STATE OF WISCONSIN
COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Motion (request) to Supplement
Appeal No. 2010AP001050
Court Case No. 09 CF 48
KENNETH LEROY DRIESSEN
First off as a recently
disenfranchised citizen my confidence in the system is waning; regardless I feel it does not hurt to ask for things a citizen
believes they may have a right to. Secondly, please let me know by August 17th 2010 if this motion is to be denied on the
grounds of lack of timeliness so I can finish and submit my Brief on time without benefit of the desired requests in this
Now, it has come
to my attention that in the appeal process of this case, the Circuit Court and Court Reporter Staff seem to be applying civil
rules of procedure to a criminal matter and I believe this is depriving me of my 1st Amendment right to petition clause
and my 6th and 14th Amendment public trial and due process clause rights clauses, by holding the entire transcript
of the case hostage in lieu of a $1000 down payment, see copy of letter attached. Also
within the State of Wisconsin Constitution under Article 1 §7 I have a right to be heard by myself. I have claimed
indigence, which should really not matter in a criminal case in regards to the right to transcripts. I should not have been
forced to give up all reference to the proceedings. In fact evidence gathered by me in the form of a digital audio recording
of sworn testimony of a state during the October 2, 2009 evidentiary hearing contains statements that, when compared to Tropper
Lewis's own official report (30-2, 30-3), may very well be considered perjury and false statements which from my point of
view if a crime against me that took place in front of a judge that was fully acquiescent to such acts on the part of the
state agent. The following statutes lead me to believe that I should not have been forced to give up access to the transcripts
of the circuit court hearings:
In the transcripts there is information not available or allowable to me by any other means
which is "essential to an understanding of the issues raised" the probable cause and due process portion of this case, see
§809.19(2) also by not allowing free access to the transcripts the Appeals Court, by case law precedence could rule that the
un-available transcripts supported the Circuit Court Ruling, see Fiumefreddo
v. Mclean, 174 Wis. 2d 10, 496 N. W. 2d 226 (Ct. App. 1993) which would be quite the catch 22 travesty of justice.
§ 973.08(2)The transcript of any portion of the proceedings relating to the prisoner's
sentencing shall be filed at the institution within 120 days from the date sentence is imposed.
§973.08(3) The transcript of all other testimony and proceedings upon order of a court
shall be delivered to a prisoner within 120 days of his or her request.
§ 967.06 - ANNOT - The county must provide free transcripts to the state public defender.
State v. Dresel, 136 Wis. 2d 461, 401 N.W.2d 855 (Ct. App. 1987).
967.06 - ANNOT- A public defender appointed
as postconviction counsel is entitled to all court records including the presentence investigation report; access may not
be restricted under s. 972.15 (4). Oliver v. Goulee, 179 Wis. 2d 376, 507 N.W.2d 145 (Ct. App. 1993).
It is up to the courts but instead of going back and trying to get the transcripts made
available to me at this late date; I would be happy if the digital audio record I recorded of Trooper Lewis's October 2, 2009
Evidentiary Hearing testimony were allowed to be added to the record. This can be compared to her report, which is 30-2 and
30-3 of the record. A copy of the recording of that testimony can be heard here: http://www.blip.tv/file/3986725/ and I will
gladly supply a CD with it, and any of the various other audiovisual information that may be accepted by the court, to all
parties for the record. More instances occurred during the hearings that I consider violations of my due process but in interest
of keeping things a bit simpler, I think one example of what this defendant considers false testimony allowed in the Circuit
Court may be enough to convince the Honorable Appeals Court Justices that my due process rights were in fact violated during
the Circuit Court hearing of this case. Below is an unofficial transcript of the contents of the audio recording of the Trooper's
October 2, 2009 testimony, which I request to be added to the record:
Driessen: and then uh also then once the vehicle was stopped
there was uh, mu a search made of my person and can you tell me what happened? During the time after the vehicle was stopped?
Lewis: I Belie..I don't believe that you were searched, I guess I don’t, I don't understand
when you claim you were searched. I, I don't know what you are talking about.
Driessen: Okay uh it says on your report here that um Deputy
Knapp had removed a small container from Mr. Driessen's pants pocket. The Container appeared to contain marijuana.
Lewis: I believe, believe that I thought he had removed it,
uh something from your pocket but I, I'm mistaken. I was told later that uh you had removed it.
Driessen: Oh, okay so uh so that's so you were told later that,
but then in your words why did it say these words on here that um you said that Mr. Knapp removed it so.
Lewis: Mr. Driessen I wrote my report uh the next day or after
that the day after I believe on Sunday and I had not conferred with Deputy Knapp in regards to his report or anything like
that. I assumed that he had removed it but if I had been told later that uh you were the one that pulled thee object out of
your pocket when he asked you what it was that was in your pocket.
Driessen: So whether or not I removed the thing from my pocket
or Deputy Knapp removed it you can't really say? Ya can…you can't, you don't know then, so you were there you're a witness
and you wrote this (09-8590 report), but you really can't say?
Lewis: I know that you kept putting you hands in your pockets
and he kept telling you to remove it whether you removed it when you had your hands in back and forth, I don't know…..
…..Driessen: So in your uh squad car or your state trooper
vehicle uh what kind of equipment do you have? Do you have any video survey, video surveillance equipment in there?
Lewis: I have a video camera yes.
Driessen: and uh stopped this incident did you bother to turn
the video camera on?
Lewis: The way that our cameras work is they automatically
come on with the lights, the emergency lights. It did come on but because I was behind Deputy Knapp's vehicle I turned it
off because all I'd get was glare from his um, overhead lights, so it was not.
In addition to the
above request: Exhibit 3, of Motion to Suppress, Record Item number 25 (1-14), is missing from the record. Exhibit 3 is an
Audio Visual CD, (misnamed a DVD in the Court Record Entries) only playable on a PC or Mac not a DVD player used with a television.
The CD contained Windows Media Video files (.wmv) recordings of the incident scene, a comparative muffler loudness video,
and a breath alcohol experiment illustrating Driessen's balance and coherence at a .137 BAC.
From the Criminal Court Record, Court Record Entries, 10-02-2009 (kg) Evidentiary Hearing it is evident that a DVD
(audio visual CD) is discussed in the court on that date. I would like to have
this evidence re-admitted to the record and will gladly supply it. A copy of page 4 of the Criminal Court Record Entries condensed
record paraphrased by the official court reporter is attached to this motion for convenience.
A second DVD was submitted
that was in fact a DVD for use in a DVD player so the jury could see only the incident scene portion of the first CD that
the judge would allow along with newly gathered evidence being the Sheriff's Radio Dispatch Recording (exhibit 7) and a video
recording of an incident that happened on August 8, 2008 (exhibit 6) that were not allowed by the judge, but the video of
the incident scene was allowed in front of the jury. So the comparative muffler
loudness video and the breath alcohol experiment were presented as evidence in the Circuit Court in the Evidentiary Hearing
and are not presently in the Record.
All of the video/audio evidence submitted including the said Evidentiary hearing audio
can he heard and viewed on the internet at this address: http://www.blip.tv/search?q=wiscokidd
A claim of unconstitutionality
was filed and is within the Record as Item Number 16 (1-2). It was not until
after I was in jail that I realized that many people had marijuana charges dismissed and that Sawyer County actually does
regularly issue §59.54(25) City Ordinance Violations to defendants for possession of marijuana rather than criminal charges.
So I had to wait until after I got out of jail to go to the public library and look through newspapers to find such cases. Appellant Driessen requests that new information concerning evidence of the arbitrary
nature of punishment for marijuana THC possession in Sawyer County in the form of News Paper Court clippings (copy attached)
be allowed into the record as new evidence as provided for in §974.02 Annotations, see: State v. Armstrong, 2005 WI 119, 283 Wis. 2d 639, 700 N.W.2d 98, 01-2789 and State v. Edmunds, 2008 WI App 33, 308 Wis. 2d 374, 746 N.W.2d
1.) I'm requesting permission to include the above mentioned Trooper Lewis October 2,2009 audio recording in my
Brief Appendix or in the official record. If this is not granted I am then requesting that all the transcripts of this case
be made available (viewable) to me free of charge.
2.) I request that I be allowed to supply the Courts with a computer viewable audiovisual CD that includes all
of the contents previously submitted for the record, or at least that such a CD be accepted into my Appellant's Brief Appendix.
3.) I request that the copy of various news paper clippings from the Sawyer County Record, Circuit Court section
(copy attached) be allowed into the Appendix of my Brief.
Date:_August 11, 2010
Ken Driessen Pro Se
12022 N. Co. Rd. T
Hayward WI 54843