison. That case can be found by Googling "Anthony J. Machicoté". I believe it is the second heading that comes up. Also, " Machicoté v. Roethlisberger, case no 18-cv-249". I am hoping that anyone with legal experience will look at the argument below and tell me if it is valid enough to be sent to the criminal courts. I am not asking for anyone to represent me, nor do any work outside of reading the argument and telling me if it is good as is or if I should back the argument up with more case excerpts. If you have any questions or desire to contact me for any reasons, you may do so by contacting my father, who posted this, or you may write to me directly at ; Anthony Jason Machicoté, #383044 P.O. Box 2000 New Lisbon, Wisconsin 53950 I thank you for reading these words and I hope that you all will help me in rebalancing the scales of justice in my case. Stay safe and farewell out there! Respectfully, Anthony! APPEAL PT 1 In this case, the defendant is arguing that there was a multitude of legal errors that are required by case law to be corrected in order for the proceedings to have been handled in accordance with the law. The defendant will go about addressing the issues piece by piece with the hopes of properly guiding the courts to the conclusion that a withdrawal of the guilty plea and resentencing should be done for the case to have been addressed properly. Machicoté argues that the judge of record failed to sentence him based upon accurate information on two separate occasions. • First, the judge of record quoted something not found in the presentencing report, and proclaimed it to be a statement by Machicoté. On page 46, ¶6-11, the judge of record says, "his statement about his, that he wasn't going to follow any rules that a judge set for him about violating the harassment injunction, and that he would continue to write Ms. Vanlier". This was something the judge of record stated to be reading from the presentencing investigation. This was blatantly untrue. Upon reading of the presentencing investigation's report, this court will see that no such statement was made by Machicoté, and the judge of record knowingly and intentionally misquoted Machicoté. Her statement shows that either the court of record was basing her sentencing upon inaccurate information, or showing an improper bias against Machicoté. Either way, this is a clear violation of the defendant's due process rights. Machicoté presses this court to allow him a resentencing based upon accurate information because this error on the part of the judge is one that in no way can be deemed a "harmless error" due to the fact that it was another way for the judge of record to justify the sentence handed down. A court has discretion, but it does not have the right to twist words with the desire to make it seem as though the defendant said something wholly unsupported by the evidence at hand. The Supreme Court has held that convicted defendants have a due process right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information. The United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447, 92 S.Ct. 589, 592, 30 L.ed.2d 592 (1972); Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 1255, 92 L.ed. 1690 (1948). The foundation of that right is due process protections against arbitrary government decisions. A convicted offender does not have a constitutional right to a particular sentence available within a range of alternatives, but the offender does have a right to a fair sentencing process—one in which the court goes through a rational procedure of selecting a sentence based on relevant considerations and accurate information. As the Supreme Court explained in Townsend v. Burke: It is not the duration or severity of this sentence that renders it constitutionally invalid; it is the careless or designed pronouncement of sentence on a foundation so extensively and materially false, which the prisoner had no opportunity to correct by the services which counsel would provide, that renders the proceedings lacking in due process. 334 U.S. at 741, 68 S.Ct. at 1255. In the United States v. Tucker, the Supreme Court reinforced this right to accuracy. The supreme court affirmed the court of appeals decision vacating the sentence stating, "for here we deal with a sentence founded at least in part upon misinformation of constitutional magnitude. As in Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 [68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690], “this prisoner was sentenced on the basis of assumptions concerning his criminal record which were materially untrue”". Id. At 741, 68 S.Ct. at 1255. In People v. La Pointe, 88 Ill.2d 482, 59 Ill. Dec. 59, 64-65, 431 N.E.2d 344, 349-351 (1981), it is stated: "due process prohibits consideration of inaccurate information". People v. Meeks, 81 Ill.2d 524, 44 Ill. Dec. 103, 109, 411 N.E.2d 9, 15 (1980) adds to this stating, " sentencing information must be accurate and reliable". Under Townsend and Tucker, a sentence must be set aside where the defendant can show that false information was part of the basis for the sentence. The two elements required to show this are, first, that information before the sentencing court was inaccurate, and second, the sentencing court relied upon the misinformation in passing the sentence. In addressing the first element, this court need only look to the presentencing report itself. If the quote is not found in the presentation report, then the information is inaccurate. As for the second element, if this was something immaterial, the judge of record would not have brought it to light. That court would not have noted something of this nature than not allowed it to play a role in sentencing. This court cannot look beyond nor argue that the judge of record did not rely on this information on her ruling because why else would the judge make such a proclamation the disregard it? If this was of no factor, why even make note of it during the sentencing hearing? • Second, Machicoté would like this court to apply the same case law shown above quoted to the actions of the prosecutor on the case. During sentencing, the prosecutor stated that she found it "somewhat disturbing" that Machicoté was still having contact with a "victim in the battery case". This character damaging statement can be found on page 9, ¶3-9 in the sentencing transcript. Machicoté argues that this statement by the prosecutor definitely biased the court, and should allow him to be resentenced, due to the fact that there was not a " victim in the battery case" for the defendant to be having contact with. The prosecutor falsely stated this, seeing as how not only was there no battery case to speak of, thereby making it impossible for there to be a victim to be having contact with. The prosecutor did not further elaborate as to whim this battery had been perpetrated upon, nor when, leaving the court to simply assumed that somewhere there was some battery victim being contacted by the defendant, which violated Machicoté's due process rights. Immediately, the defendant falls back to the quotes in Tucker and Townsend above. This statement was prejudicial, and painted Machicoté in a grim way, leaving the court biased against him. Both United States v Coonce, 961 F.2d 1268, 1275 (7th cir.1992); Blake v. the United States, 841 F.2d 203, 206 (7th cir.1998) support Machicoté's argument that he is to be sentenced based upon accurate information. Though Machicoté cannot say for sure that the courts relied upon this statement by the prosecutor, there is no way that negative statements by the prosecution that is false and never challenged or questioned by the adjudicating court can be seen as harmless. Judges and prosecutors are expected to act upon accurate information and the constitution itself demands this of them for the judicial system to maintain its integrity. Behavior that unfairly skews the scales of justice against a defendant cannot go unchallenged and without rectification. Machicoté argues that falsehoods of the negative variety in these two different incidents allowed his due rights process to be maintained. And in that reality, Machicoté should be granted relief in the form of a resentencing. A judgment not allowing this resentencing would denigrate the whole idea of "equal protection under the law". A defendant has a due process right to be sentenced based on accurate information. State of Wisconsin v. Johnson, 158 Wis .2d 458, 468, 463 N.W.2d 352 (Ct.App.1990). Whether a defendant has been denied this due process right is a question of constitutional fact. The state of Wisconsin v. Growth, 2002 WI App 290, ¶21, 258 Wis.2d 889, 656 N.W.2d 163. Machicoté also argues that in the cases above, the fact that his legal counsel failed to object, shows that Machicoté was given ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant's counsel had read the presentencing report, thereby making him privy to what was within the document, but did not speak up on Machicoté's defense for said false information. Nor did this same counsel put on the record the fact that the prosecutor's proclamation of being " somewhat disturbed" by Machicoté having contact with a "victim in the battery case" had no basis, in fact, seeing as how there was no battery or victim thereof for the prosecutor to be disturbed by. Machicoté recognizes that the court may wish to apply the forfeiture rule for the failure to object, but the facts are that such an application would be improper. These are not facts found in the record. The quote stated by the original judge is not something found in the Presentencing Investigation report. It is completely unsupported by anything, yet relied upon by the judge as factual. The statement by the prosecutor in regards to a "victim in the battery case" is also something constructed out of thin air. Due to this, the forfeiture rule cannot be applied, since it does not support justice in this case, and allowing it to be implemented would only further cause harm to Machicoté's due process rights, denying him equal treatment under the law. In-State ex rel. Universal Processing Servs. of Wis., LLC v. Cir. Ct. Of Milwaukee Cty., 2017 WI 26, ¶53, 374 Wis.2d 26, 892 N.W.2d 267 it was noted that "The forfeiture rule is of judicial administration and thus a reviewing court may disregard a forfeiture and address the merits of an unrepresented issue in an appropriate case." This is what Machicoté requests of this court because it is in the best interest of law. But, Machicoté would also like to note the in State of Wisconsin v. Counihan 390 Wis.2d 172 938 N.W.2d ¶28 "Generally if a claim is forfeited, we address that claim in the context of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. See Erickson, 227 Wis.2d at 766, 596 N.W.2d 749. That is, the dependent must demonstrate that counsel's failure to object constituted deficient performance and that such deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. State of Wisconsin v Maloney, 2005 WI 74, ¶14, 2i1 Wis.2d 595, 698 N.W.2d 583 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)) Machicoté contends that the original judge's statement that she could hand down a sentence of "160 years in prison" was factually incorrect, and thereby misleading to a degree that could be construed as intimidation. The statute at the time for the crimes in question only allowed for the courts to sentence Machicoté to 100 years in prison. With 60 years of extended supervision. Machicoté was told by those in the criminal law community that courts have been given the discrepancy in certain terms when it comes down to imprisonment, like the word "incarceration" for instance, and it meaning any time within the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, but it cannot be argued that "in prison" is not such a specific statement to be understood in a way different by laymen individuals versus those within the legal community. Due to this, Machicoté argues that it was extremely misleading and intimidating when in plea hearing to have the judge state such a thing since the difference between 100 years in prison and 160 years in prison is astronomical. Machicoté argues that the court of record failed to give Machicoté an accurate "range of punishments to which he is subjecting himself" as required by the State of Wisconsin v. Howell, 734 N.W.2d 48, 301 Wis.2d 350. The fact that the judge of record informed Machicoté that he could be given more time "in prison" than the statue allowed at that time, violated the State of Wisconsin v. Hansen (App. 1992) 485 N.W.2d 74, 168 Wis.2d 749 because giving an improper maximum penalty during the plea colloquy shows that "proper procedures were not followed at his guilty plea hearing", as required by Hansen, and if the time a defendant is told could be handed down is incorrect, in no way could the plea be "voluntarily and knowingly made". APPEAL PT 2 The fact that the court presented Machicoté with a potential "in prison" maximum of 160 years, when statutorily, Machicoté could have only been given a maximum "in prison" sentence of 100 years, shows that this was more than a simple "harmless error". And though this court may argue that "in prison" is also a term readily used to mean any time while in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, even while free on extended supervision, the reality is that in such a situation, where the consequences are on a grand scale and have definitive results of the life-changing variety, the courts have a duty to make sure that clarity is held by all. Also, it should be noted that that the criminal complaints that were presented to the defendant where it explains the basis for the charges against him, and shares what the maximum penalties state that Machicoté faced 160 years "imprisonment". If this court reviewed the criminal complaints presented to Machicoté at the time, they will see very clearly that this is true, as well as the fact that nothing regarding a bifurcated sentence was noted. It clearly points out the maximum penalties. Nothing in between. The fact that Machicoté's defense lawyer did not ask the court for clarity in the maximum amount of time faced, nor attempted to correct the courts in regards to the maximum "in prison" time means that Machicoté was given Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Saying, "I may give you the maximum of 160 years in prison" is a definitive proclamation. It is clear and precise upon someone who is only 21 years of age, has no background in dealing with this level of the judicial system, and was not explained beforehand the way bifurcated sentences work. Add to this the fact that the courts had a Presentencing Investigation report's psychological evaluation that proclaimed Machicoté to be of "not average, less than that" intelligence. Even though the court of record explained that there would be an in and out portion of the sentence handed down, that leads to a conflict within the court's own proclamation of possibly handing down a maximum sentence of 160 years in prison. This is not clear at all. Machicoté argues that this violates Wisconsin § 971.08(1)(a) and the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ratified this kind of violation as being something that must be rectified by plea withdrawal. It said, "A defendant's understanding of the potential punishment if convicted is relevant for determining whether the plea was knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily entered. “The United States Constitution sets forth the standard that a guilty or no contest plea must be affirmatively shown to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntarily.” The state of Wisconsin v. Finley, 370 Wis.2d 402, 882 N.W.2d 761 ¶10-12. Based upon this, the defendant argues that the court should allow a plea withdrawal and a return to the plea stages of this case. It is the only way to fix an error of such a constitutional magnitude. •In this case, Machicoté believes he was exposed to a manifest injustice when it came to his plea agreement. The plea agreement in this case was ambiguous in a way that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. The plea agreement, in this case, was that Machicoté would plead guilty to the crimes and the prosecutor would recommend a sentence of "extensive prison time". Now, right off the bat, such a statement is clearly ambiguous. There is no accurate or definitive parameters to this. It can be interpreted in many ways by many people. For someone who has never been in state prison or had any interaction with the judicial system, "extensive prison time" could be 3-5 years. For a person who works within the judicial system, that same quote could mean 10-15 years. To a judge accustomed to dealing in high profile criminal cases, that could mean 20-40 years. Such ambiguities are not simply too broad to be something a person should be held to, but it allows no true safety to the person who is told to sign such an agreement. Courts regard plea agreements as contracts conferring all of the attendant rights and obligations governed by ordinary principles of contract law. See United States v Osborne, 931 F.2d 1139, 1162 (7th Cir.1991); United States v Sophie, 900 F.2d 1064, 1071 (7th Cir.1990), certiorari denied, 498 U.S. 843, 111 S.Ct. 124, 112 L.Ed.2d 92. Plea agreements, though, are unique contracts “in which special due process concerns for fairness and the adequacy of procedural safeguards obtain." United States v Ataya, 864 F.2d 1324, 1329(7th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). When presented with questions concerning the interpretation and enforcement of ambiguous plea agreements, "this court has developed a consistent set of principles...”, United States v Fields, 766 F.2d 1161, 1167 (7th Cir. 1985), one of which holds that “the essence of the particular agreement and the Government's conduct relating to its obligation in that case” are determinative. United States v Mooney, 654 F.2d 482, 486 (7th Cir. 1982). With these principles in mind, the courts must turn to the language of the contract. This "contract" lacked the definition required for a clear understanding by all parties involved. Machicoté was an individual unfamiliar with this level of the judicial interaction and held absolutely no idea of the intricacies of felony matters, so he relied upon the word of his legal counsel. The legal counsel did not say that Machicoté was accepting a plea that was not just open-ended but held no definition that could be deemed solid to the minds of all parties involved. Based upon this, Machicoté argues this court should allow him to withdraw his guilty plea and the agreement originally taken. •Machicoté also argues that the judge of record showed bias by inaccurately assuming that the defendant had been convicted of a felony and sentenced under the Truth-in-Sentencing guidelines prior to the case at hand, which was not true. The defendant believes that during the plea hearing, an exchange between him and the judge where Machicoté was nodding as the judge spoke, an action most understand to be active listening, and in response to a gesture most folks take to be an encouragement when having a conversation, the judge of record pauses in her colloquy to say, "you're nodding like you've heard this before" (page 49, ¶18 in the Sentencing Hearing transcripts). Machicoté had not, in fact, "heard this before" and stated this truth, then explained that it was not a hard thing to understand. Machicoté argues that the assumption shows bias since the judge of record had zero reasons to assume that he had prior experience of this nature. Machicoté feels that the judge should have been aware that he had never been sentenced under truth-in-sentencing guidelines, seeing as how he had never committed a felony prior to this conviction. This assumption shows that the court in question did not practice due diligence and failed to fully consider Machicoté's prior criminal conviction history in the proper light. The judge in question even said that Machicoté had a worse criminal history than his codefendant, something that the prosecutor went on the record disagreeing about. This assumptive notation by the judge of record shows that a bias left Machicoté's sentencing tainted by the false idea of him having a felony. This argument is supported by the State of Wisconsin v. Harris, 326 Wis.2d 685 786 N.W.2d ¶88-93, which states; "Under certain circumstances, due process may be violated even when a court does not explicitly rely on an improper factor. This is because it is an impossible fact for a reviewing court to see into a judge's mind: Bias or prejudice is such an elusive condition of the mind that it is most difficult, if not impossible, to always recognize it's existence, and it might exist in the mind of one...who was quite positive that he had no bias, and said that he was perfectly able to decide the question wholly uninfluenced by anything but the evidence." Crawford, 212 U.S. at 196, 29 S.Ct. 260. Therefore, courts have determined that when apparent bias reveals a great risk of actual bias, due process is violated. In-State of Wisconsin v. Gudgeon, the court of appeals grappled with the proper application in an appearance of bias standard. 2006 WI App 143, ¶¶24-26, 295 Wis.2d 189, 720 N.W.2d 114. The court stated: "Initially, we had a difficult time discerning from [numerous state and federal cases] whether actual bias was necessary or merely sufficient" to establish a due process violation. 295 Wis.2d 189, ¶22, 720 N.W.2d 114. "Several cases indicate that...apparent bias did not suffice to establish a due process violation.... Other precedents stated the contrary." Id. Even though the law appeared to be contradictory "on it's face," the court ultimately concluded that "this divergent case law can be harmonized." Id., ¶¶ 22-23. The court concluded that the appearance of bias was sufficient to establish a due process violation "only where the apparent bias revealed a great risk of actual bias " Id., ¶23. It determined that "the appearance of bias offends constitutional due process principles whenever a reasonable person — taking into consideration human psychological tendencies and weaknesses — concludes that the average judge could not be trusted to ‘hold the balance nice, clear and true’ under all circumstances." Id., ¶24. Gudgeon's conclusion is consistent with the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court. The In re Murchison court explained that due process "requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases." 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955). Furthermore, "even the probability" of actual bias must be avoided because "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice." Id. Similarly, in Aetna Life Insurance Co. v Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 825, 106 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed.2d 823 (1986), the court made it clear that it was "not required to decide whether in fact" there was actual bias to find a due process violation. The Withrow v Larkin court explained that the guarantee of due process is violated when, "under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness," there exists "such a risk of actual bias or prejudgement." 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975). Machicoté argues that the prejudgement in the statement on the part of the judge of record violated his due process rights. Although courts have stated the standard in various ways throughout the years, Machicoté uses the formulation discussed in Gudgeon, 295 Wis.2d 189, ¶ 23, 720 N.W.2d 114, and State of Wisconsin v Goodson, 2009 WI App 107, ¶14, 320 Wis.2d 166, 771 N.W.2d 385. Due process is violated when there exists actual bias or great risk of actual bias. •Machicoté contends that the trial court failed to properly discharge its mandated duty to determine his ERP/Challenge incarceration Program eligibility in this case as well. The court was required to explain why they denied Machicoté's eligibility for these programs but failed to do so. In a hearing, the defense lawyer for Machicoté noted that the PSI improperly stated that Machicoté was statutorily ineligible for these programs. Upon doing so, the court in response simply stated, "I do not want him to have these programs." Such a statement fails to explain the penological reasons behind the decision. It does not state why the court decided Machicoté should not have access to these programs. Based upon the image the courts painted of Machicoté's rehabilitative ability being rather "abysmal" as the court stated, and he was alleged to be somewhat adverse to authority, would not a program so structured and created to build up young men as the Challenge Incarceration Program be of immense benefit to him? And why would the court of record not think someone with a substance abuse problem might benefit highly from a program that focuses on assisting those with such conditions be in the best interest of rehabilitation? The judge failed in its duty to express why this was not being allowed and in doing so not only passed on a possible opportunity to assist someone it states to have issues that both of these programs successfully address, passing up an opportunity that could have been well within the bounds of actual and long-lasting justice and rehabilitation, two things that are surely the goal of the court system. APPEAL PT 3 Later during the hearing, the court in question stated that they were denying Machicoté these programs but that "later on in his rehabilitative process there will be programs made available to him"(page 50, ¶ 22). Factually, the court of record sentenced Machicoté assuming that programs would be "made available to him" yet this is untrue. If the court falsely assumed programs would be made available, but in 17 years this is not fact, a resentencing should be granted because the courts' decision to give a sentence with the belief that programs will be made available later down the line is not a concrete sentence. Machicoté argues that the original court held a desire for him to have some kind of programming based upon this statement, and thought something would become available to him. Seeing that this has not come to fruition, Machicoté believes he should be granted these programs. The original judge's statement shows that there is a reason for programming and since none have been made available by the Department of Corrections, and the legislation, Machicoté should be allowed to have the programs known to be available now. Machicoté would also like to note that the Presentencing Investigation had a psychological evaluation done which was relied upon by the sentencing judge, highlighting that Machicoté was of an intellectual level, "not average, less than that" (page 45, ¶11-15 of the sentencing hearing transcripts). This is important because the courts cannot say that a person is of less than average intelligence but also expect them to comprehend the complexities of contract law(in relation to a plea deal that is clearly ambiguous to a degree that no two people in and out of the legal community could come to the same understanding what it means precisely), and to understand that when a judge says he or she can give you 160 years "in prison" that what the judge really means is that they can give you a total sentence of 160 years in which you will be either in prison or under extend supervision of the Department of Corrections. These are very complex ideas to navigate, and as a layperson who lacked no previous interactions with the judicial system on this level, and being of less than average intelligence, Machicoté argues that he was not given an adequate plea colloquy, was the victim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and should be allowed to take back his plea of guilty on these grounds. If this courts rebuttal is that Machicoté did, in fact, understand the complexities of both these issues, then it should view the PSI's psychological evaluation to be incorrect, thereby meaning the original judge relied upon faulty information because the report was heavily noted during the sentencing hearing, with the judge of record noting, "I have to rely entirely on the entire report here for sentencing" and Machicoté has to be sentenced based upon accurate information, as promised in Townsend v Burke and ratified by State of Wisconsin v Tiepelman, as well as the 5th amendment. This court must pick a lane; either Machicoté was of a level of intelligence that was less than average, thereby putting him at a disadvantage in comprehending the complexities of this, or Machicoté completely understood the complexities, making the PSI that was relied upon by the court in question wrong. Whichever lane this court picks, Machicoté is left owed some kind of a relief because either of these lanes points out a manifest injustice with but one way of rectification. The 5th Amendment guarantees the right to be sentenced upon accurate information. See United States v Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 448-49, 92 S.Cr. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); United States v Adams, 879 F.3d 826, 829 (7th Cir. 2018). To establish a violation, a defendant must show both that the information is false and that the court relied upon it. United States v Musgraves, 831F.3d 454, 469 (7th Cir. 2016). Machicoté believes he has met the standard required for relief in his case. Machicoté understands that this court might inquire as to why he did not address these issues in his original appeal. Machicoté's response is simply Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. All of the things Machicoté brought to light were found in the transcripts that his appeal counsel had access to. The case law was also available to the counsel who filed his appeal. The fact that Machicoté found all of these errors on his own, minus any background in law, and composed this argument on his own, shows that he was exposed to Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Due to that, Machicoté should be granted relief and allowed to get past any procedural barring. #######