First of all, where is the statutory proof that SCR 22 in any way vitiates the requirement that an attorney sign the pleadings and filings dictated by WIS Stat §802.05. In fact, SCR 22 directly references the 800 Statutes or what you didn't think I would notice that?
SCR 22.13 Service of the complaint. (1) The complaint and the order to answer shall be served upon the respondent in the same manner as a summons under section 801.11 (1) of the statutes Once you show me that one vitiates the other -- and only then -- will I release this inquiry.
Further, even if you claim that Attorney Johnson need not sign the filings on behalf of his purported client, I asked you to recuse him because of the obvious CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Conflicts of Interest are always germane under any legal proceeding are they not? If you need help, I’ve extended the opportunity to review In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Carroll 351 Wis.2d 686 (2013)
Terry sits on an OLR Board. Remember that? Now get back in your office and rule on THAT.
You intentionally ignored: III. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief:
1. Recusal of Attorney Johnson as he is merely a figurehead positioned to use his status with the OLR to exert unlawful influence…… That conclusion is only logical given the fact that he did not sign the filings.
I see this game played out all the time. See Terry Crews get assaulted and not able to punch back as noted in today's WashPost.
Crews alleged that talent agent Adam Venit groped his genitals at a Hollywood party. Crews acknowledges the obvious question: Why wouldn’t a man of his muscle just wallop any predator? The actor wanted to fight him, to strike back, he has said, but feared that the situation would be misperceived since he is a large black man. He didn’t want to end up in jail or lose his career.
At first, he thought it was a joke. Then Venit walked over, reached out and “squeezes my genitals” while sticking his tongue out, Crews told Strahan. Venit allegedly jumped back, then tried to grab him again, but Crews slapped his hand away. “I felt nothing but rage,” Crews said. He wanted to hurt Venit, to “punch a hole in his head.”
But he restrained himself after remembering something his wife, Rebecca King-Crews, had told him years earlier: “She said, ‘Terry, you can never handle any situation like this with violence. You are a target.’ ” He knew how the media and the general public might perceive the interaction. “ ‘240 lbs. Black Man stomps out Hollywood Honcho’ would be the headline the next day,” Crews said on Twitter. He told Strahan he wouldn’t have just gone to jail, he would have been “under the jail.”
“One thing I knew, that being a large African American man in America, I would immediately be seen as a thug. But I’m not a thug. I’m an artist,” Crews told Strahan, adding, “I know how close I came to losing it all.”
[Note: I said -- And I forgot I'm writing this at WashPost.... hell you can ask Cousin Mike (Wilbon) -- I do have a big mouth. I am the rabble-rouser of the family no doubt about it. But when I'm sitting there in my chair lawfully running video you can't just assault me because I'm black and you have more power than me to get away with it.
I'm not having it.]
I see this game played out all the damn time: The curious case of Jason Vassell..... How white boys attack a black boy and black boy gets charged. Shift the blame to the nigger, I get it.
I totally forgot about the case of Jason Vassell I covered when I first started shooting my own video in 2010/2011: Two white boys totally attacked this guy in his own dorm and he defended himself with a box cutter from work and the State went after him and didn't even charge one of the other boys with anything. They eventually dismissed the charges (video) after much public outcry. It was complete and utter fucking bullshit, and it is the same complete and utter fucking bullshit going on here.
The State ACLU borrowed one of my photos and it appeared in their calendar for the coming year.
Now then, here is your background about the abusive white male of privilege who basically assaulted me during a public hearing in which I was lawfully seated and running video, following the Rule and Law of the case. As it turns out, the creep who did it is allegedly represented by yet another creep whose initial claim to fame was representing a Frat House known for inappropriate conduct. Anyway, the attorney of record has not actually signed a single pleading. That's per se illegal, but the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Responsibility has steadfastly ignored that fact.
So Iet them have it, but good.
I am moving to Strike the Pleadings and to Recuse Terry E. Johnson as Counsel for Respondent Mark Rattan, as it is now patently obvious that he is receiving special favors by way of his membership on the relevant Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Responsibility Committee:
We live in a Nation of Laws, dammit. And when the fucking law in Wisconsin says the Attorney of Record has to sign the Pleadings and Filings, that is exactly what it means.
802.05 Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; representations to court; sanctions.
(1) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer's address and telephone number, and state bar number, if any. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.
The purpose of requiring a handwritten signature on pleadings, made by the attorney of record, is not only to clarify who is accountable for an invalid claim, but also to guarantee that an attorney who is familiar with the procedural and substantive laws of state has read the claims and has made an assessment of the claims' validity. Schaefer v. Riegelman (2002) 639 N.W.2d 715, 250 Wis.2d 494. Pleading 288 *505
¶ 17 Section 802.05(1)(a) clearly lays out the basic requirements for a sufficient signature on a complaint. The signature must (1) be handwritten; (2) be the signature of an attorney of record; and (3) be in that attorney's name. Although the signature in this case was handwritten, it was not the signature of the attorney of record in that attorney's own name. Because no attorney of record signed the pleadings in accordance with § 802.05(1)(a), the pleadings were defective. To the extent that Novak left anything less than clear, Shaefer was unambiguous: (5) defect in pleadings was fundamental and, thus, circuit court lacked jurisdiction over attorney, overruling Novak v. Phillips, 246 Wis.2d 673, 631 N.W.2d 635.
Schiessle v. Karls 2010 WL 7746448 (Dane Cty 2010) is inapposite: There was no basis for Prejudice because the case had just been initiated and no legal theorems had been argued. That is vastly the opposite from this case, in which Complaining Party raised the issue months ago only to have Respondent chortle at him and attempt to mock him, repeatedly. i.e. 13 Nov.
Sorry—you are only permitted to get one substantive comment from me in one day. Terry E. Johnson
OK Terry, Your Move, Bro.