The New West

The New West

The business and government leaders of this nation have proven themselves to be morally and financially bankrupt caring only about their wealth and status. Our fake democracy is bought and only those catering to the twisted will owner investor class whose only interest is maximizing their personal profits are chosen by money to maintain their scheme of collective narcissism like top feeding parasites on the cesspool they created. They have successfully  monopolized our means of trade of our goods and services to reduce worker into wage slaves.   Monetary reward is not connected to any responsible planning or organizing, nor mental or physical work toward the benefit of individuals or the collective; rather to membership in an unconstitutional noble class that has turned more and more toward disaster capitalism and remaining blindfolded in the crow’s nest on the sinking ship.  Our survival not only as a nation but as a species, as a collective life form depending on the natural biosphere of this planet demands a drastic change in our social political organization to save us from demise.   The New West is about the battle for the minds and soul of a nation. An unapologetic critique of United States history may lead us to the conclusion that a peaceful well organized revolution of The West is long overdue. This thesis is followed by the vision of a truly democratic form of government that will rise from the ashes, the moral decay of the United States of America, democracy is coming to the USA*, welcome to the New West.

I had taken the “New West” page down for a while, then I recently put it back up in it’s original form while I add new material, finish editing and updating it and making it into an e-book. I think this information needs to be available even if it is not edited and in final form. If you have any ideas or questions you can contact me by email here: at_lib@hotmail.com

 

http://wethepeoplerule.net/the-west-manuscript/

Posted in WTPR Articles | Leave a comment

Ken Driessen For US Congress WI 7th, Youtube Channel

Ken 4 Congress Youtube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCiTW1C8e05QLTHKwwA8zAA

 

Posted in WTPR Articles | Leave a comment

The Ten Trillion Dollar Survey

http://wethepeoplerule.net/

limesurvey/index.php/survey/

index/sid/242566/newtest/Y/lang/en

(click anywhere on the link directly above to take the survey only your answers and your IP address will be recorded, results will be published and updated from time to time at the end of the following essay, thank you for participating)

The US government has, time and time again, enacted legislation that transfers trillions of dollars of wealth into the hands of the few, an elite class of persons that meet the definition of nobility, something forbidden by the very Constitution that government powers derive their authority from. If a government claims to represent the people, the laws and appropriations they enact should represent the will of the people and benefit the vast majority of it’s citizens rather than a select few. If a government does not represent it’s citizens it is time for the citizens to represent themselves.

If you have a chance to vote on law and appropriation rather than for a representative of the two party system, would you vote to make the rich, the privileged, richer? Would you vote to go to war to defend the corporate imperial empire? The following survey contains four questions concerning acts of Congress that authorized the transfer of trillions of dollars worth of power and wealth to a few elite CEOs and families of a class of riches, of affluence, unimaginable to the vast majority of us. This survey also contains two questions concerning legislation that approved the funding of acts of war resulting in trillions of dollars to be spent on wars at the human cost of thousands of American Soldier’s lives and the lives of millions of civilians in foreign lands who had nothing to do with any perceived threat to our country, all resulting military industrial complex profits with the lions share of the money ending up in the hands of the same class of people who were granted private ownership of powerful economic instruments by the legislative branch of the US Government.

The purpose of this survey is to illustrate the need, the right, of people to be able to have a vote that counts concerning the laws and appropriations we are to live under and within. Alongside the purpose of advocating for citizen’s right to vote on law and appropriation, we are demonstrating that accurate, safe and secure Internet voting is possible and preferable to the two party false representative system.

The actual survey questions are ‘Yes and No’ written as short as possible, yet links to the actual legislation and an in depth explanation of opposition to those Acts perpetrated in the names of the majority of citizens are written into this text accompanying the Survey. This is an open unscientific survey, the only things being recorded and saved in our data base are your answers to the questions and the IP(Internet Protocal) address you answer the questions from. Yes, the legislation behind these six questions resulted in the transfer of far more than 10 TRILLION DOLLARS in wealth from people who actually work to convert raw natural resources into things we need and provide actual services to others; into the hands of people whose only purpose is to hoard those riches. Please complete this survey and pass it along to others, thank you for your time and consideration.

One: Considering that the Congress, publicly elected officials, are to ‘coin’ control the supply of money as well as regulate commerce according to the US Constitution, do you believe the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional and should be repealed? Please read as much as you feel you need to make an informed rational yes or no decision. Directly below this introduction paragraph are several clauses from the US Constitution that relate directly to this question:

Article 1, Section 8,

1: The Congress shall have Power To….

2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,

5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,

6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Article 1, Section 9,

8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:

Article 1, Section 10

1: No State shall…or grant any Title of Nobility,

Article 4, Section 4,

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

A legitimate government cannot serve two masters, those masters being one to serve ‘we the people’, and two serving the interests of the banker, owner investor corporate master class. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 granted a private group of bankers a nearly unregulated monopoly over our system of exchange of goods and services, the private control over our monetary system. Rather than publicly elected officials controlling this all encompassing economic aspect of life in our country, the Congress ceded our constitutional right to a republican form of government to a privately owned plutocratic rule, meaning rule by the wealthy few. I believe this privatizing of the money supply, the instrument which we of the working class exchange our goods and services, is a deprivation of and an infraction against our constitutionally guaranteed rights. While Article One, Section 8, Clause 2, does give Congress the right to borrow money, it does not give any private group of people the right to a private monopoly over our system of exchange of our goods and services to rake in vast fortunes off the top virtually all transactions of value. The owners of such a device will eventually end up owning everything on their paper. Privatizing the right to print a nations currency, a paper with intrinsic value, a universal trade mechanism and distribute it is nothing less than an unconstitutional grant of nobility. The Congress ceded our rights to the economic sovereignty granted us in the US Constitution and that is the means through which some self intitled persons are able to amass fortunes worth over 100,000 times the entire lifetime earnings of the average working class person. Although the moneyed class dispute and do their best to discredit the following books, even labeling the writers of these books ‘Anti-Semitic’, the following two books explain the reality that the Federal Reserve Act allows a private group of people to print money based upon their own private whims with no unit of value behind it and continue to own the world through this fiat money system: The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, by Mullins, Eustace and Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island.

Here is the official US Government title and short explanation of the act that was passed in 1913: Federal Reserve Act : Public Law 63-43, 63d Congress, H.R. 7837: An Act to Provide for the Establishment of Federal Reserve Banks, to Furnish an Elastic Currency, to Afford Means of Rediscounting Commercial Paper, to Establish a More Effective Supervision of Banking in the United States, and for Other Purposes

Here are links to the text of the Federal Reserve Act:

http://www.llsdc.org/FRA-LH

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/scribd/?title_id=966&filepath=/files/docs/historical/fr_act/nara-dc_rg011_e005b_pl63-43.pdf

What is the cost of allowing a private elite group of people to own a monopoly over the nation’s monetary system to working class people? In my opinion the entire national debt $21,031,067,004,766 would not exist if not for this unconstitutional granting of the greatest title of nobility ever known to humanity to a small group of greedy people who think they are some how deserving of such an advantage over others. The only period in US history where the issuance of money was based on value, on goods and services provided, was during the US Civil War, at that time the US government issued ‘green back dollars’, here is a Wikipedia article concerning such interest free government issued money rather than money issued by private banks, and by the way, the union won the civil war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(1860s_money) Also here is an article, a GAO report, about how the Federal Reserve and the Bank for International Settlements among other international banks got together and conjured up a few trillion dollars to balance their books. On page 223 there is a sort of a chart or a graph titled: “Figure 27: Five MMIFF SPVs and Approved Financial Institutions for Each”, which divvys up, currency swaps what ever, trillions of dollars of money to 50 banks from several nations based on some heading or categories named after Hadrian, Trajan, Aurelius, Antonius and Nerva, who all were Roman Emperors; so does that not illustrate that these bankers are like kids playing a monopoly board game with our lives, receiving the fat off the land for nothing more than a government sanctioned pyramid scheme? What is the intrinsic verses the tangible value of such a fallacy of human worth? https://www.gao.gov/assets/330/321506.pdf While this GAO report is also related to the results of the TARP Act of 2008, if it were not for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, such people would not be meeting privately to decide to who and how much money they are going to create out of nowhere and give themselves to control regulate and own the entire planet. Therefore while a real universal publicly owned means of exchange of goods and services would benefit all of humanity more equally. Is there still some benefit to having such a trade mechanism even if it is privately owned, in organizing society around greed? The carrot on a stick does seem to inspire some people to work for their masters; therefore instead of being far more that the total national debt, I will put the cost of the Federal Reserve Act at:

Price Tag of about 10 trillion dollars.

Two: In hind sight, although being aware of President Eisenhower’s speech concerning the ‘Military Industrial Complex” at the time, would you have voted for the public funding of the Vietnam war? Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the Southeast Asia Resolution, Pub.L. 88–408, 78 Stat. 384, enacted August 10, 1964, gave U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of conventional military force in Southeast Asia. Was the Vietnam war necessary to protect the people of the United States against the threat of communism or was it just a way for the military industrial complex to make money? In hind site the Vietnam War has cost over a trillion dollars, https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/life_08.html. I think the human cost and the cost in pollution and destruction of nature resulting from the Vietnam war is far greater than the stated cost in dollars. There were 58,220 U.S. military fatal casualties and 304,000 wounded out of 2.7 million who served. Then when you consider the number of people from Southeast Asia who died in the war it is a human tragedy of genocidal proportion. Grand total of war deaths due to the war conducted in: Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos (1954–75), the middle estimate, is 2,450,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

Price tag 1 trillion+ 2003 US dollars

Three: Would you have voted to remove banking regulations to give privately owned and run banks the right to consolidate and combine commercial lending with investment banking and insurance businesses to gain even more power and wealth? S. 900 (106th): Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. With the bipartisan passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. Furthermore, it failed to give to the SEC or any other financial regulatory agency the authority to regulate large investment bank holding companies. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-bill/900

For cost of deregulated banking to the taxpayers and consumers, see troubled asset relief program (TARP) bill for a partial answer. What is the human cost of forcing families out of their homes by repossessing them after abusing them through variable interest mortgage schemes? If the estimate of the value, the cost of this legislation, is based upon the profits taken in as a result of it, by a few bankers and hedge fund operators, it is certain that over a trillion dollars has been transferred from workers to monetary system manipulators as a result of the shameful Gramm–Leach–Bliley (banker deregulation) Act.

Price Tag: over 1 trillion dollars.

Four: Knowing at the time that there was no proven connection between Iraq and the 9-11 attack, that UN weapons inspectors in Iraq found no significant weapons of mass destruction, would you have voted to authorize the tax payer funding of the Iraq war? H.J.Res.114 — 107th Congress (2001-2002) AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 Passed Senate without amendment (10/11/2002) Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 – Expresses support for the President’s efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions. Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution. Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution. https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114/text

The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest,https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-war-anniversary/iraq-war-costs-u-s-more-than-2-trillion-study-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314 As of June 29, 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Defense casualty website, there were 4,424 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 31,952 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Also what is the moral cost of somewhere from 110,000 to 1.2 million Iraqi people dying violently as the result of a war obviously undertaken to secure Iraq’s oil for the benefit of international corporations? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Price Tag: Over 2 Trillion Dollars

Five: Since a great number of the 7 million home and business foreclosures and repossessions of the 2008 financial crisis resulted from banks abusing variable interest schemes and other less than ethical practices, would you have then voted to bail out the banks in a way the TARP act did? https://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2015/01/15/foreclosure-filings-drop-by-18-in-2014-hit-lowest-level-since-2006-realtytrac-says/#1c6eb04448e5 H.R. 1424 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Troubled Asset Relief Program under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. To provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 3, 2008 – [H.R. 1424]>>

https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/1424/text

Since the bankers took the 350 billion dollars actually disbursed to the bankers and then the FED and the BIS added about 16 trillion dollars of new money to their books as a result of this situation and legislation giving themselves that much more leverage over natural resources and working class people, all at a time when banks are deregulated so they can combine mortgage lending with investing and insurance business, people of the working class have to compete with this newly created money, see page number 131 which is page 144 on the pdf file counter https://www.gao.gov/assets/330/321506.pdf Taking this into consideration, I would say that the cost of TARP to people who cannot make money appear from thin air is about the value of the newly conjured up money.

Price Tag: 16 Trillion Dollars.

Six: At a time in US history when income inequality between the rich and the poor is as great as it ever has been, would you have voted for an Act to reduce taxes that benefits the extremely rich more than any other economic class such as HR – 1 did? https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality HR – 1 An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018. (Also known as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” or ‘TCJA’) This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to reduce tax rates and modify policies, credits, and deductions for individuals and businesses. It also establishes an oil and gas leasing program for the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska.

(Unless otherwise specified, provisions referred to in this summary as temporary or as a suspension of an existing provision apply for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026.)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1/text

http://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-trumps-tax-plan-cost

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/30/senate-gop-tax-plan-would-fall-1-trillion-short-of-trump-administrations-promises-congress-tax-analyst-says/?utm_term=.5ecdc9a5b50d

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-tax-bill-reform-cost-americans-us-citizens-taxpayers-2-trillion-a8118766.html

So the lowest estimate to the cost of this tax break for corporations and the wealthy in just the growth of the national debt is 1 trillion dollars. We know that the money created by the banks trickles down and the first level of trickle goes to people that may or may not be able to afford and pay back hundreds of million and even billion dollar low interest loans of the magic money from the Federal Reserve and the banker bail out. Jared Kushner received, loans of — $184 million received from Apollo Global Management in fall 2017, and $325 million from Citigroup in the spring that same year — were received some time after Kushner met with top executives from those companies at the White House. http://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-company-loans-apollo-citigroup-white-house-2018-2 Since this projected increase in national debt results mainly from a 14% tax cut for corporations and more the wealthy, their profits do not result from any contribution to society in the form of goods or services, the 14% debt cost reflects tax on a profit so 1 trillion divided by .14 is about the same as multiplying the one trillion by 7, so the cost of giving a tax break on profits by people who do not contribute to society and only take in profit from owning natural resources, money making instruments and people they pay to work to gain a profit from other people’s labors is somewhere around 7 trillion dollars, in my opinion.

Price Tag: 7 trillion dollars.

In Conclusion: So these 6 Acts of Congress have and will cost people who work for a living somewhere between 10 and 37 trillion dollars give or take a few trillion. Increasing the amount of money has a two fold cost to people who derive their income from the wages of work. Money added to an economic system is going to cause inflation so everything will cost more, the other cost is direct competition with people who obtain this money just from being closer to the source of the money rather than providing and actual service to others. In other words if a banker or a hedge fund operator worth billions happens to want something you have worked and saved your whole life for, guess who will end up with that land or that house or that profitable business or even that girl or boy you wanted to marry? As far as the two wars and the Acts of Congress causing the funding of those wars, in relationship to who collects the majority of the money spent to wage a war, in some cases that information is private because private investment firms such as the Carlyle Group, owned a lot of defense contracting companies and since their stocks were not traded publicly at the time, the salaries and profits are not publicly available even if one of their main customers was the US Government. In 2012, Carlyle completed a $700 million initial public offering and began trading on the NASDAQ stock exchange on May 3, 2012. According to a 2015 ranking called the PEI 300 based on capital raised over the last five years, Carlyle was ranked No. 1 as the largest private equity firm in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Carlyle_Group , https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997/ . Yes, some of the money taken in by defense contractors goes to workers and working class families but none the less when one CEO rakes in and retires with a 172 million dollar package, there is no question that the spoils of publicly financed war are not distributed fairly, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-25/united-technologies-chenevert-leaves-with-172-million-package.

Banking and hedge fund operations are even more profitable than war to individuals who are in the money and in high places of the business of money and ownership. The highest paid bankers on Earth receive between 7 and 28 million dollars in one year, http://www.businessinsider.com/highest-paid-bank-bosses-2017-7 . Hedge fund managers rake in the most money of any individual, the amount of money they pocket, well at least on paper, is out of this world, the top 10 in 2015 start out with poor George Soros who only gained 300 million while on the top of the game, Ken Griffin added 1.7 billion dollars worth to his personal wealth in one year. https://www.forbes.com/pictures/ghmf45mijd/1-ken-griffin/#65a0186d58b3

The moral of the story is, the only morality that people have in big business and government is increasing their profits and wealth, that is why there is such a large income gap between the rich and the poor. The rich finance the elected officials who make laws to favor the rich and the circle of wealth is completed. The people in elected or are selected to high offices in the United States government are nothing but petite bourgeoisie, meaning they are rather small players in the capitalist game even if they are in charge of creating the rules for the game. I’m not an economist by any means nor do I want to be, yet I did receive passing grades in Introduction to Economy and Engineering Economy. The thing that turned me off about it is within his introductory lecture, the professor stated that the most basic premisebehind the meaning of, the study of, economy is ‘infinite need and limited resources’. The very moment he said that, I said to myself in my mind, “infinite greed and limited resources”, so obviously I was not meant to be a banker let alone an economist. The modern economist does not consider the private ownership of the monetary system, there is no money, no job available for an economist who challenges this stalwart arrangement of private wealth and fake free market skulduggery. Even if you consider planning and organizing of any human productive activity to be work, the best planners, the best organizers, the inventors of new products, are not the most well paid individuals in the capitalist system, the most talented people work for the money managers and the investors who own them.

So at last my conclusion to all of this and the reason for the survey. Although revolutions against a tyrannical ruling class such as the French Revolutiontend to be violent and messy never attaining lasting equality sought by a ‘crowd’, a collective of workers, revolutionary ideals should be considered at this time in our human history. When the elite class places themselves on a pedestal whichdeems their individual worth to be thousands of times more than the average citizen, a revolution is inevitable. I believe a mostly peaceful evolution is possible especially in this information age of the Internet. This survey, the on line survey, the six questions, very briefly stated in yes or no fashion, shall illustratethat no average citizen would vote for such Acts of Congress as these six to become the law and accompanying appropriation of funds which are harmful to those common citizens and result in us appearing stupid, mean and hateful to the rest of the world. The point here is throughout history an organized majority is a force to be reckoned with.

This survey is an introduction to my 2018 run for Wisconsin 7th District Representative in the United States Congress. As a Representative I will put a system in place where every registered voter will be able to vote on the laws and appropriations before Congress and I would cast the vote of the majority of the citizens who participate even if I do not agree with their vote. I will accept only ½ of the Representative’s salary and the other half shall go into a non-profit corporation with the purpose of completing and insuring that a system where every citizen in the district can vote on the law and appropriations before congress and the majority vote of those who participate is entered for the 7th District of Wisconsin. If the majority had a meaningful vote on law and appropriation it is certain that these six Acts of Congress that cost us all somewhere between 10 and 37 trillion dollars would not have been made the law of the land. Even the low estimate of 10 trillion is over 30,000 dollars for each man woman and child. The democrats are equally as at fault here as the republicans, they are divisions of the same corporate party. Our quality of life and our very lives will soon depend upon us organizing and voting to put an end to this financial and war mongering tyranny. So please take the time to complete the six question survey. Thank You, Ken Driessen, independent Direct Participatory Democracy Candidate for US Congress.

Posted in WTPR Articles | Leave a comment

Driessen v WEC et al

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT SAWYER COUNTY

______________________________________________________________

Ken Driessen (in pro per)                                                                 Case No.: __20CV99___        12022 N Co Rd T                                                                              Case Codes: 30952, 30301        Hayward WI 54843

Plaintiff

v.

Wisconsin Elections Commission

PO Box 7984

Madison, WI 53707-7984

 

Governor Tony Evers 

115 E Capitol Dr # 1 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Madison, WI 53702 Money Judgment

Wisconsin State Legislature

Senate

P.O. Box 7882

Madison WI 53707

Assembly

P.O. Box 8952

Madison WI 53708

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

______________________________________________________________

  1. The Plaintiff Ken Driessen, hereby alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY

  1. As a result of the COVID-19 ‘Virus’ pandemic and the Governor’s ‘Order’, the Wisconsin Elections Commission ‘WEC’ did add to the web site, to the affect, that ballot access requirements are determined by statute so the ‘Commission’ has no authority to change the ballot access requirements due to the Corona Virus and the resulting ‘Stay at Home Order’ and ‘Social Distancing’ rules. This statement in itself is an acknowledgment that the virus and said order would in the least hinder the signature gathering process and probably deny ballot access to certain candidates, in this case an independent candidate, that certainly could and would have completed the requirements and gained ballot access if not for these circumstances, see: https://evers.wi.gov/Documents/COVID19/EMO12-SaferAtHome.pdf. In as much as Ken Driessen did successfully meet the qualifications to be listed on the ballot as a candidate for Wisconsin 7th District Representative in United States Congress in 2018, he is a serious legitimate candidate again in 2020.

  2. Ken Driessen stated in his May 28, 2020 complaint delivered to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, Governor Tony Evers and the Wisconsin Legislature in part as follows: “I visited the WEC website and read information there concerning the Commission’s advice in relationship to nomination signature process and the, ‘COVID-19 public health emergency’ and their ‘suggestions’ for seeking nomination signatures under the circumstances relating to the COVID-19 ‘Virus’ and the Governor’s ‘Order’. I attempted to collect signatures by knocking on doors at people’s residences and I considered mailing letters seeking nomination signatures and found the Virus and the Order are undue burdens to my candidacy. I am hereby complaining because the Virus and the Order are an undeserved hindrance to my candidacy and the WEC suggestions are not practical for an independent candidate. I am claiming that the undo burden of collecting the signatures under the hardships caused by the combination of the Virus and the Order are a violation of my Wisconsin and United States Constitutional rights to free speech, assembly, and equality under the law. More specifically guaranteed rights within Article 1, Sections 1, 3 & 4 of Wisconsin’s Constitution and similarly I claim rights under the United States Constitution including but not limited to those under the 1st, 14th and 15th Amendment. With this letter, at this time I plea for the remedy of ballad access, of being listed as a candidate for Wisconsin 7th District Representative in US Congress in the November 3, 2020 General Election.”

  3. While a WEC representative, Nathan Judnic, did correspond with Plaintiff Driessen, he feels it was in a way that, in his opinion, did not address or solve his ballot access concerns prior to his filing of a complaint (Exhibit 1). Copies of the complaint signed in front of a notary public were sent to all Defendant Agencies; since the plaintiff’s delivering of a complaint to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, the Governor’s Office, the State Assembly and the State Senate; he did not receive any answer or correspondence to his complaint other than a gracious letter (Exhibit 2) from his State 25th District Senator Janet Bewley that can be summed up in few words:

  4. “My Democratic colleagues and I were willing to make changes to the laws regarding ballot access due to the public health emergency; however, the Republicans who control the Legislature were unwilling to engage in any meaningful consideration of this idea. …any further action to change the state law (temporary exemption or variance due to the Covid-19 pandemic) on this issue would have to be taken through the court system.”

  5. So Mr. Driessen simply reasonably seeks a temporary variance to, an exception to the statutes to accommodate for the added hardship of collecting nomination signatures during the ongoing Corona Virus pandemic allowing his name to appear on the ballot as a candidate for Wisconsin’s 7th District Representative in the US Congress. The WEC suggestions were not satisfactory for him because of the lack of a mailing list and the cost of mailing nomination signature forms was prohibitive, an undue burden. Also the plaintiff previously promised not to collect campaign donations because the vast majority of voters do not donate to election campaigns, so the plaintiff contends that a few wealthy people and corporations pretty much buy elected officials, leaving the majority unrepresented.

  6. Now let us consider that the WEC, Governor Evers and especially the Legislature, even after being sued, do not agree to allow Driessen ballot access. Let’s say the Judge assigned to the case is not comfortable writing an order allowing Driessen’s wishes to appear on the ballot for 7th District Representative in time for the ballots to be printed. This would reinforce Driessen’s notion that the government consisting of a duopoly, is in fact bought and paid for by a few individuals and corporations, meaning that we live under a plutocracy which does not meet the standards of a constitutional republic. So in the case there is not an agreement on the Defendant’s part to allow Driessen ballot access and no writ of mandamus from the Court to allow Driessen ballot access as prayed for; Driessen will ask for relief in the form of a monetary judgment in the range of what it takes for a candidate for the office he has chosen to run for to be successful. Further discussion, citations of statutes and case law are included in the ‘Statement of Facts’ section of this complaint.

    JURISDICTION AND VENUE

  7. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 5.06, 806.04(1) and (2), and

    227.40(1). Venue is proper pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 227.40 and 801.50 (2) and (3)(a) and (b).

    THE PARTIES

  8. The Plaintiff, Kenneth Leroy Driessen (Ken) is an Independent, Direct Participatory Democracy candidate who did collect the required number of nomination signatures and appeared on the ballot in 2018 as a candidate for Wisconsin 7th District Representative in United States Congress. In that election he received 4,416 votes or about 1.4% which for an independent that raises no money as part of his principles and platform, spending less than $1000 of his own money and a whole lot of his time to promote the cause of Direct Participatory Democracy, was pretty remarkable. Driessen became a felon in 2010 for repeated possession of small amounts of marijuana, the possession charge that made him a felon involved .36ths of a gram of marijuana. He cannot run for, be a candidate for even the office of dog catcher in Wisconsin State Government but he can legally run for Federal office. Plaintiff Driessen has no violence, no stealing, no fraud or anything in his record concerning his trustworthiness as a political candidate. Considering polls and surveys concerning public opinion such as this, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/; the marijuana legalization versus continuation of criminalization mentioned here is just one example of the authoritarian, all about the money, people hijacking of We the People’s government versus an egalitarian popular democratic nature which our government structure rightfully needs to be.

  9. Defendant, Wisconsin Election Commission, is a governmental agency created

    under Wis. Stat. § 5.05 and charged with the responsibility for the administration of Chapters 5

    and 6 of the Wisconsin Statutes and other laws relating to elections and election campaigns, other than laws relating to campaign financing. The Wisconsin Election Commission has its offices and

    principal place of business at 212 E. Wisconsin, 3rd Floor, Madison, WI 53703.

  10. Defendant Governor Tony Evers is the chief executive officer of the State of Wisconsin Government. As such he is the supervisor of the WEC which is responsible for implementing election regulations and the Department of Health Services that is responsible for the “Safer at Home” Emergency Order. Governor Evers address, in his official capacity is Governor Tony Evers, 115 East, State Capitol, Madison WI 53702.

  11. Defendant(s) the Wisconsin State Senate is a branch of the Wisconsin Legislature, along with the Wisconsin Assembly these two legislative bodies are responsible for writing and voting legislation into law. In that capacity, according to the WEC web site, they are responsible for determining any measures to allow for relief here requested within this complaint concerning a temporary variance, an exemption to ballot access requirements, to allow for ballot access during the ongoing Corona-Virus pandemic. The Senate address is listed as, P.O. Box 7882, Madison WI 53707 and the Assembly address as, P.O. Box 8952 Madison WI 53708.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    BALLOT ACCESS

  12. Plaintiff Driessen did submit a ‘Declaration of Candidacy’ to the WEC signed and sent by USPS mail on August 26, 2019 (Exhibit 3). Although the date on their site is in error, the proof of the receipt of this declaration can be ascertained by visiting this page of their web site at: https://elections.wi.gov/sites/elections.wi.gov/files/2020-06/Candidates%20Tracking%20By%20Office%20-%20post%20challenges.pdf .

  13. Plaintiff states: By the few blocks that I covered during a couple days in Superior Wisconsin, knocking on doors and explained my message to district citizens, with as mask on and disinfectant hand wipes, a few did open their doors and were glad to sign did sign my nomination papers, so it can be determined that if I could have collected signatures without the Covid-19 pandemic and the Government’s reactions and policy, I would have been totally capable of gathering the required signatures. See the copies of nomination papers attached to the initial complaint to the agencies as exhibit 1. After this effort I added up an average signatures per hour and determined there were not enough hours in each day of the month and days allowed to obtain the required citizen’s signatures by going door to door to greet people and explain my platform in person. I determined that, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many people being afraid, refusing to answer their door for a stranger, some people stating that with the number of people I came into contact with they were afraid I could be a super carrier of the virus, as well as the fact that what I was doing was technically in violation of the ‘Safer at Home’ order which did contain criminal sanctions under Wis. Stat. § 252.25, “Violation or obstruction of this Order is punishable by up to 30 days imprisonment, or up to $250 fine, or both.”

  14. “On May 13, 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its decision in Wisconsin Legislature v. Secretary-Designee Andrea Palm, et al. and declared the state’s Safer at Home Order unlawful, invalid, and unenforceable, creating a rush by local jurisdictions to issue orders to prevent the spread of COVID-19, resulting in uncertainty for businesses as to how to operate.” https://www.natlawreview.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-invalidates-state-s-safer-home-order Although the order was to take place immediately the legislature and governor asked for a 6 day stay which was rejected by the Court but still presented an amount of legal uncertainty until May 19th, https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-wisconsin-stay-at-home-order-state-supreme-court-20200513-vpjo34p6pfctpazbst7owsze2m-story.html. Regardless of the lessening of legal concerns many people are still afraid to interact with others on a close enough basis to hand back and forth a clip board and sign the nomination papers even if they were interested in helping an independent candidate get on the ballot and voting for that candidate.

  15. In spite of the plaintiff’s political platform based on Direct Participatory Democracy and not accepting donations he did research trying to figure the cost of buying a random list of District addresses and doing a mass mailing of nomination papers requesting signatures as WEC suggested on their web site. The cost of such mailings was prohibitive in itself not even considering the uncertainty of the willingness of people to sign without actually visiting with and being able to ask questions of the candidate in person. The established Democratic and Republican parties have mailing lists of their supporters which gives them an advantage even during a ‘normal’ signature gathering period without adding the Covid virus pandemic factor.

  1. The two party system referred to by some as a duopoly uses many shady non-democratic less than constitutional republic valued means to maintain their power and wealth despite not being nearly as popular as the power and wealth that surrounds them suggests. Here are a few surveys concerning the two party system and We The People’s satisfaction and trust in this facade of a dualistic political system. 40% of people surveyed want 3rd party: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/politics/two-party-system-poll/index.html. Only 26% believe in the dominance of the two party system: https://news.gallup.com/poll/165392/perceived-need-third-party-reaches-new-high.aspx. Majority of Americans are dissatisfied with politics: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/poll-majority-of-americans-dissatisfied-with-u-s-politics-doubt-divisons-will-improve-soon, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/deep-boiling-anger-nbc-wsj-poll-finds-pessimistic-america-despite-n1045916, https://news.gallup.com/poll/228281/satisfaction-government-remains-low.aspx

  2. We, all parties to this complaint as well as all Wisconsinites and all Americans need to stop and consider the influence money has on politics especially and increasingly after the Citizens United v. FEC – 558 U.S. 310, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) Supreme Court decision. The name Citizens United is quite nefarious considering it has received funds from The Presidential Coalition, LLC and both Citizens United and The Presidential Coalition have received funding from the Koch brothers, https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Presidential_Coalition. On the average only 5% of Americans donate to political candidates, therefore 95% remain for the most part, unrepresented and certain individuals and corporations spend far more than the average Wisconsinite’s total lifetime earnings, so in reality the United States election process as it exists falls far short of a legitimate election process akin to a legitimate constitutional republic and more in line with a plutocracy, https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/24/andrew-yang/what-percent-americans-donate-political-candidates/. When it costs a million or more dollars for the average successful Representative seat in congress it becomes undeniable that the seat is being bought rather than decided upon the principles and platform the candidate presents to the voters. “I realized back in the early 1990s that money had bought the majority of political candidates and my vote did not even give me one in 300 millionth of a say, and that is why I became politically active and why I run my campaigns the way I do.” – Ken Driessen.

  3. Due to the Corona-Virus and the Government’s reaction to it, the Plainiff does contend suffered a loss of his US Constitutional First Amendment and 14th related right to ballot access and did submit a complaint to all three agencies seeking a remedy to correct the undue burden the pandemic and the emergency order caused to his nomination signature gathering efforts on May 28, 2020 (Exhibit 1). A WEC publication related to the nomination signature gathering during the Covid-19 pandemic in part so states:

  4. 1) The Commission reaffirms that it does not have the statutory authority to change or

    modify current statutory procedures related to the circulation of nomination papers for the 2020 General Election.

  5. For this line of reasoning expressed by the WEC agency, it is necessary to address this complaint to and name the Governor and the entire Legislature as Defendants in their official capacity as a set of individuals comprising those entities.

  6. As mentioned in the Introduction/Summary section, the only communication the Plaintiff received in response to his complaint came from his Wisconsin State Senator Janet Bewley which in part stated, “any further action to change the state law on this issue would have to be taken through the court system.” Honorable Senator Janet Bewley further stated, “My Democratic colleagues and I were willing to make changes to the laws regarding ballot access due to the public health emergency; however, the Republicans who control the Legislature were unwilling to engage in any meaningful consideration of this idea.” In the event that the Plainiff’s access to the ballot is not granted, the Senator’s statement tends to indicate that the money judgment portion of the complaint may require a motion be written and submitted to the Court to indicate it be properly directed solely to the Republican members of the legislature. Ballot access is what is really being sought, money judgment is just in lieu of, an absence of an agreement between the Defendants to allow the Plaintiff ballot access to the November 3rd 2020 General Election; as a candidate for Wisconsin 7th District Representative in US Congress. The Corona affect took, ‘all about money’ in politics to the next level, it has deprived the majority of our right to self determination.

    RELATED CASE LAW

  7. In Williams v. Rhodes (1968), the Supreme Court again used the equal-protection clause to invalidate state laws, making it virtually impossible for Alabama governor George C. Wallace to appear on the Ohio presidential ballot. The pandemic and the government’s response to it made it virtually impossible for Plaintiff Driessen to appear on the ballot without Court intervention.
  8. In Bullock v. Carter (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the payment of a filing fee to run for office was unconstitutional. Although the Court based its ruling on the equal-protection clause, it also discussed how the fee affected conduct protected by the First Amendment. Driessen contacted the WEC and asked them if they could supply him with a list of Wisconsin voter names and addresses from the 7th District. WEC then steered him toward https://badgervoters.wi.gov/. They do sell lists of voter names and addresses but the price was in the thousands, therefore since they advised candidates to seek nomination signatures through the mail during the Covid-19 pandemic, having to buy names and addresses in very similar to having to pay a “filing fee to run for office”.
  9. In Munro v. Socialist Workers Party (1986), the Court upheld a requirement that a party secure at least one percent of the vote in a primary in order to gain a spot on the general election ballot. The Court noted that although the one percent requirement did impinge upon the First Amendment rights of the party, these rights were not absolute and it was not burdensome to require the party to demonstrate some minimum level of support to appear on the ballot, https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/980/ballot-access . Note: Plaintiff Driessen did secure 1.4% in the 2018 election, despite Driessen’s use of Direct Participatory Democracy(DPD) as an important part of his campaign platform, the WEC did list DPD as his party in their election postings.
  10. https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin%27s_7th_Congressional_District

    MONEY IN POLITICS

  11. In the event that the Defendants do not agree to Plaintiff Driessen’s request to be listed on the coming November 3, 2020 General Election Ballot as a candidate for Wisconsin’s 7th District Representative in United States Congress, in the event that the Court does not issue an order to force the Defendants to grant Driessen ballot access as requested, he then seeks monetary compensation in the form of a Money Judgment. This Plaintiff will then demand that his request for monetary compensation for the violation of his Constitutional, and case law tested, right to ballot access, and for other violations of his natural and Constitutional rights; be decided by a jury of his peers. Driessen does contend that the two parties, divisions of the same system of privately owned monetary system monopoly placing itself above our government and beyond constitutional restraints is the ultimate enemy he campaigns against. Not implementing an exception to, an alternative to, ballot access statutes to allow independent candidates to be listed on the ballot in ‘Corona time’; is an extension of a modus operandi, of tactics used, by the not so secret, not so deep state, not so new ‘world order’ that rules the nations and the planet through it’s monetary system monopolizing weapons dealing war profiteering reign of terror and economic top feeding parasitic ways.

  12. If this sounds too radical and rebellious to the reader’s of this complaint I think it is time for them to study what money currently is, who creates it and how that creation of new money controls and allows a relatively small group of persons yet to be named an unconstitutional “Title of Nobility”. They get a prime cut of everything, every person’s labor and every harvest of natural resources to accumulate wealth unimaginable to working class citizens. This private economic rule and ownership has gone mostly unchallenged continuously for over 106 years since the signing of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act to be precise. Our accessibility to money is the largely unquestioned determiner of where we live, our level of education, who we marry, what level of employment we are able to attain if we are in the working class. If the reader did not believe that the central bank, the bankers of last resort, get together and decide how much money to create and add to the system receiving their cut as if they delivered some sort of commodity and service to humanity, trickling down the magic paper to human society; after the corona-virus pandemic started and the Cares Act was passed and implemented in response to the pandemic, 2.2 trillion dollars was created from nowhere and added to the money supply, trickling the money down, without relationship to any value added, any goods, commodities or services being added to the collective economy. Now no one can reasonably deny that money is created by a private group of people out of nowhere without relationship to gold or any other tangible asset or any relationship to intrinsic value based ethical means tied to it.

  13. There are many books and other writings about the history of money as well as about the current Federal Reserve fiat money system that now dominates every financial and economic aspect of our lives. The purpose of this portion of the STATEMENT OF FACTS section of this Complaint is to express the conflict, the legal and moral travesty of justice, the bastardization of egalitarian principles within the Constitution, the creation of an elite class of royalty implemented by government sanctioned private ownership of our nation’s monetary system, which the Federal Reserve Act does.

  14. Although the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the President, the Federal Reserve branch bank presidents are not appointed by United States Government elected officials, these people are wealthier and have more power than a Senator or Representative in US Congress yet they are not elected. Here are some words from former Federal Reserve Chairman expressing the fact that they answer to no branch of US Government nor to We the People:

  15. The words of past Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, when interviewed by Jim Lehrer of PBS:

  16. Jim Lehrer: What is the ah proper relationship, what should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the ‘FED’ and the president of the United States?

  17. Alan Greenspan: Well first of all the Federal Reserve is an independent agency and that means ah, there is no other agency which can overrule actions that we take so long that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the congress or anybody else is ah requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don’t really matter and ah I’ve had very good relationships with presidents.

  18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJPZS3pqyhs

  19. Words of past Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when being questioned about legislation concerning a Government Accountability Office audit of the Federal Reserve:

  20. “my concern about legislation is that if the GAO is auditing not only the operational aspects of our programs and the details of the programs but is making judgments about our policy decisions that would effectively be a takeover monetary policy by the Congress a repudiation of the independence of the Federal reserve which would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and ah our national economic situation.”

  21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHNuxBwpBpQ

  22. So not one current Democrat or Republican seriously questions the constitutionality of the privately owned and run Federal Reserve monopoly money system, let alone propose legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and replace it with a publicly owned central bank that regulates and distribute public moneys also allowing for coexistence of private monies which then is consistent with clauses in the Constitution pertaining to money and control of it by elected officials of We the People’s government. The only elected official I know of in my lifetime that did question the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve was and is past Representative Ron Paul. Every other Congress person is obviously in office for their own personal wealth and power under the false monetary hierarchy created by the Federal Reserve Act. They take in millions of dollars of fiat money campaign donations to compete with each other like theatrical all star wrestlers of two divisions of the same monetary system monopolizing party. They definitely do not care about what is in the best interests of the majority of United States citizens.

  23. Now let’s compare select clauses within the US Constitution pertaining to money with the words of the independent privately owned and run Federal Reserve Chairman (with added notes to describe the message of the Plaintiff):

  24. Article 1, Section 8,

  25. 1: The Congress shall have Power To….

  26. 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    This is the only clause that could possibly be used to constitutionally justify the Federal Reserve but owning a monopoly over the entire monetary system is hardly in the same league as offering a loan to the USG.

  27. 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, Private ownership of the monetary system and massive government debt to private corporate entities means that those entities own and control the government rather than visa-versa as the Constitution requires, if the nation is to be a valid constitutional republic.

  28. 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, in the days of the writing of the US Constitution, use of ‘coin’ money was more prevalent than paper money, therefore the government, publicly elected officials, are supposed to control the money, not private unelected entities.

  29. 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; When the Federal Reserve Act is compared to the United States Constitution, Federal Reserve money is counterfeit.

  30. Article 1, Section 9,

  31. 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: What is the granting of a private monopoly over the printing of money other than the greatest most powerful ‘Title of Nobility’ on the face of the Earth?

  32. Article 1, Section 10

  33. 1: No State shall…or grant any Title of Nobility, Once again what is a monopoly over the monetary system other than the greatest most economically powerful monopoly know to man?

  34. Article 4, Section 4,

  35. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, living under a private monetary system monopoly violates even the notion of the United States being a Constitutional Republic and a true “Republican Form of Government”.

  36. Therefore every Senator and Congressman now in office whether knowingly or otherwise has to an extent sacrificed their morality and dishonored their oath of office to defend the US Constitution; for the prestige, wealth and power associated with a higher place on the economic totem pole, in an unconstitutional plutocratic kleptocratic kakistocracy rather than a valid Constitutional Republican form of government. While it is totally obvious that a privately owned monopoly over the nation’s monetary system is a ‘Title of Nobility’ and therefor a flagrant violation of the Constitution, this barely describes the level of economic usury of working class people who do not have the royal luxury of being close to the private creation of money as it trickles down.

  37. A more clear internationally recognized legal term for a people’s right called “Self Determination” better describes what has been taken from the working class people of this country by the self entitled nobility class that uses their private monetary system to occupy places of wealth and power obscene to that average producer of goods and services that are the true value of our society and nation producing nothing themselves, not even decent healthy planning for the benefit of us all on a more equal basis, see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self_determination_(international_law). Some things we all value have no price.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

  1. Plaintiff Driessen seeks agreement from the Defendant parties to be listed as Ken Driessen with Independent, Direct Participatory Democracy next to his name as candidate for Wisconsin 7th District Representative in United States Congress on the November 3rd, 2020 General Election Ballot. Plaintiff further asks that he be notified of such an agreement prior to 7 days after the August 11th , 2020 Partisan Primary Election so he can know whether or not to begin campaigning for the November 3rd, 2020 General Election.

  2. In the event the Defendant parties do not agree to allow Driessen ballot access as described, plaintiff Driessen prays for relief in the form of a writ of mandamus, for the Court’s decision to order the parties to allow Driessen ballot access as described above, at the soonest possible date after August 18th so he can get his message out and describe his platform to the voters.

  3. With either of these outcomes, the Defendants agreeing to grant Driessen ballot access or the Court granting a writ of Mandamus ordering the defendants to grant ballot access to Plaintiff Driessen, he agrees not to pursue or ask the court for any money judgment against any of the defendants, nor would he ask for a jury trial, he will be satisfied with the granting of his ballot access request and he will then agree that the case has been settled and can be closed, with his name and his chosen designation in the party field on the ballot as described above. Once ballot access is granted as described through either avenue, Plaintiff Driessen will not even ask for court costs or even reimbursement of the filing fees or for any expenses, this Plainiff will be satisfied with the ballot access relief he believes is rightful considering the effort, the circumstances and established case law concerning 1st and 14th Amendment US Constitutional rights. Plaintiff Driessen also beggs for the rights to ballot access of other candidates in similar situations be considered, if they are independent of the two established parties and their regimentation, including Libertarian, Green Party and most anybody who filed a notice of candidacy as well as some nomination signatures though short of the threshold due to the Corona virus pandemic and the ‘Safer at Home’ order, so the voters have a greater choice of candidates.

    SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

  4. In the event that the Defendants do not agree to place Driessen’s name on the ballot as a candidate for Wisconsin 7th District Representative in the November 3rd, 2020 General Election, Driessen then asks for a jury trial to take place at the soonest convenient time after denial or inaction concerning his prayer for ballot access to settle his money judgment claim. Being that information provided by Senator Bewley indicates that the Republicans of the Wisconsin Legislature stood in the way of any modification to ballot access requirements to compensate for Corona virus pandemic hardships to perspective candidates, this second claim should rightly be directed toward those defendants and the plaintiff then agrees to drop or ask the Court to dismiss the rest of the defendant parties that did not stand in the way of ballot access relief. Being that, House candidates who won in 2012 raked in an average of $1,689,580 in campaign contributions, http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/how-much-does-it-cost-win-seat-congre and only 5% of voters donate to political candidates, 95% are less equally represented. Therefore the 5% are paying for favors and for representation that benefits them rather than the whole of the nation, the 95% are unrepresented or not fairly democratically represented within the meaning of a “Republican form of government”, guaranteed to all citizens by the United States Constitution. Therefore if the Defendants so named by the agencies and offices they hold do not agree among themselves to allow Plaintiff Driessen’s name to be listed in the November 3, 2020 General Election Ballot as an Independent candidate for the office of Wisconsin’s7th District Representative, if then the Court does not determine that a Writ of Mandamus is necessary to provide the same, as a remedy in the Plaintiff’s favor; Plaintiff will then seek a monetary settlement in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, which is very near the cost of, the price of, a successful campaign for a seat, a voice, so often bought by money given by the 5% of citizens, the campaign investor class to be represented in the United States Congress, Plaintiff prays for relief as described herein along with any additional punitive measures the jury sees fit.

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of July, 2020.

___________________________

Ken Driessen

12022 N. Co. Rd. T

Hayward WI 54843

715-558-8442

kendriessen@hotmail.com

Posted in WTPR Articles | Leave a comment

Ken Driessen’s Ballot Access Complaint

WECcomplaint-w-osignatures
Posted in WTPR Articles | Leave a comment

Here is a PDF of my Nomination Form

Ken’s el_168_nom’paper2020

Posted in WTPR Articles | Leave a comment

Trump is Paying Back His Russian Oligarch Financiers Right in Front of Your Face!

It should be pointed out that the BOLLARD WALL (Steel Slats) that Trump wants on the Southern Border are manufactured with “AMERICAN STEEL”…. I put American Steel in quotes because the steel comes from a company called EVRAZ that is indeed located at two locations in America. Guess who OWNS EVRAZ…. the RUSSIANS! (specifically Roman Abramovich and Alexander Abramov: Russian Oligarchs).. And just when steel prices are going through the roof because of Tariffs…. The contract that Trump was talking about in the Rose Garden to upgrade existing barriers in the San Diego area involves 14 miles of steel slat construction by a Texas company SLSCO using EVRAZ steel. FOURTEEN MILES and the cost to AMERICAN TAXPAYERS is 147 MILLION DOLLARS. You don’t have to be a math wizard to figure out that the great deal maker is paying TEN MILLION DOLLARS a MILE for a see through fence.According to the U.S. Treasury, 114 Russian politicians and 96 Russian oligarchs own stock in Evraz. Abromavich has known ties to Jared and Ivanka and his wife Dasha is a long time friend of Ivanka. REAL EASY TO FACT CHECK!!!!(above text was copied from a comment on a Yahoo news story by Michael) I found the links below coincide with and back up this information:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-prepares-apos-major-144717454.html

https://www.constructiondive.com/news/slsco-wins-145m-border-wall-contract/541492/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Fact-Check-Trump-Border-Wall-Construction-Claims-503492421.html

So Trump’s Wall of Shame is already using Steel made by a Russian oligarch owned steel company EVRAZ run by Trump’s Russian friends who are some of his donors and financiers, Roman Abramovich and Alexander Abramov, Abromavich has known ties to Jared and Ivanka and his wife Dasha is a long time friend of Ivanka.

$84 MILLION ON GOLF TRIPS BY YOUR CAREER CON MAN!!! HOW’S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU??? IRONY IS LOST ON THE IGNORANT!!!

Also the Pipelines Trump over ruled the EPA and laws passed by Congress to build used Russian Steel. Trump is paying off Russians for his personal debt with US tax payer money and our national debt. If both Republicans and Democrats do not rise to the occasion, impeach Donald Trump and try him for defrauding the United States government and many other high crimes under 18 U.S. Code § 1031 and the RICO Act, we need to hold them all accomplice for these crimes:Trump Reverses Pledge To Mandate U.S. Steel For Keystone Pipeline. A Direct Beneficiary Is A Russian Oligarch With Close Ties To Vladimir Putin

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-reverses-pledge-to-mandate-us-steel-for-keystone_us_58bbae99e4b0fa65b844b451

Trump is also lifting sanctions on companies owned by Russian Oligarchs:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/politics/sanctions-oleg-deripaska-russia-trump.html 

 

 

Posted in WTPR Articles | Leave a comment

Ken Driessen Will be on the Ballot Nov 6th for US Representative in Congress

As the Independent Direct Participatory Democracy Candidate for Wisconsin’s 7th District!

Contact email: kendriessen@wethepeoplerule.net

Posted in WTPR Articles | Leave a comment

Affirmation to uphold pledge to Direct Participatory Democracy

The Affirmation below is part of my effort to allow registered voters of Wisconsin’s 7th District to vote on the law and appropriation before the 116th Congress as part of my push for Direct Participatory Democracy (PDP) if I am elected.  Right now, the Forum part of the site, is under attack so I can’t open it up to the public, the forum will be private and open only to Wisconsin 7th District voters who sign up to it. I plan to use the forum to allow registered Voters from the District to decide what Resolutions we sign on to and author, how we fill staff positions of the representative office, publishing of what funds are paid into and received from the federal government and many other issues as they become important to us as we become a collective independent seat in the house of Congress:

affirmDPD

Oh, and here is a pdf file of the Nomination Paper if you like the idea of Direct Participatory Democracy and want to copy it and  collect nomination signatures for Ken:

Ken’s el_168_nomination_paper

Posted in WTPR Articles | Leave a comment

Yes, I am inspired by Eugene Debs. Here are a few quotes from him:

For myself, I want no advantage over my fellow man, and if he is weaker than I, all the more is it my duty to help him.

I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world.

The man who seeks to arouse prejudice among workingmen is not their friend.

There has never been a free people, a civilized nation, a real republic on this earth.

I am not a Labor Leader; I do not want you to follow me or anyone else; if you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of this capitalist wilderness, you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition; as it is now the capitalists use your heads and your hands.

 

Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least.

The Republican and Democratic parties are alike capitalist parties — differing only in being committed to different sets of capitalist interests…

The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.

Eugene Victor Debs (5 November 1855 – 20 October 1926)

Posted in WTPR Articles | Leave a comment