Part 17B: Petition For John Doe Investigation

(SECTION 1 – BEMBENEK)

      Wisconsin Statute 968.26(2)(am) states, in part, “If a person who is not a district attorney complains to a judge that he or she has reason to believe that a crime has been committed within the judge's jurisdiction, the judge shall refer the complaint to the district attorney, …..” (Note - If a John Doe complaint alleges all the elements of a criminal offense, the judge must refer it to the district attorney for investigation.)

      On October 19, 2010, Investigative Consultant Ira Robins traveled to Madison, Wisconsin and filed a Petition and Complaint for a John Doe Investigation. His Petition alleged that Department of Justice Personnel had committed various crimes in their prosecution of Laurie Bembenek, former Green Bay Detective John Maloney, and former Winnebago District Attorney Joe Paulus. Those alleged crimes included; conspiracy: withholding evidence; tampering with evidence; and the related cover-up of those crimes. The Preamble and Section 1 of Robins’ Petition are attached. (Exhibit 17-B-1). On October 21, 2010, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Richard G. Niess referred Robins’ Petition and Complaint to District Attorney Ismael R. Ozanne. (Exhibit 17-B-2).

      Note – The recent attempted cover-up by former Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen and the Department of Justice, concerning the illegal predatory activities of former Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz are glaring evidence of a Criminal Justice System that is out of control. On October 19, 2010 Robins also hand delivered a copy of his Petition and Complaint to Doyle, himself the former Attorney General, who apparently took absolutely no action. (Exhibit 17-B-3).

Exhibit 17-B-1

 

Exhibit 17-B-2

 

Exhibit 17-B-3

PART 17-C  COMING SOON

PETITION FOR JOHN DOE INVESTIGATION

(SECTIONS 2 & 3  – Maloney & Paulus)

Part 17A: Enough is Enough!

            On August 3, 2008, Investigative Consultant Ira Robins hand delivered a letter (Exhibit 17-A-1) to Wisconsin Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen citing specific criminal acts committed by Department of Justice personnel.  That letter notified Van Hollen of three separate, long running cases, including Laurie Bembenek, John Maloney, and former Winnebago County District Attorney Joe Paulus, where state officials had committed acts of Misconduct in Public Office by gaining a dishonest advantage over another (Exhibit 17-A-2).  Robins notified Van Hollen that his subordinates had placed a false document in a State Crime Laboratory homicide file, temporarily changed State protocols to obtain false expert testimony, and diminished the credibility of the State Crime Laboratory.  Robins attached the necessary proof to his letter.  Robins also advised Van Hollen of some other additional crimes and ethical violations he had uncovered in Bembenek’s case, the John Maloney case, and in the Former Winnebago County District Attorney Joe Paulus case.  Robins provided all of the proof and information necessary to show that Department of Justice officials conspired to deliberately interfere with the administration of justice, deliberately withheld evidence from defendants that they were required by law to disclose, and covered up additional crimes of Mr. Paulus.  Robins told Van Hollen  “If you are interested in rooting out the corruption that has become entrenched in the WDOJ and, to the degree possible, righting the wrongs perpetrated in the name of justice, I ask that you have a member of your staff that you trust implicitly contact me.”

            On August 11, 2008, Robins received a response (Exhibit 17-A-3) to his August 3, 2008 letter from Gregory Weber, Director of the Wisconsin Department of Justice Criminal Appeals Unit, stating, in part “Attorney General Van Hollen has asked me to respond to your August 3, 2008 letter.”  In Weber’s letter, he made demeaning statements about Robins, refused to respond to the specific allegations, and attempted to put the blame for the criminal conduct of the Department of Justice on others.  He sent copies of his letter, which obviously attempted to cover-up the truth and stop Robins’ efforts to seek justice, to Van Hollen, and other DOJ Administrators, Keven C. Potter, Gary Hamlin, and Michael G. Myscewski.  His “business as usual” letter clearly shows the willingness of the Department of Justice to commit crimes and ethical violation in order to cover-up the truth and the willingness of the Attorney General to cover-up those crimes and ethical violations.  That conduct must not be condoned or tolerated by anyone.

Exhibit 17-A-1

 

 

 

Exhibit 17-A-2

 

MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE

Whether by act of commission or omission, in the officer’s or employee’s capacity as such officer or employee exercises a discretionary power in a manner inconsistent with the duties of the officer’s or employee’s office or employment or the rights of others with the intent to obtain a dishonest advantage for the officer or employee or another;….  Class I Felony  946.12 (3)

 Exhibit 17-A-3

PART 17-B COMING SOON

PETITION FOR JOHN DOE INVESTIGATION

(SECTION 1 – BEMBENEK}

Please stay tuned for large posting early next week.

Part 16: The State Will Do Anything To Win!

On October 19, 2010, Investigative Consultant Ira Robins filed a Petition and Complaint seeking a John Doe Judicial Investigation in Dane County.  The following excerpt contains information concerning the criminal acts committed by the State Department of Justice, including Crime Laboratory Personnel and representatives of the Attorney General’s Office:

“Additionally, it provides proof that the same supervisor temporarily changed a state protocol in order to obtain false and misleading opinions from State experts regarding their examination and re-testing of an alleged murder weapon.  In essence, official reports were deliberately created to mislead the court.  At least 2 assistant attorney generals participated in the cover-up of these crimes.

Although this case has gone on for almost three decades, the State Crime laboratory and the Attorney General’s Office, acting under the color of law, have continued to obstruct justice during recent court ordered DNA and ballistics testing. 

Michael J. Camp, Supervisor of the Milwaukee Regional Crime Laboratory, illegally placed a false document in the homicide file to verify the false representation of the district attorney in the recent DNA hearings. 

Additionally, he obtained permission from John Nielson, Crime Laboratory Supervisor, who had received permission from the Director of the State Crime Laboratory to temporarily change official State protocols in order to confuse the court.  The official State protocol clearly states that two Crime Laboratory ballistics experts are required to conduct a ballistics examination and verify the findings of a defense expert.  Since Bembenek’s expert’s opinion was that the murder bullet had not been fired from the alleged murder weapon, written State policy required both state experts to verify that fact.

 In this case, and only this case, and authorized by a temporary change of State protocol, only one State expert re-examined the bullet removed in comparison with the alleged murder weapon.  That expert was then disallowed by State protocol from agreeing with the opinion of “no match” by Bembenek’s expert as he would have had to do without the temporary change.  After he gave his official opinion of “inconclusive” the original protocol was reinstated.  An independent ballistics examiner, not a State employee, also gave the same opinion of “inconclusive” but the only way that the “no match” opinion could be verified was by two State ballistics experts.  State employees had deliberately “rigged” the process to confuse the court and continue to cover-up the truth.  This information was first disclosed to Bembenek on July 28, 2005during the Deposition of Monte Lutz, the original state ballistics expert.  Assistant Attorney Generals Nadim Sahar and Gregory M. Weber aided the State employees with the cover-up.  The aforementioned acts by Attorney Sahar was present at the Lutz deposition and the facts have been previously reported, in writing, to Attorney Weber, Director of the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s Criminal Appeals Unit.  This criminal conduct was specifically designed to continue the cover-up that has denied Bembenek justice for years and calls into question the credibility of the Attorney General’s Office and the State Crime Laboratory involving every case it handles.   ALL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ACTS CONSTITUTE CONSPIRACY AND MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE.”

Exhibit 16-1 

 

Part 15: What Bullet Was Really Tested?

     On December 21, 1981, two Milwaukee Detectives, acting pursuant to court order, traveled to Minneapolis, Minnesota, and allegedly delivered the bullet removed from Christine Schultz’s body along with Elfred’s off-duty gun for ballistics re-testing by Bembenek’s experts. (Exhibit 15-1) Those experts reported a match between the two items they had tested.  But, what did they actually test and were they tricked into providing false opinions.

     In December 2002, Ballistics Experts Herbert Leon MacDonell and Stanton O. Berg wrote in e-mails that the bullet they had examined in 1981, and matched to Schultz’s off-duty gun, had the markings “N ML 6-18-81” (Exhibit 15-2). Those are the only markings they described. Since it is accepted practice for ballistics experts to completely describe all markings on each/every item they inspect, test, or re-test, they either overlooked, or failed to document, very important markings on the bullet actually removed from Christine. 

     During the autopsy, Dr. Elaine A. Samuels, Associate Medical Examiner for Milwaukee County, removed the bullet from Christine and wrote two sets of initials on the base.  She placed the initials CJS for Christine J. Schultz and EAS for herself. (Exhibit 15-3) But suspiciously, Experts Berg and MacDonell did not have that information in their notes. 

     In 2005, during the deposition testimony of Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Personnel, startling new information was revealed. State records do not have the bullet removed from Schultz’s body ever leaving the Crime Lab in December 1981. But what bullet was actually taken to Minnesota, tested and compared by the two experts. That’s anyone’s guess.

Exhibit 15-1

Exhibit 15-2

Exhibit 15-3

Part 14: Which Gun Was It?

     On May 28, 1981, Christine J. Schultz was murdered by a single gunshot fired from a gun that was in direct contact with her back.  That shot caused an imprint on her back similar to a hot iron used on a “branded” cow. (Center photo of Exhibit 14 -1) At Laurie Bembenek’s trial, the prosecutor claimed that Detective Elfred Schultz’s off-duty gun (Top photo of Exhibit 14 – 1) was the murder weapon.  Since then, five internationally recognized expert pathologists have determined that Schultz’s off-duty did not make the murder wound, but that the wound had more likely been caused by a weapon such as his on-duty gun (Bottom photo of Exhibit 14 – 1).  Part 7 of this blogspot has already disclosed that unexplained Type “A” blood was found on Schultz’s on-duty gun and that Christine Schultz had Type “A” blood.

     In rebuttal to the five defense pathology experts, Milwaukee County Deputy District Attorney Robert D. Donohoo, obtained a report from a pathologist in Texas who has been reported to have created some “junk science” reports on other unrelated cases.  That report claimed that Schultz’s off-duty gun had made the murder wound on Christine.  However, Donohoo had never given his pathologist the photographs shown in Exhibit 14.  Instead his report reveals that Donohoo only gave him a “similar” gun and not even the murder weapon that the State had in its own custody. 

     Please view Exhibit 14 and decide for yourself which gun caused the wound in Christine Schultz’s back.

Exhibit 14-1

Part 13: Is The Crime Lab Corrupt?

     In 2002 Wisconsin enacted a cutting edge DNA law which was specifically put in place to assist with criminal prosecutions and to exonerate the innocent. Knowing there was undisclosed evidence of sexual assault, Laurie Bembenek immediately petitioned the court for DNA testing and review of the evidence related to the Christine Schultz Homicide. During that testing procedure it became obvious that the State no longer possessed the test fired bullets that its experts had used to connect the slug removed from the Christine’s body to Elfred Schultz’s off-duty gun. After delaying that disclosure for almost a year and a half, Assistant Milwaukee County District Attorney Mark Williams finally claimed that those test fired bullets were destroyed on September 26, 1986, by a flood that had allegedly occurred at the Regional Crime Laboratory. 

     In support of this false story of the evidence destruction at the crime lab, Williams presented to the DNA court a crime lab document which stated:

ATTENTION!

THIS FILE HAS BEEN WATER DAMAGED FROM A 

FLOOD IN THE STORAGE AREA SEPT. 28,1986.

(Exhibit 13-1)

      Investigative Consultant Ira Robins has now produced a portion of the July 28, 2005 deposition of Michael J. Camp, Supervisor of the Milwaukee Regional Crime Laboratory, wherein he admitted that he placed that false document in the homicide file.   

(Exhibit 13-2)

             More in Part 15