Thursday, October 5, 2023



Racine County Court case # 20PR15

Judge Kristen Cafferty and Faye Flancher allowed a known false affiadavit to stand before thier court with impunity.   The false affidavit was filed into the court record by the law firm of Godin, Geraghty, Puntillo & Camilli of Kenosha Wi.

At the time of the filing, the law firm Godin, Geraghty, Puntillo & Camilli knew or should have known the affidavit was false and had no evidentiary support at the time of filing.

The two judges shattered a legal cornerstone of law by allowing a known false affidavit to stand into thier court record unpunished.

An affidavit is a written confirmation by oath or confirmation for use as evidence in court.  Oaths are a fundamental tenet of law.

A cornerstone of law involves veracity, and affidavits are relied upon to provide evidence to the court.

Judge Flancher had the audacity to state to the litigant in the court record “pages 4 through 6 actually then are allegations again that Gary lied in his affidavit about his military service. Honestly, at this point, it doesn’t matter if he did or not.”

“ It doesn’t matter if he did or did not”

Judge Faye Flancher just declared veracity doesn’t matter in court.



Wednesday, February 11, 2015

RCCC has received numerous comments about it's content.
We really wish you would use the comment section of this blog instead of hiding behind emails.  

Many thought that the DSAT shot on Brian Whathisname was offensive.  Too bad, It was a joke! what was offensive was the incompetent, malicious, selective prosecution of bullshit zoning ordininaces because a nosey neighbor didn't like bees.

And finally, many were quick to illuminate the fine record of Judge Wayne Marik.  Well, we agree with that assessment.
Judge Wayne Marik has performed well for the community.

Judge Wayne Marik separated himself from the likes of Nieskes, Ptacek and Barry, avoiding the appearance of being a puppet, or partial to government intervention, or a revenue whore, like many of Racine's other judges.

                       So we offer you the following, 

The Pastor's
The Pastor entered
his donkey in a race and it won.  The Pastor was so pleased
with the donkey that he entered it in the race again and it won
The local paper

The Bishop was so
upset with this kind of
publicity that he
ordered the Pastor not to enter
the donkey in
another race.
The next day the
local paper headline read:

This was too much
for the Bishop so he
ordered the Pastor to
get rid of the donkey.
The Pastor decided
to give it to a Nun in a
The local paper,
hearing of the news, posted
the following headline
the next day:


The Bishop

He informed the
Nun that she would have to
get rid of the donkey
so she sold it to a farmer for $10.
The next day the
paper read:

FOR $10.
This was too much
for the Bishop so he
ordered the Nun to buy
back the donkey and
lead it to the plains where it could run
The next day the
headlines read:

The Bishop was
buried the next day.
The moral of the
story is... being concerned about public opinion can bring you much
grief and misery
Remember it is only a blog
Move on!

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Case # 2014FO000446

Kangaroo Court ?
You Decide !

              Was Judge Wayne Marik caught on his "B" game ?

It appears so during a trial involving bees, alleged zoning violations, and a county summons and complaint that lacked a complainant's signature.

Below is a copy of the defective summons and complaint issued to bee keeper Debi Fuller. The summons and complaint alleges wetland zoning violations, Ordinance 20-11

In the lower right hand corner of the box is where a signature is required to prosecute a forfeiture case. An exception to this requirement could have been achieved if a Scrivener Error Affidavit was provide to the defendant and court.

Without an authorized signature and date,  the summons and complaint (ticket) is defective and cannot be used in court. 

It is RCCC's position that there is and was no jurisdiction in the Racine County Circuit Court system when trial occurred on 2-04-2015.  It seems Judge Wayne Marik unwittingly conducted a "mock" trial with no legal authority.

For the "MOCK" record, Judge Wayne Marik ruled the case  


Monday, February 9, 2015

COUNTY vs. Debi L. Fuller-Slowey
Case # 2014FO000446
On 2-09-2015, we requested from the clerk of courts a copy of the summons and complaint that is filed into court records.  To our amazement, the summons and complaint has no complainant's signature.

Yes folks, the uniform summons and complaint used to prosecute Debi L. Fuller-Slowey in court is unsigned and not dated as to when the complaint was issued.

From the Wisconsin Defense Counsel:

Authenticated Unsigned Copy of Summons Sufficient
By Luke Kingree, Peterson Johnson & Murray, Madison
Feb 17, 2012   The plaintiffs’ attorney filed a signed copy of a summons and complaint with the circuit court to commence the action, and at the same time had several unsigned copies of the summons and complaint authenticated by the circuit court. One of those unsigned copies was then served upon the defendant. The defendant moved for dismissal, arguing that service of an unsigned, but authenticated, summons and complaint was a fundamental defect that deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs asserted that the defect was merely technical, as a signed copy had been filed with the court and the unsigned authenticated copy served upon the defendant gave the defendant appropriate notice of the claim. The circuit court denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendant sought an interlocutory appeal with the court of appeals.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding that service of an unsigned authenticated copy of the summons and complaint upon the defendant is valid service, if the copy of the summons and complaint on file with the court is signed. The court noted that the purpose of authentication - to notify a defendant that a real lawsuit is pending against it - is satisfied in such a situation.
Mahoney v. Menard, Inc., 2011 WI App 128 (2010AP1637) Court of Appeals opinion

The court records we received from the clerk of courts does not bear a signature of a complainant.

According to the above Wisconsin Defense Counsel article;
The Racine County Circuit Court lacks jurisdiction without a signature, yet Racine County Circuit Court Judge Wayne Marik held trial.

The rule of law is indeed dead in Racine County.

This case continues to become more bizarre every day we investigate.

CASE # 2013CF001246

Trial Begins

With the following opening statement by Prosecuting Attorney Rebecca Sommers, trial started.

“The evidence will show the defendant has an obsession with fire".

Twelve jurors were selected today for the trial of Nicholas Sheen, and Judge Micheal Piontec got down to the business of conducting a trial.

Nicholas Sheen is facing a total of  8 counts, including Arson of Buildings, first degree recklessly endangering safety and bail jumping.

Noah Wishau, prosecuting Attorney appeared for the State, and Nu Tran appeared for the defense.

Witnesses began testimony for the State today, including homeowner/victim Karen Badtke and Franklin Lockwood - Fire Chief of the St. Francis Fire Department and a member of the Racine County Arson Task Force.

Union Grove homeowner/victim Karen Badtke stated on the night of the fires, she was awoken by her smoke detectors, gathered enough clothes to go outside and then called 911 (at approximately 3:17 am). While outside, another fire had started near kiddy corner of the back of her house. 
When questioned by investigators of who may have had a reason to set her house on fire, her answer was Nicholas Sheen. When questioned of the motive, Karen Badtke stated that Nichols Sheen was a past tenant of the two properties and had been evicted.

Nu Tran engaged an active cross examination of the homeowner/witness, including asking any past histories of contact with Mr. Sheen after eviction. Karen Badtke stated there were contacts, but indicated no threats or adverse conversations occurred between the two after eviction.
Nu Tran continued cross examination with Chief Lockwood. Asking about the testing of the use of accelerants, Chief Lockwood stated in cross examination that he did not test for accelerants as there was enough combustible material present to start a fire.

Because of the close proximity of two simultaneous fires in Union Grove, Members of the Racine County Arson Task Force were requested to determine the origin and cause of the fires.

As a member of the Arson Task Force, St. Francis Fire Chief Franklin Lockwood investigated the fire in the homeowner/victim house. The Chief stated in court that the areas of origin of the fires started with an open flame and with human intervention. 

Trial was recessed at 3:30 pm

Tomorrow, trial will continue with more witnesses and expert testimony.

Saturday, February 7, 2015

County of Racine Vs. Debi L Fuller-Slowey 
Case # 2014FO000446
and how Debi may get stung again,
But not by the bees!

You know of the song
about the birds and the bees

Here is Racine's version;
Let me tell you about the Turds and the Bees
and the lawyers and their Fees.......... 

  Hear no Evil...............See no Evil...............Speak no Evil...
That's not how things are done in
 Racine County Corporation Counsel

Susana Kim- Racine County Corporation Counsel
Kim represented the county during trial
Is this the face of Resident Evil?
an instrument of destruction and a pretty
false facade of
Racine County Corporation Counsel 
Michael Lanzdorf's 
evil ways?

In RCCC eyes,
this question begs to be asked.
Is there collusion between 
Racine County Corporation Counsel 
Attorney Brett Ekes of Burlington?

Defendant's Attorney Brett Ekes failed to motion the court for dismissal with prejudice.

This may not seem like a big deal until you hear what Brett Ekes stated to Racine County Corporation Counsel after the verdict.

Brett Ekes informed Corporation Counsel after the trial that they could refile charges against the defendant Debi L. Fuller.


Yes Folks, Attorney Brett Ekes informed Corporation Counsel after the not guilty verdict was read by Judge Wayne Marik that corporation counsel could reissue charges against Debi Fuller.

Does that sound like an Attorney that has his client's best interest at heart, or himself?

No wonder he didn't ask for a dismissal with prejudice!

This further begs the questions of why Defense Attorney Brett Ekes didn't file any motions to the court for dismissal before trial occurred.

Folks, we can't make this shit up, it's just too bizarre for our minds.

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

County of Racine vs. Debi L Fuller-Slowey
Racine County Case # 2014FO000446
The Trial :  2-4-2015 

This case was brought by the County of Racine against Debi L Fuller-Slowey. The case involved bee hives, an alleged violation of Statute 20-11, a wetland zoning violation.

Before we illuminate the trial, we are going to provide you with some background information of:
The TOWN AND COUNTY REVENUE WHORES of Dover and Racine County.

This case was really about CONTROL and POWER.

The defendant has had bees on her property for several years, including hives, all without incident.
A nosey neighbor did not like the hives, so the neighbor complained about the hives to the town.

view of defendant's neighborhood

The Town of Dover chairman Thomas Lembcke did not think highly of the hives, so the town contacted the County to take action against the defendant.

The County of Racine did not like the hives either, so the County of Racine sent Racine County Sheriff Revenue Whore Deputy Dawg to issue the defendant a ticket, a civil ordinance violation in the amount of $367.00 dollars.

The alleged violation was having bee hives on her property.  There were many problems for the prosecution presenting their case, including the zoning ordinance didn’t prohibit bee hives.

Important to note, there had not been any reported incidents involving the bee hive(s), only the complaint by a nosey neighbor that didn’t like the bees.

With the issued demand for payment by the County in the amount of $367 dollars(civil forfeiture charge),
the defendant demanded a trial.

During the trial, exhibits were entered into the court records by both prosecution and defense.

Prosecution called witness Brian Jensen to the stand,
Brian Jensen wasn't a compelling witness.
Court officials referred to Brian Jensen, DSAT.
We wondered what the meaning of DSAT was, so we Googled DSAT, here is what we found.

Down Syndrome Association of Tulsa

Sounds about right!

The prosecution's witness was so poor, and the case so weak that it couldn't convince the judge that a violation occurred. 

In fact the case was so baseless, that it is RCC’s position that the prosecution acted maliciously against the defendant.

The Statute is so vague that only a dumbass attorney would attempt to prosecute this statute.

Here is the Statute verbatim:
Sec. 20-11. - Violations.
It shall be unlawful to construct, develop or use any structure, or develop or use any land, water or air in violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance or order of the planning and development committee or board of adjustment. In case of any violation, the board of supervisors, the corporation counsel, the director of planning and development, the manager of code administration, the planning and development committee, any municipality, or any owner of real estate within the district affected who would be specifically damaged by such violation may institute appropriate legal action or proceedings to enjoin a violation of this chapter, or seek abatement or removal. In addition, those actions commenced on behalf of the county may seek a forfeiture or penalty as outlined herein.
Every structure, fill or development placed or maintained on floodlands in violation of this chapter is a public nuisance; and this creation thereof may be enjoined and maintenance thereof may be abated by an action instituted by the county or any citizen who lives in or within five hundred (500) feet of the floodland.
Unless there is clear evidence that a parcel is being rented or used by someone other than the owner, said owner remains responsible for compliance with this chapter.
(Code 1975, § 7.0210; Ord. No. 91-130, § 7.0210, 11-5-91; Ord. No. 93-9, 5-11-93)
SAY WHAT? Read the above statute again.
What idiot wrote this vague and ambiguous statute? Worse yet, what IDIOTS would attempt to prosecute such nonsense? 
Only control freaks and revenue whores would attempt such an act.

WE are still shaking our heads in disbelief that the County of Racine would resort to this statute to remove the beehives.   It appears abuse of Prosecutorial discretion is evident in this case.

That’s right - ABUSE OF POWER-Selective Prosecution

According to Statute 20-11, all homes, dwellings and structures in this wetland neighborhood area violate this bizarre and vague statute. So does the hundreds of garages, sheds, trailers, boats, dog houses and such also violate this statute. According to this statute, even homes built with all required permits are in violation of the wording of this statute. 

We don't understand why Defense Attorney Brett Ekes of Burlington didn't ask for a dismissal with prejudice, with sanctions for the defendant. Does the term "you get what you negotiate" ring a bell?   

Racine County Corporation Counsel should have been admonished by Judge Wayne Marik for this selective, malicious act against the defendant.

At the end of trial, Judge Wayne Marik dismissed the case against Debi L. Fuller-Slowey.

Judge Wayne Marik could have asserted his independence from the other county branches of government on his own, but he choose not to. 

Judge Wayne Marik should have stepped up to the plate, admonished the prosecution for bringing such nonsense in front of his court, and dismissed this case with prejudice.

Instead, Judge Wayne Marik pussyfooted.