WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT 3

____________________________________________________________

STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                                                                                                                                                   

            Plaintiff-Respondent,                                                               

                                                                                   Motion for

                                                                              Reconsideration

                                                                                      §809.64    

V.                                                                                                     and

                                                                              Motion/Petition/Plea for         

                                                                       Bypass § 809.60, § 809.61     

                                                                               2010AP1050-CR   

                                                                         Circuit Case No. 09 CF 48

KENNETH LEROY DRIESSEN

           Defendant-Appellant

____________________________________________________________

     Appellant Kenneth Leroy Driessen, pro se, has viewed the Per Curiam at the Court web site from the District III Wisconsin Court of Appeals on March 22, 2011 affirming the Sawyer County Circuit Court Decision. At this point, the reconsideration portion of this Motion is but a formality necessary to clear the way to petition the Supreme Court; just as appealing and expecting a decision from the III District based on fact and law appears to be. This Reconsideration Motion also gives the right honorable District Court a polite chance to reconsider their Per Curiam and not appear as obviously inept and devoid of objective reasoning as the unpublished decision appears to this Appellant at this time.  Unlike the III District Court, I will do my best to refrain from personal attacks, which is easy because they won't even divulge who wrote such deception and outright untruths as noted below with quotations to the record and Per Curiam in support of the Bypass portion of this Motion:   

1. Footnote 1, page 2, of their Per Curiam is deceptive in the least. Driessen's Briefs clearly identify video DVD/CD and photo image submissions, 30(1-4), 66(1) and 67(1) that are part of the record.  Since some of the video evidence submitted to the Circuit Court was lost, misplaced or otherwise not included and a motion to supplement the record was granted of that evidence, since DVDs CDs, portable media, can be accidentally damaged, Driessen did include publicly Internet accessible copies of such video and audio evidence with references to where they are in the record to the best of his knowledge; none of which is referred to in their Per Curiam.  In fact on 8/12/10 some of the missing video recordings submitted as evidence in the Circuit Court were added and supplemented to the record by III District Appeals Court Order and only a recording of the evidentiary hearing itself was denied on that day. The Appeals Court evidently did not review the audio video evidence that was submitted and exhibited in the Circuit Court because no reference was made to it in their decision.

2. Also in reference to Footnote 1, page 2:  As far as the audio recording of the evidentiary hearing is concerned; after the court system, through excessive fees, required of a person found to be indigent by the court for the purpose of fees, denied Driessen access and use of the evidentiary hearing transcripts, which contained an officer's sworn statements that contradicted their written report; Driessen chose to bring a publicly available recording of that hearing to the court's attention because knowingly concealing what Driessen believes to be perjury could quite possibly be an infringement upon the criminal statutes and/or judicial code of ethics, Driessen is doing his best to help the Appeals Court to not be a party to a crime.   

3. The Courts failed to address the fact that information in the complaint states that Driessen's operating privileges were revoked before his vehicle was stopped when in fact he possessed a valid license, a factual narration of occurrences that seems to have lead to his vehicle being pulled over which is in contrast to Per Curiam the Appeals Court, as well as the Circuit Court. Both courts failed to state any case precedence to contradict the constitutional violations and case precedence Driessen cited in his Circuit and Appeals pleadings, concerning false information used as probable cause, see record item 3 page 2 and State v. Mann , 123 Wis. 2d 375, 367 N.W2d 209 (1985) 

4.  Paragraph 2 of the Per Curiam, misrepresents Deputy Brian Knapp's report and does not mention the fact that Driessen's pleadings and the official written report of State Trooper Deb Lewis do not coincide with the Deputy's report, concerning Driessen allegedly driving on the wrong side of the road. Furthermore, until the 4th Amendment is overruled by a higher court and the US and State Constitutions are further Amended to repeal it; replacing decisive narration concerning the conflicting written reports of the 2 officers concerning how Deputy Knapp obtained evidence from a suspect, who was not under arrest at the time obtained, with simply stating the Deputy "found" contraband on one's person, without citing a single case to support their unfounded prejudice, would be laughable on Saturday Night Live but hardly funny when a citizen has been incarcerated, has his right to vote, to bear arms, to drive a motor vehicle and financially support himself at stake in a court of law.  See Appellant Briefs and many cited cases relating to law enforcement agents fabricating reports.

5. Relating to the notion that Driessen did not fulfill his requirement to make the transcripts available to the Appeals court: Driessen claimed indigence, his claim was approved by the Court for filing purposes and not challenged by the State and therefore by statutes clearly cited in his brief on page 23, Driessen has a right to the transcripts without charge. There is a certain time limit to which a statement on transcripts has to be filed or the appellant may be sanctioned with dismissal of his appeal; Driessen noted the statutes in his initial Statement on Transcripts and his amended Statement on Transcripts he also claimed the refusal of the Court Reporter to supply any transcript without a $1000 deposit (Appellant's Brief appendix 27) to be a violation of those statutes and in violation of his 6th Amendment rights several places in his pleadings.  Driessen stated that he only agreed to proceed without transcripts under duress caused by a supposed court of law refusing to abide by statutes he informed them of, see record, 44, 45, 59, 60.   

6. Again in paragraph 7 of the per Curiam, appearing delusional and contrary to reality states, "It is unclear from Driessen's brief whether the court took any action regarding Driessen's filings."  If the circuit court record does not state somewhere within; that Judge Eaton denied Driessen's Motion for Declaratory Judgment in the record, seeking from the Judge an order declaring the state's marijuana THC laws unconstitutional, then why was Driessen ordered to jail for possession of said THC? If we were to go by what is so written in the Per Curiam; then it should be legal for Driessen to use marijuana because the Circuit Court failed to act on or deny his petition, which is clearly and certainly filed in the Circuit Court and in the Record at 27 (1-19), duh. Please don't cut down a pro se litigant's writing calling it "incomprehensible" unless you can do better.

     In conclusion I beg of the Supreme Court to accept this case on it's own accord at this time as it has the statutory authority to do. The marijuana use constitutionality issues and false police report arguments within this Appeal apply to the lives of literally millions of Wisconsinites. Requiring the filing of a notice, petition and possibly another fee on this petitioner's second appeal of this case in order to proceed toward justice is an undo burden, that will only increase my distrust in and strengthen my resolve to petition and publicize the inhumanity of what the system has become.  I am aware of many other cases where it appears that police fabricate reports and evidence throughout the United States and that for the most part judges, coming up through the system through the prosecutorial ranks, defend the police beyond the limits of their oaths and constitutional mandate. I am aware that over 100 million Americans have tried marijuana including Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr. and President Obama. I am afraid that the continued criminalization of such a normal human activity as use of a well-known natural herb could in part lead to a violent revolt.  I'm active in several peace and reconciliation organizations I do not resort to violence or thievery and have never been charged with such crimes.  I am afraid that if certain authorities do not stand up for the constitution and the rights of citizens; that we in the US will see a revolution that I only hope would remain as peaceful as the one in Egypt. Again, I ask the Appeals Court to send this case (certify) to the Wisconsin Supreme Court or for the Supreme Court take jurisdiction of this case upon it's own motion. .

As respectfully as I am capable of submitting at this time,

_____ Dated _March 22, 2011___

Kenneth Leroy Driessen (pro se)

12022 N. Co. Rd. T

Hayward WI 54843

715-634-2801

wiscokidd@hotmail.com