Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
ERBS Writ of Mandamus CAMERON

ERBS Writ of Mandamus CAMERON

Ratings: (0)|Views: 53 |Likes:
Published by tpepperman

More info:

Published by: tpepperman on Mar 17, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





STATE OF WISCONSIN ___________________COURT BRANCH________  ________________________________________________________________________ ) Case No. ___________________________ ) Related Circuit Court Case No. 2010FA11Jeffrey P. Erbs, pro per )Plaintiff ) WRIT OF MANDAMUS)) DEMAND FOR REQUESTED RELIEFV ) FROM DISQUALIFICATION HEARING) OF Feb. 26, 2010 by Judge Cameron)Judge Roderick Cameron ) DEMAND FOR REQUESTED RELIEFDefendent ) FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT of Jan.) 19, 2010, presented to Judge Cameron on) Feb.26, 2010)) DEMAND FOR WRITTEN OPINION) AND ORAL HEARING) ________________________________________________________________________  Comes now Jeffrey P. Erbs, pro per, to DEMAND THE COURT TO ENFORCE CONSTITUTIONALOVERSIGHT OVER THE BRANCH I COURT and JUDGE CAMERON to stop the unlawfulviolations of (1.) Jeffrey’s rights to remedies for wrongs, as required by the Wisconsin Constitution,Article I, Section 9; (2.) the Wisconsin Supreme Court rules of Conduct for Judges, 60.04 (1) (a) and(b); (3.) Wisconsin Statute 757.025 (1) and (2); (4.) Wisconsin Statute 757.02(1) the judge’s oath; (5.)SCR 60.02 and (6.) the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Judicial Administration Chapter 70, SCR 70.36(1) (a). The aggrieved party, Jeffrey, also DEMANDS WRITTEN OPINION AND ORALHEARING ON THIS MATTER. Written opinion shall include decisions for the relief requested in theDisqualification Motion and the Default Motion.AFFIDAVIT All statements herein are truthful, sworn testimony, as stated. (1.) On Feb.26, 2010 in Branch I Chippewa County Court, Judge Cameron heard Jeffrey’s Motion for 
Disqualification of attorney Lester Liptak for violations of SCR 20:1.9. Liptak was found to haveviolated SCR 20:1.9 and disqualified. Attorney Mark Mullen and The Mullen Law Group, LLC weredisqualified by imputed disqualification, SCR 20:1.10. The Disqualification Motion is attached,marked exhibit A, the Disqualification Order, exhibit B(2.) The requested relief for the disqualification motion and the default judgment motion were notdecided because Judge Cameron, acting as the Respondent’s (Mary Ann Erbs) counsel decided, withoutquestioning the Respondent, that the Respondent needed representation, as attorneys Liptak and Mullenwere disqualified. Cameron’s statement was “With that in mind, Ms. Erbs has no representation, so allthe other motions are continued until the hearing is rescheduled”. The order from this hearing dictates:All motions filed by the Petitioner, Jeffrey P. Erbs, including all additional requests for relief, 2-5, inthe original Motion for Disqualification and the Default Motion also filed February 10, 2010, remain pending to give respondent, Mary Ann Erbs, an allowance of time to acquire replacement counsel. Acopy of this transcript is attached, marked exhibit C. (3.) The Default Motion was presented, but not heard, Feb. 26. This requested relief was first heard ata Temporary Hearing held on Jan.19, 2010, neither the Respondent, nor her attorney Liptak, were present at this hearing. Commissioner Ferg refused to act on this matter on Jan.19, and also on Feb.1,2010 at a 2
Temporary Hearing scheduled by Liptak. This motion’s requested relief is Maintenance inthe amount of $2500.00 per month and that Mary Ann Erbs retain Jeffrey on her company insurance plan and pay all healthcare expenses. Jeffrey has been disabled since November 2007 and has NOINCOME. A copy of this motion is attached, marked exhibit D. (4.) Jeffrey is entitled to justice freely, and without denial, promptly and without delay according toArticle I, Section 9 of the Wisconsin Constitution, Remedy for Wrongs.
Remedy for wrongs.
Every person is entitledto
a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries, or wrongs whichhe
may receive in his person, property, or character; he ought toobtain
 justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it,completely
and without denial, promptly and without delay,conformably
to the laws.
(5.)Judge Cameron is obligated by Wisconsin Statute 757.02 and his mandatory oath of office isrequired to support both the Constitution of the United States and Wisconsin. Remedy for Wrongs isArticle I, Section 9 of the Wisconsin Constitution. (6.) Both 757.025 and SCR 70.36 specify 90 days as the maximum, without granted exception, time for a judge to make a decision. As of June 27, 2010, it has been 121 days since Feb. 26, 2010, 31 days pastthe 90 day limit.. SCR 70.36 also requires the judge to certify, within 5 days of the expiration of the 90day period, if he is unable to make the decision and also to notify in writing the chief judge of the judicial administrative district in which the matter is pending. As of June 27, 2010, WCCA did not listany certification by either Ferg or Cameron. Copy of 2010FA11 WCCA attached, exhibit E 
70.36 Judges' and circuit court commissioners’certification
of status of pending cases.
(1)(a) Every judge of acircuit
court shall decide each matter submitted for decision within 90days
of the date on which the matter is submitted to the judge in finalform, exclusive of the time the judge has been actually disabled bysickness. If a judge is unable to do so, within 5 days of the expirationof 
the 90-day period the judge shall so certify in the record of thematter 
and notify in writing the chief judge of the judicialadministrative
district in which the matter is pending, and the period isthereupon
extended for one additional period of 90 days. Thissubsection
applies to an assigned reserve judge.
 (7.) Wisconsin SCR 60.04 (1) (a) &(b) require a judge to hear and decide matters assigned to the judgeand to be faithful to the law and maintain competence in it. SCR 60.04(1)(e) also requires a judge to perform his duties without bias or prejudice, Jeffrey is disabled and without income but has beendenied maintenance by both Judge Cameron and Commissioner Ferg. Maintenance is a very normalaction in all family courts, why not this one?? SCR rules are all laws as are the state statutes,apparently there is some review needed in several areas of our Wisconsin Laws. 
60.04 A judge shall perform the duties of judicial officeimpartially
and diligently.
The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's
other activities. The judge's judicial duties include all theduties
of the judge's office prescribed by law.(1) In the performance of the duties under this section, thefollowing
apply to adjudicative responsibilities:(a) A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge,except
those in which recusal is required under sub. (4) or disqualification
is required under section 757.19 of the statutes andexcept
when judge substitution is requested and granted.(b) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional
competence in it. A judge may not be swayed by partisaninterests, public clamor or fear of criticism.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->