steven avery

5 petitions

Update posted 1 year ago

Petition to Federal Bureau of Investigation

Fair Appeals In Wisconsin For Both Avery & Dassey!

Stand For Criminal Reform and Proper Investigations Now! Demand Immediate Attention, That Fair Wisconsin Appeals of Both Avery and Dassey Be Met Now! Part I In Order For This To Be Achieved Petitioners Herein; Demand, That: 1) Former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager needs to be removed from the Wisconsin Ethics Board; 2) pending the investigation into the search of her September 2003-January 2007 emails regarding Steven Avery; In addition, 3) It is important that both Assistant Attorney General Thomas J. Fallon and Norman Gahn also be removed immediately from handling the 2016 appeals brief of Steven Avery; or any case relating to Brendan Dassey should Wisconsin decide to retry Dassey; whereas: 4) Email correspondence between Fallon and/or Gahn that are directly affiliated with Lautenschlager are believed to exist are those that will produce & reveal unethical and case-sensitive subject matter regarding the "wrongful convictions" of Steven Avery and/or Brendan Dassey; Wherein: In any event, it is here by known publicly to both the citizens and the DOJ of Wisconsin, that the current Attorney General Brad Schimel in or about 1998 did perform in a band called 'Alibi' with former Calumet County Prosecutor, Ken Kratz who was compliantly and willingly involved in the 2007 prosecution trials of both Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey with Kratz serving alongside of both Fallon and Gahn; whereas: the general public (& world watching) supporting Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey demand; that 1) having been affiliated with Kratz prior to the 2007 prosecution trials, in order for AG Schimel to prove he is NOT in bed with any of the aforementioned State Officials to unethically engage in/or enact on a prejudiced decision made against Avery or Dassey in the favor of Lautenschlager, Fallon, Gahn or Kratz named herein; of this said petition thru, by and partied accordingly; that 2) AG Schimel will further recuse himself from any decisions made in the withstanding appeals against Avery or Dassey and by good faith and ethical-standing-order in his office now put aside the matters---provided that a severe conflict of interest has been shown apparent that if remained Schimel may possibly be favorable to Fallon or Gahn due to his past musical affiliation with Kratz, in which it is known of AG Schimel to have used a musical ability and talent via a band to promote his political advancement and agenda; whereas; 3) in any circumstance, the requested search into the emails of Lautenschlager to either/or Gahn, Fallon or Kratz "DO" have a high significant risk of producing and revealing case-sensitive information regarding to the "wrongful convictions" of both Dassey and Avery; In which: 4) it is requested AG Schimel be recused of the duties regarding the appeals of both Avery & Dassey while Lautenschlager is investigated that Avery & Dassey matters are NOT met without further unconstitutional and unjust measures that continue to jeapordize both their freedom; Furthermore: If at any time during the investigation, that emails do and shall arise outside the parties mentioned; herein, it should be diligent and appropriate of the State of Wisconsin; That:1) Any subsequent DOJ party/parties, in addition,directly linked to the emails of the aforementioned officials containing unethical and incriminating evidence regarding the "wrongful convictions" of Dassey and Avery that they are NOT in the least bit to be immuned but to be held punishable for their unjust acts committed; & 2) that Avery and Dassey are released immediately; Furthermore: The State of Wisconsin should know that NOT one DOJ official should ever be held immuned in the corrupt affairs of any "wrongful conviction" participation from this day forth, or any day passed; whereas: We Sign This Petition To Support Fair Appeals Be Given To Both Avery & Dassey Which Can Only Ascertain A Fairness Is Established By Remedy of The Petitioner's Request Being Met.We Demand Justice... Why Is It Important To Investigate Former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager? Part II It is taken upon my civic duty might it help prevent future "wrongful convictions" to bring to your attention a matter that happened under Lautenschlager's former term in office as Attorney General of Wisconsin: Stated; Wherein, The following person mentioned did knowingly and aggressively conduct, mastermind and allow the wrongful convictions of both Wisconsin resident(s), Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey. In which: Peggy Lautenschlager, former Attorney General residing in office for the State of Wisconsin did purposely engage in wrongful misconduct to cause personal harm to these said individuals, who at the time were lawful civilians of the same State she was sworn into office to help protect the freedoms, liberties and constitutions thereof; one of these persons, Dassey, being a minor child of 16-years-of-age; In which: It is to be brought to public knowledge as to solely bear and bring forth the weight of evidence to be shown to the State of Wisconsin that these wrongful convictions were factually conducted and allowed by the aforementioned and contest that Lautenschlager should be held responsible for not only contempt of oath of said public office, but, yet committing acts of multiple felonious crimes against multiple residents of Wisconsin in which great harm was caused purposely: Whereas; On June 3, 2005 Peg Lautenschlager did consciously address the Wisconsin DOJ and all State Law Enforcement agencies; thereof, regarding the assembly of the Criminal Justice Study Commission---a "tunnel vision" prevention program---that first met August 31, 2005; and every month since, to current date;(Replacing The 2003 Avery Task Force) In which: As acting Attorney General, Lautenschlager, did make available the research and following resources thru electronic recording, witness identification, jailhouse snitch, DNA and false confession the techniques to prevent future "wrongful convictions" in Wisconsin as seen in the 1985 Penny Beernsten case against Steven Avery; However: 1) Lautenschlager, on or about November 3, 2005 not only failed to protect Steven Avery from "tunnel vision" when Manitowoc County proceeded with an investigation into the alleged October 31, 2005 disappearance of Teresa Halbach, a Calumet, Wisconsin resident; 2) But subsequently, Lautenschlager in addition allowed Law Enforcement to use the exact techniques the Criminal Justice Study Commission assembled to help Avery and others to be protected of "tunnel vision" to be used against him; Whereas: Initially, because of Avery's 1985 wrongful conviction a $36,000,000 civil suit was filed against Manitowoc County; wherein, as a result it is determined Avery was targeted in a "tunnel vision" case and ultimately charged, convicted and sentenced to Life in Prison while being framed for the death of Halbach; In Which: Manitowoc County being deposed in Avery's civil suit; therein, only weeks before the Discovery of Halbach's Toyota RAV4 found located on Avery's property on November 5, 2005 Manitowoc County had given jurisdiction of the case over to the Wisconsin Department of Criminal Investigations (DCI); Though, it was to appear as if Manitowoc County was no longer involved due to the civil suit,it is determined Lautenschlager allowed Manitowoc to remain a part of the investigation; Whereas: Even Lautenschlager, herself, can be found criminally attached and purposely conducting this investigation from behind the scenes in an "out of sight, out of mind" remedy by linking Lautenschlager directly to Manitowoc Law Enforcement Officers Colborn and Lenk who were to be excused due to the depositions yet were still at the Halbach crime scene; Whereas: by means of "severe conflict" thru DCI Special Agent Deborah Strauss, Lautenschlager should be held accountable for the on-property misconduct; where evidence collected and found by Lenk and Colborn was used to frame Avery; In which: A significant relationship between Lautenschlager, Strauss, Colborn and Lenk can be established to show criminal misconduct of all four who purposely conspired to frame Avery, with Lautenschlager conducting; Whereas: A. Strauss deposed Manitowoc County Law Enforcement Officers in Avery's 1985 wrongful conviction: Andrew Colborn& James Lenk On or About December 10, 2003; B. Strauss worked with Lautenschlager very diligently on her AG report filed December 17, 2003 stating Manitowoc never committed criminal acts against Steven Avery in 1985; C. Strauss was deposed herself weeks before Halbach disappeared by Avery's civil suit attorney Walt Kelly, whom also present were Andrew Colborn and James Lenk; D. On November 5, 2005 after Manitowoc gave jurisdiction to the DCI---Special Agent Strauss appears on the Avery Property on the 5, 6 and 7 of November at the same time in which Colborn and Lenk are present; E. Colborn and Lenk would be present during the times the evidence used against Avery at trial were found; In Which: By Lautenschlager's absence, in the fact Avery's defense claims this was a "tunnel vision" case then there is grave concern that by Lautenschlager NOT stopping the communication at the Halbach Crime Scene between Strauss of herself with Lenk & Colborn that Lautenschlager purposely turned a blind eye; In the event, Lautenschlager claims she excused herself from the investigation because of her December 17, 2003 report protecting Manitowoc of the 1985 "wrongful conviction" of Avery then it should be determined automatic criminal guilt that Lautenschlager removed herself but purposely neglected to make sure DCI Special Agent Deborah Strauss never stepped foot on the property of the Crime Scene, being Strauss was directly involved with Lautenschlager in the filing, depositions and protection of Manitowoc County since the same December 17, 2003 report was filed; In any event, the case remains that Avery was faced with the magnitude of such apparent "tunnel vision" and it was to the Sworn Duty of the Attorney General to investigate the conduct of the officers of every department involved prior to Avery's preliminary hearing, for citizen protection. However, Lautenschlager NOT only signatures but even approves contaminated and inconclusive forensic evidence lab results tested by Sherry Culhane to be admitted into the preliminary hearing; furthermore only failing the Criminal Justice Study Commission's mission statement; In addition: As for the events unfolding in what was Brendan Dassey's fate to come, Avery's 16-year-old nephew at the time is unconstitutionally coerced by DCI Special Agent Thomas Fassbender; Lautenschlager, allowed this electronic recording to arrest Brendan Dassey by never protecting Dassey when the resources and research to prevent these "wrongful convictions" by way of "tunnel vision" were factually available to ensure his protection, and that was dutifully to be done so under the sole responsibility of Attorney General Lautenschlager and her seat on the Criminal Justice Study Commission, sworn to do so as Attorney General. Lautenschlager, personally tried Hmong Native Chai Vang for the murders of 6 deer hunters in September 2005; in which,Lautenschlager claimed she took because she had a personal interest in crimes committed against people.However, Lautenschlager never appeared publicly in Halbach's investigation. Lautenschlager, never once faced the Halbach family on camera to apologize for the loss of their daughter; Whereas, the absence has removed her almost entirely from this case......however, she is still largely behind the scenes. As for motive, to conduct, mastermind and allow both the Wrongful Convictions of Avery and Dassey: 1) Lautenschlager was in charge of the Wisconsin DOJ budget; 2) with a personal feud involving former Governor Doyle, by sabotaging Avery it not only prevented the $36,000,000 civil suit Doyle was endorsing by supporting Avery; but it embarrassed Doyle as revenge. As it is a deep concern, current Attorney General Brad Schimel was once in a band called Alibi with Ken Kratz the prosecutor of both Avery and Dassey. However, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Fallon was the State power, State weight and State influence regarding the make-believe trials and their convictions; Furthermore: Lautenschlager now sits on the new Wisconsin Ethics Board. This petition is being filed for the immediate federal investigation into every email sent to or by Peg Lautenschlager from September 11, 2003-January 2007 by any Law Enforcement Agency or DOJ official regarding Steven Avery. In addition, with the former AG proven to be involved it should be known that in order for current Attorney General Brad Schimel to keep an ethical-minded approach that since he is attached to Ken Kratz to show he is not showing favor to the State---that he: abide by the request of Part I  If you can help in this capacity of this petition... Please help to bring this to light to every media outlet in Wisconsin by signing now to ensure Avery & Dassey are given a fair trial. Thanks

Chad Keller
372 supporters
Update posted 1 year ago

Petition to Wisconsin State House, Wisconsin State Senate, Wisconsin Governor

Please Pass Juvenile Interrogation Protection Law In Wisconsin

My name is Barbara Tadych. My son Brendan Dassey was wrongfully convicted of murder in the state of Wisconsin in 2007, on the basis of a coerced false confession to the rape and murder of Teresa Halbach. Please join with me in asking the state of Wisconsin to enact new legislation in order to prevent other minors from suffering the same fate as my son Brendan. Brendan’s case highlights the need for the enactment of legislation which would require that an attorney be present during a custodial interrogation of a minor. There is no evidence whatsoever to support my son’s conviction, and physical evidence flatly contradicts the statements he gave to his interrogators. At the time he confessed, Brendan was only 16 years old. My son spent his childhood struggling with a learning disability. At the time of his interrogation, he had an IQ of about 70. He had no criminal record, and he was not a trouble maker. Police initially turned their attention to him because he was a defense witness for his uncle, Steven Avery, who at the time had been accused of murdering Halbach. The Netflix series “Making a Murderer” has brought renewed attention to Brendan’s case. The 10-part documentary details the murder of Teresa Halbach and the controversy surrounding her death. Video clips of Brendan’s interrogation, which are presented in the documentary, have left many viewers wondering how Brendan’s confession was ever deemed admissible at trial. The video clips seen in the documentary, focus on Brendan’s final interrogation before his arrest. That interrogation session was the fourth time Brendan had been interrogated without a parent or an attorney present, all within the span of 48 hours. Audio and video recordings show how interrogators quickly brought Brendan under their control. Video footage shows that Brendan was willing to go along with any story line they suggested. Working to build a narrative that Brendan was with his uncle Steven at the time of the murder, investigators told Brendan that Avery had done something to the victim’s head, and asked him what it was. Brendan responded that Steven had cut her hair. No matter how many times the interrogators asked what else Steven had done to the victim’s head, they drew a blank from Brendan. Finally, they became frustrated and told Brendan that Halbach had been shot in the head, at which point he agreed. When the case went to trial, the jury was led to believe that Brendan told police during questioning that Halbach had been shot in the head. Just like that, unreliable information obtained from an improper interrogation of a juvenile, was presented as factual damning evidence in court. The head wound evidence is just one example to show how police were able to manipulate a juvenile into providing unreliable information. In fact, the entire narrative which resulted from Brendan’s interrogation, makes no sense at all. I spoke with Brendan shortly after his final interrogation ended. He recanted his confession the moment he was out of reach of his interrogators. I asked him why he told the police that he was involved. Brendan responded, “They got to my head.” It was at this time that I knew my son had been wrongfully pressured by police to provide false information. I know my son. He was not capable at the time of dealing with the overwhelming stress which was put on him by those detectives. I urge everyone to please view Brendan’s interrogation videos to see what I am talking about. If you do, I am confident that you will see that two seasoned interrogators manipulated my son into providing false information. The story that Brendan provided to the police just doesn’t add up. According to Brendan’s confession, he and Steven raped and repeatedly stabbed Halbach in Steven’s bedroom, while she was chained to a bed. Forensic tests, however, revealed no trace of the victim’s blood, fingerprints or DNA in Steven’s room, or, for that matter, anywhere at all in his residence. Nor was any physical trace of Brendan’s presence found in the room or in Steven’s residence. Police photos show that the premises were undisturbed except for ordinary clutter. Not one scrap of physical evidence suggested that a bloody assault had taken place there. My heart breaks when I watch Brendan’s police interrogation videos. The footage shows that Brendan had no idea what was happening to him. He was gullible and easily bullied into giving false information. He agreed to an impossible murder scenario that simply could not have happened. If Brendan had an attorney with him during his interrogations; this completely unreliable narrative would have never developed in the first place. According to the Bluhm Legal Clinic: “researchers have concluded that most youth – even those who might be considered "street-smart" – simply do not understand their Miranda rights to counsel and to remain silent. Accordingly, these children do not exercise those essential rights and are thus left alone during police interrogation, without the assistance of counsel, a friendly adult, or their parents. Too often, the child's resulting statement is involuntary or unreliable.” The United States Supreme Court describes a custodial interrogation as an interrogation where: "a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." Even if a minor has the legal right to get up and walk out, the vast majority of minors would have no idea that they had that option. My son certainly did not. Therefore, it is reasonable to view any interrogation of a minor as a custodial interrogation. For these reasons, new legislation should impose the following safeguards: Require that an attorney be present during any custodial interrogation of a minor. This should be viewed as a nonwaivable right. Require law enforcement to inform a minor before an interrogation begins that he or she could be charged as an adult based on information obtained during an interrogation. Wisconsin law currently falls short, as it only requires law enforcement to immediately attempt to notify the child’s parent or guardian. The state does not specify whether juveniles have the right to the presence of an attorney or a parent during questioning. Thankfully, in 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court exercised its supervisory power to require that all custodial interrogations of juveniles be recorded. The recording of my son’s interrogation provides a clear cut example of why minors need further protection. The Bluhm Legal Clinic has modeled legislation which can be used as a guideline for legislators looking to improve the system. Their recommendations can be viewed here: The state of Wisconsin made a promising move in the right direction by recognizing the need for recorded interrogations. They now need to further their efforts by enacting legislation to protect minors during interrogations. This petition is managed by Injustice Anywhere for Barbara Tadych. Free Brendan Facebook Page Justice for Brendan Dassey Facebook Group

Barbara Tadych
13,261 supporters
Update posted 1 year ago

Petition to wisconsin department of justice, Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation, Wisconsin Governor, Barack Obama, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REGULATION & LICENSING

Strip Ken Kratz law license for being a sexual predator   Disgraced former DA Kratz cited by regulators for alleged sexual assault     The state Department of Justice investigated an allegation that former Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz sexually assaulted a woman he previously prosecuted but declined to charge him because investigators felt the witness lacked credibility, records show. The Office of Lawyer Regulation found merit in the allegation, however, citing Kratz for two ethics violations related to the incident, according to an 11-count complaint filed late last month. It is the most serious allegation in the ethics case filed against Kratz, who resigned in October 2010 after it was revealed the long-time district attorney sent 30 sexually charged text messages to a crime victim half his age while prosecuting her ex-boyfriend for domestic violence. The DOJ investigated the incident and several others involving Kratz but concluded in March that criminal charges were not warranted. In a memo closing the department's investigation into the alleged sexual assault, Assistant Attorney General Tom Storm wrote the woman would not make a plausible witness. He cited her "documented mental illness," three previous convictions — for making a false representation, retail theft and disorderly conduct — and evidence there was "consent to the sexual contact." Storm also referred to the woman's "status as a victim or witness with problematic inconsistencies in four other cases" but provided no details.  The woman reported the alleged incident to her probation agent after the sexting scandal broke last fall, but the records quote the agent as saying he wasn't sure of the validity of the woman's complaint. The 89-page investigative report makes no mention of interviewing Kratz. However, Kratz acknowledged to the Office of Lawyer Regulation he had a sexual relationship with the 44-year-old woman but it was "private and consensual." Reasonable doubt Steve Means, executive assistant at DOJ, said the agency's investigation was thorough. "Any time there's an allegation of sexual assault by a person in power, it's a serious matter and we treat it that way," Means said. In this case, Means said, the agency was obliged not to prosecute because it concluded the state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. "Any time you go into a prosecutorial decision, you have to look at whether a jury will believe your witnesses," Means said. Still, the OLR — which operates under a lower burden of proof — apparently found the account credible, charging Kratz with two counts related to the alleged incident: sexual harassment and engaging in "offensive personality." It seeks a six-month suspension of Kratz's law license based on the totality of his alleged conduct. Kratz's attorney, Robert Bellin of Neenah, noted his client was cleared of any criminal conduct. He declined to comment on the OLR filing.     Attempts to reach the alleged victim were not successful. Her boyfriend, who asked not to be named to avoid identifying her, said the woman told him she "does not want to see somebody get off scot-free" but is afraid of being "smeared."  Fearful about reporting In the four-page summary of the DOJ interview, the alleged victim at times appeared to blame herself for the incident. But the scenario she described appeared far from consensual. The woman, whose name was deleted from the investigative report, told agents Kratz prosecuted her three times in Calumet County between 2006 and 2008. Then, "out of the blue," she said Kratz asked to visit her at home between Thanksgiving and Christmas 2009. After arriving, Kratz reportedly told the woman several times he knew everything about her and could make trouble for her. She said Kratz then discussed bondage and ordered her to perform a sex act. The woman claims he also groped her and was quoted telling the agents "she was a fool to have let him." She described the incident as "really scary" because Kratz had "such seniority" over her and bragged about hitting women who did not "submit" to him. "It should be noted that throughout the interview, (the woman) was visibly upset," special agents Kyra Schallhorn and Joann Joy wrote. "She was crying and shaking while talking about this matter. (The woman) kept stating that she had done something wrong, and she questioned whether she would be going to prison for it."  According to the DOJ report, Kratz called the woman 40 to 50 times after the incident and came to her apartment a couple of times "but she pretended she was not home." "`He's a pig,'" the agents quoted the alleged victim as saying. "`What he did was wrong.'" In its own report summarizing the incident, the OLR concluded Kratz "had forcible sex with an emotionally vulnerable woman after previously prosecuting the woman." 'Theoretically' consensual The alleged victim was among 15 women, including two Calumet County social workers, a law student seeking a pardon and a handful of crime victims, who told DOJ agents they were subjected to inappropriate statements and text messages from Kratz. The investigation was related to removal proceedings launched by then-Gov. Jim Doyle, which led to Kratz's resignation.  Three women, including the woman in the 2009 incident, claimed Kratz had sexual contact with them. One of the women declined to provide any information about an alleged 1989 incident. The third woman said the contact, which allegedly occurred in 1999, was "theoretically" consensual because she agreed because Kratz said he could help her regain custody of her children. Kratz was Calumet County's district attorney for 18 years. The crime victim who received the sexually charged messages sued Kratz in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee alleging sexual harassment. In his defense, Kratz claims immunity, saying the messages were sent as part of his official duties. Means said his agency declined to defend Kratz. The state also intervened in the federal case, arguing it should not be held liable for Kratz's behavior.  Disgraced former DA Kratz pleads no contest to six ethics violations  Based on the info in these articles I feel Attorney Ken Kratz needs to be stripped of right to practice law / disbarred due to the rape accusations and sexual harassment with at least 4 victims to which  he pleas no contest to some of the charges. We, as citizens nationwide need to make an example of him that we will not tolerate this from legal workers including but not limited to police and attorneys. Attorney Kratz need to at the very least be STRIPPED OF HIS LAW LICENSE for life!!!

802 supporters