ROCK RIVER PATRIOTS MEETING THIS FRIDAY – UPGRADED TO A RALLY – OCTOBER 9TH, 2020 IN WATERTOWN AT 6PM

Kenneth Dragotta is going to be our speaker at the Rock River Patriots RALLY October 9th, 2020, meeting at 6 pm at 315 E Main St in Watertown WI.

Ken is a Waukesha County businessman, President/CEO, Systems Engineering & Automation Corporation, professional engineer and STEM (Science, technology, engineering and mathematics) mentor. He is Director and founding member of the Waukesha Conservative Business Coalition, started the Wisconsin Activist group in November 2018 to help organize grassroots activist in advance of our SCOW (Supreme Court of Wisconsin) election, and has been involved in promoting Constitutionally Correct candidates for decades.

He has been involved in Wisconsin election integrity for over 20 years and has directed recounts for President Trump in Milwaukee and Waukesha counties and Justice Prosser in Milwaukee county.

Ken is a board member of the Waukesha County Republican Party and active on a number of boards, including Washington DC based Center for Security Policy, and is active in supporting repeal of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.

Rock River Patriots Meeting This Friday September 11th, 2020

The Rock River Patriots will be having a meeting in Watertown this Friday night September 11th, 2020 at 6:00pm.  The meeting location is the same as the last several meetings, 315 E Main Street in Watertown.  Please bring a chair as seating is limited.

 

At this meeting, we welcome our special guest, Professor of Economics from Carthage College, Yuri Maltsev. He defected from Russia to America and will talk about the comparison of living in Russia to living in the US.  As you all know, we hear the platitudes from the left praising socialism and communism.  Prepare to hear the real story from Professor Malstev.

Professor Yuri Maltsev Bio

 

Professor Yuri Maltsev earned his B.A. and M.A. degrees at Moscow State University, and his Ph.D. in Labor Economics at the Institute of Labor Research in Moscow, Russia. Before defecting to the United States in 1989, he was a member of a senior Soviet economics team that worked on President Gorbachev’s reforms package of perestroika. Prior to joining Carthage, Prof. Maltsev was a Senior Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C., a federal research agency. His work involved briefing members of Congress and senior officials at the executive branch on issues of national security and foreign economic assessment.

Hope to see you all there!

ROCK RIVER PATRIOTS “PROTEST / RALLY” FRIDAY JULY 10TH AT 6PM IN WATERTOWN

THE ROCK RIVER PATRIOTS WILL GATHER FRIDAY NIGHT AUGUST 14TH IN WATERTOWN AT 6:00 PM AT 315 E MAIN STREET IN DOWNTOWN WATERTOWN FOR A “PROTEST / RALLY”.  WE WILL FOLLOW OUR NORMAL AGENDA AND DISCUSS THE ISSUES OF THE DAY.

Please bring a folding chair or lawn chair as there are limited chairs available. This building is a former State Farm Insurance office & this opportunity for a place to meet came available and will be explained to everyone at the meeting. We hope to see everyone and share issues as well as have a time of refreshment.

 

An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch

Here is an article from realclearpolitics.com in which the author, Virologist Steven Hatfill, explains the science and the studies on Hydroxychloroquine.  We are always lectured by the left about how we are “supposed to follow the science”…except when it does not fit their agenda.

An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch

CONTACT STATE SENATOR SCOTT FITZGERALD AND REPRESENTATIVE ROBIN VOS TO CALL A SPECIAL SESSION TO END THE MASK MANDATE BY GOV. EVERS

Do not wait, email WI legislative leadership & tell them to call a special session & pass a joint resolution (authorized under 323.10) to end Evers’ mask mandate. 

Speaker Robin Vos: rep.vos@legis.wisconsin.gov 

Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald: sen.fitzgerald@legis.wisconsin.gov

Senator Nass Calls for Immediate Session of the Legislature to Block Evers’ Power GrabNew Emergency Declaration is Illegal and Unnecessary    

Senator Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) issued the following statement in response to Governor Tony Evers new emergency declaration (Executive Order 82) that allows for the Governor and DHS Secretary-Designee Andrea Palm to issue dictatorial public health edicts.  The first order issued is a statewide face mask mandate.

“I am calling on Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald to immediately call the Legislature back into session to pass a joint resolution ending Governor Evers’ new illegal and unnecessary emergency declaration.  The Legislature is empowered to end any emergency declaration issued by a Governor through the simple passage of a joint resolution that doesn’t require the Governor’s approval.

Governor Evers actions today are nothing more than a political stunt to create a partisan fight with the Legislature.  This is not about improving public health.  Today’s emergency declaration is all about the November election and the weak performance of Democrats in this state.

Since March, the actions of Governor Evers and Secretary-Designee Palm have solidified both of them as the two least trustful people that have served in state government in my entire time in the Legislature.  I can’t legally or morally trust either of these individuals with emergency powers.”

ROCK RIVER PATRIOTS MEETING FRIDAY JULY 10TH AT 6PM IN WATERTOWN

The Fort Atkinson Library is not available for our meeting this month or next month. However, THE ROCK RIVER PATRIOTS WILL MEET FRIDAY NIGHT JULY 10 IN WATERTOWN AT 6:00 PM AT 315 E MAIN STREET IN DOWNTOWN WATERTOWN. WE WILL FOLLOW OUR NORMAL AGENDA AND DISCUSS THE ISSUES OF THE DAY.

Please bring a folding chair or lawn chair as there are limited chairs available. This building is a former State Farm Insurance office & this opportunity for a place to meet came available and will be explained to everyone at the meeting. We hope to see everyone and share issues as well as have a time of refreshment.


COMMUNICABLE DISEASE ORDINANCE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING TOMORROW, JULY 8TH at 9:00 AM

If you live in Jefferson County this issue can and will directly impact you and your family. Please educate yourself to this issue and let your voice be heard by communication to your County Supervisor & plan to attend the Committee meeting Wednesday July 8, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH OTHERS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY.  THIS ORDINANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND A THREAT TO OUR LIBERTY.

The Jefferson County Executive Committee has a scheduled meeting for Wednesday July 8, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. at the Fair Park Activity Center located at 503 N. Jackson Avenue in Jefferson. The purpose of this meeting is the “Discussion and possible action on rescinding recommendation to enact the Powers and Duties of Public Health Officer ordinance; Previously known as the Communicable Disease Ordinance.”
Link to the Meeting Agenda;
https://apps.jeffersoncountywi.gov/jc/meetings/pdf/UserFiles/County%20Board/files/Agendas/2020/07062020/Executive%20Committee%20Revised.pdf
LINK TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY – please read this proposal & understand the authority they are wanting to give to the health department and specifically the Jefferson County Health Officer.
https://apps.jeffersoncountywi.gov/jc/meetings/pdf/UserFiles/County%20Board/files/Supplemental/2020/06012020/Joint%20Board%20of%20Health%20&%20Executive%20Committee%20Packet.pdf

LINK TO s. 66.0119 OF THE STATE STATUTES REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVE PROPOSED ORDINANCE

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/66/I/0119
This is a link to the Jefferson County June 19 press release relating to how they plan to proceed.
https://www.jeffersoncountywi.gov/news_detail_T9_R207.php
This is a link to section 252.03 of the state statutes referenced in the above press release.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/252/03

This is a link to all Jefferson County Supervisors and you can click on the green check mark for each and get the contact information for each supervisor

https://www.jeffersoncountywi.gov/government/jefferson_county_board/county_board_supervisors.php

BEWARE – Communicable Disease Ordinances Being Proposed by WI Counties

Covid 19 has brought a whole new way of life for most people all across the world. Very recently a number of WI counties are being encouraged to enact an ordinance dealing with communicable diseases in preparation for what may happen in the near future. New laws are being proposed at the national level, the state level, the county level and city level of government. We must be aware and vigilant to have input on these issues.
Marathon County in Wausau is dealing with a proposed ordinance. Here is a link to information to that proposal.
Walworth County in Elkhorn has also been dealing with a proposed ordinance dealing with communicable diseases & were planning to vote on it June 18th. No update is available on this proposal.
Dodge County in Juneau had a meeting June 16 to discuss a proposed ordinance dealing with communicable diseases which was attended by a number of concerned people. This is a link to a summation by a gentleman in attendance of what took place at the meeting & how the county is proceeding.
LINK TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY – please read this proposal & understand the authority they are wanting to give to the health department and specifically the Jefferson County Health Officer.
LINK TO s. 66.0119 OF THE STATE STATUTES REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
This is a link to the Jefferson County June 19 press release relating to how they plan to proceed.
This is a link to section 252.03 of the state statutes referenced in the above press release.
This is a link to all Jefferson County Supervisors and you can click on the green check mark for each and get the contact information for each supervisor
If you live in Jefferson County please contact your Jefferson County Supervisor and express your concerns. If you live in another county please check with your county supervisor to see if such a proposal is pending there. These proposals will directly impact the citizens of each county.
BOTTOM LINEMuch of what is being proposed is unconstitutional.  The US Constitution and the WI Constitution protect our natural rights to peaceful assembly and to worship as we see fit.  Nowhere does either constitution clarify that these rights are lost in the event of a pandemic.
This ordinance empowers the County Health Officer to, in the name of fighting a disease, “close schools and forbid public gatherings in schools, churches, places of employment, public buildings, private property, and other places to control outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics” and “implement all emergency measures necessary to control communicable diseases and do what is reasonable and necessary for the prevention and suppression of disease including, but not limited to, prohibiting public and private gatherings when deemed necessary to control outbreaks, epidemics, or pandemics“.

While we understand that the government can apply some of these rules to public property and public gatherings, we believe it to be an overreach to apply this to private property.

NO ROCK RIVER PATRIOTS MEETING THIS FRIDAY

THE ROCK RIVER PATRIOTS MEETING THIS FRIDAY JUNE 12TH  HAS BEEN CANCELLED.
 
We are unable to have a meeting this Friday after all, due to issues arising related to the venue we were going to use.  The Library has not been available, but may be available next month.
 
We will keep you posted.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

IS GOV. EVERS IS CREATING A NEW DHS EMERGENCY RULE?

Gov. Evers makes next move in allowing DHS to craft new emergency rule

Evers is proposing a new plan, a 150 day shutdown of the state (5 MONTHS!) followed by a 120 day extension. 270 days total. He is following Wisconsin state law here and this plan will get sent to the JCRAR (Joint Committee for Review on Administrative Rules). The 10 people on this committee (6 Republican and 4 Democrat) will literally hold the direction of our lives in their hands.

Contact them and let them know if you do not want this order imposed on us as a law. We need them to strike down all aspects of this plan.
*NO 150 DAY CONTINUATION
*NO 120 DAY EXTENSION
*NO FORCED MASKS
*NO FORCED TESTING
*NO FORCED VACCINATION
*NO FORCED QUARANTINE
*NO RESTRICTIONS

If the JCRAR rejects Evers’ plan then it dies. We must make sure this happens. They are only going to know how you feel if you ACTUALLY CALL.

Our forefathers literally fought and agonized over decisions that affected their family, their livelihood, their health, and many of them sacrificed everything for FREEDOM. We can manage to make 10 phone calls and send 10 emails!

These are the 10 elected officials you should reach out to:

EMAIL
Rep.Ballweg@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen.Nass@legis.wisconsin.gov
Rep.Neylon@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen.Stroebel@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen.Craig@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen.Larson@legis.wisconsin.gov
Sen.Wirch@legis.wisconsin.gov
Rep.Quinn@legis.wisconsin.gov
Rep.Hebl@legis.wisconsin.gov
Rep.Subeck@legis.wisconsin.gov

PHONE
(R) Steve Nass 608-266-2635
(R) Duey Stroebel 608-266-7513
(R) Joan Ballweg 608-266-8077
(R) Adam Neylon 608-266-5120
(R) Senator Craig 608-266-5400
(R) Rep Quinn 608-266-2519
(D) Sen Larson (608) 266-7505
(D) Sen Wirch (608) 267-8979 (262) 694-7379
(D) Rep Hebl 608) 266-7678
(D) Rep Subeck (608) 266-7521

WI SUPREME COURT DECISION ON EMERGENCY RULE 28 – THE STAY AT HOME ORDER

This past week the WI Supreme Court invalidated Gov. Evers’ Emergency Order 28 – Safer At Home.

You can read more here:

Wisconsin Supreme Court Says the State’s COVID-19 Lockdown Violated the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers

The Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidated the order in this ruling: WI Legislature vs Andrea Palm

This ruling is technical in some aspects, but worth reading.  What deserves commentary in this case is the concurring opinions by Justice Rebecca Bradley and Justice Daniel Kelly, and the dissent by Justice Brian Hagedorn.

Justices R. Bradley and Kelly, deal with the broad unconstitutionality of such an order.  We believe they are spot on.  We are saddened that the Republican Party didn’t do all it could to get the law abiding, conservatives, and church going public out to vote and re-elect Justice Dan Kelly.  What a difference his vote has made in this case, and why these elections matter.

Now we come to Justice Brian Hagedorn, and his dissent.  We know many of the RRP have met Justice Hagedorn when he was running for the WI Supreme Court.  He is a good person, who we thought held much of the same philosophical beliefs as many in the RRP.  However, it is apparent he spent too long as the legal counsel to Governor Walker, arguing for the State of Wisconsin, not seeing the forest for the trees.  This case, as Justices R. Bradley and Kelly write in their opinions, is not just about the definition of an “order”or “rule”, but about governmental overreach in authority.

Justice R. Bradley writes in her concurring opinion beginning on page 40:

“Under the Wisconsin Constitution, all governmental power derives “from the consent of the governed” and government officials may act only within the confines of the authority the people give them. Wis. Const. art. I, § 1. The people of Wisconsin never consented to any elected official, much less an unelected cabinet secretary, having the power to create law, execute it, and enforce it.”

In footnote 3 in her opinion on page 41:

“Spurning more than two centuries of fundamental constitutional law as well as the Wisconsin Constitution’s guarantee of liberty, Justice Brian Hagedorn shockingly proclaims “the judiciary must never cast aside our laws or the constitution itself in the name of liberty.” Justice Hagedorn’s dissent, ¶259. Setting aside the self-contradictory nature of that statement, Justice Hagedorn’s 53-page opinion contains no constitutional analysis whatsoever, affirmatively rejects the constitution, and subjugates liberty. The Wisconsin Constitution IS the law——and it reigns supreme over any statute. “The Constitution’s supremacy over legislation bears repeating: ‘the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law’ and ‘a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and . . . courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.’ See Marbury [v. Madison], 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) [137] at 178, 180 [1803].” Mayo v. Wis. Injured Patients and Families Comp. Fund, 2018 WI 78, ¶91, 383 Wis. 2d 1, 914 N.W.2d 678 (Rebecca Grassl Bradley, J., concurring).

The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in its own nature illimitable.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).”

 

Justice Daniel Kelly writes in his concurring opinion on page 63:

“The court’s opinion ably describes why these provisions do not confer on her the authority necessary to support the Order, and I join it. My purpose in writing separately is to describe why, under our constitutional form of government, the Legislature cannot possibly have given the Secretary the authority she believes she has.”

Justice Kelly goes on to explain the view of DHS Secretary Andrea Palm and why she is wrong on page 63:

“¶89 In the Secretary’s view, the Legislature gave her plenary power to simply “act” without the need of any further statutory or regulatory policy. Her brief candidly asserts there are no statutory or regulatory limitations on her authority to address communicable diseases:

Wis. Stat. § 252.02 is not legislation “enforced or administered by” DHS through issuing Safer-at-Home [Order], and DHS’s actions here did not “implement, interpret, or make more specific” standards that the Legislature designed by statute. Unlike statutes that regulate certain conduct or activities, like food safety or traffic laws, section 252.02, as relevant here, simply empowers DHS to act. Thus, Safer-at-Home is not “enforc[ing]” any legislative requirement . . . .

(Emphasis added.) That is to say, she expressly disavows any suggestion that she is implementing statutory standards. And she not only acknowledges, but affirmatively asserts, that she is not enforcing any statutory requirement. This statute, she says, simply empowers her to “act.” When queried during oral arguments, her attorney said there are no limits on this power, saving only judicial or legislative intervention.

¶90 But our constitution does not confer on any governmental official, bureaucrat, or employee a generalized power to “act.” There are three powers on loan to our government——legislative, executive, and judicial. To the extent governmental officials may act at all, it is only within the context of one of those powers. Therefore, we must discern what type of authority the Secretary exercised when she issued her Order. And then, assuming Wis. Stat. § 252.02 granted the Secretary all the power necessary to issue the Order, we must compare that grant against our basic constitutional structure and the non-delegation doctrine to determine whether the statute impermissibly delegated part of the Legislature’s power to the Secretary.”

 

Justice Kelly goes on to explain the three branches of government and their respective roles.  Justice Kelly also provides the following analysis on Justice Hagedorn’s argument on page 79:

“If § 252.02 enables the Department to confer on itself the power to confine people to their homes, close businesses, etc., then it has quite obviously transferred no small amount of the legislature’s core authority to the executive branch, thereby enabling the Secretary to make up public policy decisions as she goes along. Without that understanding of the Secretary’s authority, the Order could not function. Justice Hagedorn mirrors this error, and even uses it as the organizing principle for his dissent. The whole of his statutory analysis is faulty because he has not discerned that the Order implicitly created, or assumed to exist, a host of public policy decisions.8  Under Justice Hagedorn’s rationale, an executive branch agency is free to make ad hoc policy decisions, so long as they are temporary and acted upon immediately. Nothing in our legal canon supports such an odd proposition.”

And footnote 8 from above:

“Justice Hagedorn’s statutory analysis might be perfectly serviceable if we were considering an executive order implementing previously established public policy decisions. But that is not this case. So, as a functional matter, his analysis is operating on a hypothetical set of facts.”

Justice Kelly addresses the two other arguments on page 82:

“¶116 The Order fares no better under the second principle of non-delegation: “[O]nce [the Legislature] prescribes the rule governing private conduct, it may make the application of that rule depend on executive fact-finding.” Id. Under this rationale, it could conceivably be appropriate for the Legislature to confer on the Secretary the power to confine people to their homes if she finds that such an action is necessary to control the spread of a communicable disease. But no statute or rule confers on her that authority, so the Order cannot be justified as the exercise of executive authority under this principle.

¶117 Nor is the Order salvageable under the third non-delegation principle, which provides that the legislature “may assign the executive and judicial branches certain non-legislative responsibilities.” Id. at 2137. The Secretary, however, insists that Wis. Stat. § 252.02 “simply empowers DHS to act,” and that the Order “embodies the quintessential executive task of deciding how to address, for the time being, the exigency caused by COVID-19,” and that her authority to address that exigency is limited only by judicial or legislative intervention. If accepted, this would work an intolerable inversion in the nature of executive authority, allowing it to swallow almost all of the Legislature’s power. Here’s why.

¶118 If Wis. Stat. § 252.02 makes the Order’s contents entirely executive, a few strategically written statutes would make the legislature a virtual non-entity. What if the legislature instructed the Department of Justice to “issue orders . . . for the control and suppression of [crime]”? Or it enacted a statute that “simply empower[ed] [the Department of Financial Institutions] to act” with respect to the subjects within its purview? Or it charged some agency or other with “the quintessential executive task of deciding how to address, for the time being, the exigency caused by” economic vicissitudes? If the executive’s authority under each of these hypothetical delegations was as staggeringly broad as the Secretary claims for herself under § 252.02, the whole of our lives could be governed exclusively from within the executive branch.

¶119 But none of those hypotheticals would be consistent with the separation of powers for the same reason the Order is not. An agency cannot confer on itself the power to dictate the lives of law-abiding individuals as comprehensively as the Order does without reaching beyond the executive branch’s authority.9

(Footnote) 9 Justice Hagedorn suggests my attention to constitutional boundaries is merely an effort to “try to get around” his observation that “[w]e do not enjoin particular enforcement actions under a facially constitutional statute simply because the statute could be deployed in ways that violate the constitution.” Justice Hagedorn’s dissent, ¶¶249, 248. I have no need to “get around” this observation because in this court we don’t let the tail wag the dog. Justice Hagedorn is concerned about remedies when what we are concerned about is enforcing a structural limitation on the branches’ powers. It would be irresponsible of us not to consider constitutional limitations when we declare what the law is.”

Finally Justice Kelly concludes:

“¶120 The Order may be a brilliantly conceived and executed response to COVID-19. Or maybe it’s not. Either way, that is not the question before the court. Brilliance does not confer authority. Nor does necessity. Our only task in this case was to determine whether Secretary Palm has the authority to issue the Order. We had an unavoidable, non-discretionary, obligatory responsibility to decide that question. And so we have.10 Because I agree with that declaration, I join the court’s opinion. I wrote separately because it is important to establish that, if we agreed with the Secretary’s reading of Wis. Stat. § 252.02, we would have to conclude the statute violated the separation of powers by conferring on the Secretary the power to make laws without going through the rule-making process.11”