|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Wisconsin > Open carry illegal in Milwaukee County Parks
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Wisconsin > Open carry illegal in Milwaukee County Parks
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
BJA Campaign Veteran 
|
I have been calling for the last two days about how Milwaukee COunty ordinance 47.05 is in non-compliandce with state statute 66.0409. State statute 66.0409 66.0409. Local regulation of firearms. Milwaukee county ordinance 47.05 Use of firearms and fireworks; hunting with bow and arrow; trapping. No person shall carry, fire or discharge any gun, pistol or firearm, nor any rocket, torpedo or other fireworks of any description, nor shall any person engage in trapping within any park or parkway without a written permit of the department of parks, recreation and culture; nor shall any person hunt with bow and arrow within any park or parkway. No person shall carry, fire or discharge any gun, pistol or firearm, nor any rocket, torpedo or other fireworks of any description upon any premises owed or leased by Milwaukee County which is not part of the county parks and parkways. The word "gun" shall include airgun. Now some people say that it is similar to the state park statute but in fact it is way more restrictive. You can't possess a gun at all in a county par, which is a total gun ban while the state park statute states you may carry a gun ANYTIME as long as it is unloaded and encased. Also there is a huge difference between county and state parks!! Not to mention we have 99 state parks and 120 or so M. CTY parks. Here is the state park statute 29.089(2)  (3)'] no person may have in his or her possession or under his or her control a firearm on land located in state parks or state fish hatcheries unless the firearm is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case. PLEAE CALL, I have been working hard at finding what the hell is going on!! Last edited on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 02:00 pm by BJA |
|||||||||
|
BJA Campaign Veteran
|
Here are the numbers to call (414) 278-4646. District Attorney: Mr. John T. Chisholm Phone: 414-278-4211 Scott walker The staute reads the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, and no more stringent than, a state statute It is more stringent!!!! Ben |
|||||||||
|
Mr. Greg Campaign Veteran 
|
Interesting point. I'm still waiting on the call back from the Milwaukee County Parks employee who called me yesterday. I think I'll give her a ring again today to see if she has dicovere anything. |
|||||||||
|
Teej Regular Member
|
No torpedos?! awww, there goes my fun at the park lagoon. But seriously... STATE law says you cannot go in a STATE park armed. It does NOT say you cannot go in a park owned by the state or any political subdivision thereof. Contrast that with the gov't buildings statute which DOES specify that you can't go armed in a building owned by the state "or any political subdivision thereof." Therefore any ordinance that references county or muni parks...is more stringent. |
|||||||||
|
BJA Campaign Veteran
|
3)'] no person may have in his or her possession or under his or her control a firearm on land located in state parks or state fish hatcheries unless the firearm is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case. You can carry a gun around in state parks you just have to follow the procedure above. |
|||||||||
|
Mr. Greg Campaign Veteran
|
BJA wrote: 3)'] no person may have in his or her possession or under his or her control a firearm on land located in state parks or state fish hatcheries unless the firearm is unloaded and enclosed within a carrying case. Yeah, that's my understanding as well. Kind of hard to have a open carry picnic while walking around with pistol cases, though.  |
|||||||||
|
Rick Finsta Regular Member 
|
Besides, carrying a pistol in a case is CCW, which is prohibited. Gotta love our legislature and judiciary in WI! |
|||||||||
|
P.I. Guy Regular Member 
|
BJA wrote: Open carry illegal in Milwaukee County Parks No @#$% Sherlock.... |
|||||||||
|
Teej Regular Member
|
welcome back, bunker. |
|||||||||
|
Mr. Greg Campaign Veteran
|
P.I. Guy wrote: BJA wrote:Open carry illegal in Milwaukee County Parks Is that you, Bunker ol buddy?  How'd Good old JB's opinion on Monday treat you? |
|||||||||
|
P.I. Guy Regular Member
|
Wow, I point out the obvious and get accusations in return. What a intelligent bunch here. |
|||||||||
|
Nutczak Regular Member 
|
P.I guy, A little background, you have added nothing but deragoatory statements in your brief time here, No introduction, no nothing. There is a guy who used the name "Bunker" in one of his trolling attempts that did nothing but argue on this site and started and typed out nothing but his emotions instead of anything that could be considered fact. You are currently emulatiing "Bunker" and doing a darn good job with your few posts, So whats the deal? Are you pro 2A, or anti 2A, maybe if you were to state your intentions and add some verifiable facts to the discussion, you may recieve a warmer welcome. Are you looking for intelligent banter, or just here to be a troll? |
|||||||||
|
Teej Regular Member
|
P.I. Guy wrote: Wow, I point out the obvious and get accusations in return. What a intelligent bunch here. The only thing I saw you do was cut & paste someone's topic, boldface it, and add a smartass "No @#$^ sherlock" Now if I'm somehow misinterpreting you, I'll gladly apologize. But the reason I said welcome back bunker is because this bunker character used to make all kinds of posts swearing up and down that he knew for fact things that are now clearly and absolutely proven false. |
|||||||||
|
smithman Regular Member
|
"if the ordinance or resolution is the same as or similar to, AND no more stringent than, a state statute." Both of these underlined statements have to be in place in order for the premption to work, due to the AND. Unfortunately the "similar to" seems to be the weasel word here. At the very least, they cannot redefine "airgun" to be a "firearm" in the last sentence. |
|||||||||
|
Rick Finsta Regular Member
|
State Parks are not municipal parks, nor are they similar. |
|||||||||
|
BJA Campaign Veteran
|
So what can we do?? I have been caling as I stated before, and hoping they repeal it. But who gets held accountable for not being in comliance with state law!? What is the next course of actions? Isn't there any accountability in our government?  Ben Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 04:13 pm by BJA |
|||||||||
|
Rick Finsta Regular Member
|
The issue here is that the state law (66.0409) did not force subdivisions of the state to purge their unenforceable laws, nor did it make it illegal for such laws to exist. It simply made it illegal to enforce such laws. I say, to use the MPD Chief's own words, that we act against such laws with "impunity," as state law allows. For instance, Saukville still has a total prohibition on firearms possession unless such firearms are unloaded and encased (even going so far as to have no exemption for the home), though they know they can't enforce it. One of these days I'll get it taken out of the municipal code, but it's not high on my list right now as it's really just aesthetics. |
|||||||||
|
BJA Campaign Veteran
|
Well the thing is though that I talked to the milwaukee county sheriffs department and they said they will enforce it. |
|||||||||
|
Rick Finsta Regular Member
|
BJA wrote: Well the thing is though that I talked to the milwaukee county sheriffs department and they said they will enforce it. OK, so they've given away their qualified immunity to a federal lawsuit. This is really no different than carrying openly under the threat of being "put on the ground;" both are illegal actions by the police, and so far, the Milwaukee Sheriff's Department has only threatened to do these things. I'm not going to tell anyone to "go ahead and do it to see what happens;" having a bunch of cops with hard-ons for their own authority pointing guns at you so you can show them they're wrong in court is not what I'd call the safest plan. It might just be the best way to remind them that YOU are in charge, they only work for you, however. Another good idea is to send letters to your legislators, and copy in the Sheriff and Milwaukee DA. Perhaps contacting a civil rights attorney, and speaking to them about it would behoove you. You could also consider an en masse stroll through some parks with cameras; in Brad's case (the Channel 12 interview), the police seemeed VERY reluctant to be on film detaining someone illegally. Unfortunately, police have been given far too much leeway for far too long in these matters, and people have just gone along with it. This is not going to change overnight, or in a week, or in a month. |
|||||||||
|
BJA Campaign Veteran
|
Okay, so I just found out that this ordinance covers ALL county property not just parks......... I don't know how I missed it. 47.05. Use of firearms, fireworks; hunting with bow and arrow and trapping; throwing of missiles; making of fires; deposit or breakage of tin cans, bottles and glassware; prohibitions. (1) Use of firearms and fireworks; hunting with bow and arrow; trapping. No person shall carry, fire or discharge any gun, pistol or firearm, nor any rocket, torpedo or other fireworks of any description, nor shall any person engage in trapping within any park or parkway without a written permit of the department of parks, recreation and culture; nor shall any person hunt with bow and arrow within any park or parkway. No person shall carry, fire or discharge any gun, pistol or firearm, nor any rocket, torpedo or other fireworks of any description upon any premises owed or leased by Milwaukee County which is not part of the county parks and parkways. The word "gun" shall include airgun. Ben Last edited on Wed Jun 17th, 2009 12:09 am by BJA |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
That is definitely unenforceable. It says including land not part of the county parks. that is like trying to claim eminent domain. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html Last edited on Wed Jun 17th, 2009 12:42 am by J.Gleason |
|||||||||
|
Flipper Campaign Veteran 
|
Again I ask, where is the Scott Walker comment on this? |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
In my opinion if Scott walker is going to beat around the bush that means he is not supportive of our cause. There are other candidates that will support our cause. I don't know why these guys think that silence is the answer. I will only vote for someone who is willing to stand up for what is right (pardon the punn) I think Alderwoman Lisa should run for Governor!  |
|||||||||
|
Nutczak Regular Member
|
BJA wrote: Okay, so I just found out that this ordinance covers ALL county property not just parks......... I don't know how I missed it. If this is the case, then it is a B-S ordinance Since several tracts of state-owned land is open to both Open-carry of a firearm, and hunting. Wouldn't this Milwaukee ordinance be more stringent and therefore preempted according to WI Stat. 66.049 ? ? ? ? ? Can anyone contact a legislator they may personally know to get an opinion from the A.G. ? ? ? As an addition to this, State and Federal forest's in the state are also open to carry and hunting in many places. Such as the Cheq/Nic National Forest which is in parts of Vilas, Forest & Iron Counties. Vernon Marsh in Waukesha County, Theresa and Horicon marsh, Etc Etc Etc..... EDIT: And parts of the "Northern Highland State Forest" is one of my favorite hunting area's too. Last edited on Wed Jun 17th, 2009 09:03 am by Nutczak |
|||||||||
|
BJA Campaign Veteran
|
Even if the ordinance was just about the carrying in parks it would be nullified. There is a huge difference between state parks and local parks. The state only has one statute relating to firearms in local parks, and it only states that you can't discharge a weapon in a local park nothing more. Therefore any local ordinance regarding local parks would be void unless it only specififically pertains to the "discharge". 167.30 Use of firearms, etc., near park, etc. Any person who shall discharge or cause the discharge of any missile from any firearm, slung shot, bow and arrow or other weapon, within 40 rods of any public park, square or enclosure owned or controlled by any municipality within this state and resorted to for recreation or pleasure, when such park, square or enclosure is wholly situated without the limits of such municipality, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding 60 days or by fine of not more than $25 nor less than one dollar By the way Nutczak, Me and my little brother are heading up to the Northern Highland State Forest this weekend. Doing some wilderness camping on Allequash lake, and lots of fishing. It' beautiful up at vilas! Ben |
|||||||||
|
hugh jarmis Centurion Member
|
Again I ask, where is the Scott Walker comment on this? http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=25984 Flipper, we've discussed this before. Scott Walkers staff asked for a legal opinion, and was given one that the ordinance was parallel with the state park ban. If you think any politician in Wisconsin that has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected governor is going to make open carry in county parks the cornerstone of their campaign, you're nuts. Scott Walker would sign ANY pro-gun legislation that made it to his desk as county exec or governor. I guarantee it. I'm not at all surprised that he's not running around trying to start a fire around the muddy unclear legal water of the county park gun-ban ordinance. He's not god, he can't just snap his fingers and make it go away. Having said that. You must vote your conscience. If Jim Doyle is a better champion of gun rights because Scott Walker doesn't make YOUR issue the highlight of his day, vote your conscience. If you have another viable candidate for governor that will make open carry in county parks (or the school zone ban, or vehicle carry ban) the champion of their campaign, HELL, I'll vote for them. But we KNOW those issues are not going to win elections among the masses. I'm happy to do MY part to bring those issues to the forefront through contacting my representatives or through funding civil lawsuits against them. As for the county executive, who you're ready to rail on because he isn't championing a cause his office says they have no legal basis for, you might know that he can only sign legislation the county board sends to him. And you might know that the county board and Scott Walker DON'T see eye to eye. (thank god for that) What did YOUR county board rep say? Why aren't you railing on someone who COULD introduce legislation like your county board rep, instead of someone who can only sign or veto what comes to his desk? |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
Good points Nik. |
|||||||||
|
Flipper Campaign Veteran
|
As a candidate for governor, at some point he is going to have to provide his views on open and concealed carry as well as other gun issues. As county exec he is in this box: 2) Duties and powers. The county executive shall be the chief executive officer of the county. The county executive shall take care that every county ordinance and state or federal law is observed, enforced and administered within his or her county if the ordinance or law is subject to enforcement by the county executive or any person supervised by the county executive. The duties and powers of the county executive shall be, without limitation because of enumeration, to: (b) In any county with a population of 500,000 or more, appoint and supervise the heads of all departments except where the statutes provide that the appointment shall be made by a board or commission or by other elected officers. 1. In any county with a population of 500,000 or more, appoint the following persons: a. The director of parks, recreation and culture under s. 27.03 (2) The solution: The park ordinance is changed or determined to be invalid. As county exec can he ask the county's corporation counsel to request an A.G. opinion? Last edited on Wed Jun 17th, 2009 09:54 pm by Flipper |
|||||||||
|
pvtschultz Campaign Veteran
|
My county supervisor (is that what they are called...) has asked for an opionion from the corporation counsel. I haven't heard back from him so I guess I owe another email. OTOH, we are relatively certain that the county cannot enforce this ordinance. I say the next meet and greet be in a county park with cameras rolling. Hell, we could even invite the sheriff's department. |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member 
|
Flipper wrote: As county exec can he ask the county's corporation counsel to request an A.G. opinion?http://www.doj.state.wi.us/ag/opinions/ Attorney General Opinions The attorney general shall . . . [g]ive his or her opinion in writing, when required, without fee, upon all questions of law submitted to him or her by the legislature, either house thereof or the senate or assembly committee on organization, or by the head of any department of state government. -- Wis. Stat. § 165.015 By statute, the Attorney General must, when asked, provide the legislature and designated Wisconsin state government officials with an opinion on legal questions. The Attorney General may also give formal legal opinions to district attorneys and county corporation counsel under certain circumstances. Wis. Stat. § 165.25(3) and 59.42(1)(c). Opinions of the Attorney General (OAG) typically provide guidance when confusion exists about the meaning of a statute and Wisconsin appellate courts have not yet definitively answered the question. Wisconsin courts do not have any obligation to follow an interpretation provided by an OAG, but they often do. As the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has written, "Well-reasoned attorney general's opinions have persuasive value when a court later addresses the meaning of the same statute." |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
59.42(1)(c) (c) The corporation counsel may, when authorized by a majority of the board, appoint one or more assistant corporation counsels to aid the corporation counsel in the performance of the duties of corporation counsel. The assistants so appointed shall have authority to perform all the duties of the corporation counsel. The duties of the corporation counsel shall be limited to civil matters and may include giving legal opinions to the board and its committees and interpreting the powers and duties of the board and county officers. Whenever any of the powers and duties conferred upon the corporation counsel are concurrent with similar powers or duties conferred by law upon the district attorney, the district attorney's powers or duties shall cease to the extent that they are so conferred upon the corporation counsel and the district attorney shall be relieved of the responsibility for performing such powers or duties. Opinions of the corporation counsel on all such matters shall have the same effect as opinions of the district attorney. The corporation counsel may request the attorney general to consult and advise with the corporation counsel in the same manner as district attorneys as provided by [url=http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=xhitlist$xhitlist_x=Advanced$xhitlist_vpc=first$xhitlist_xsl=querylink.xsl$xhitlist_sel=title;path;content-type;home-title$xhitlist_d=%7Bstats%7D$xhitlist_q=%5Bfield%20folio-destination-name:%27165.25%283%29%27%5D$xhitlist_md=target-id=0-0-0-91775]s. 165.25 (3)[/url]. |
|||||||||
|
hugh jarmis Centurion Member
|
OTOH, we are relatively certain that the county cannot enforce this ordinance. I agree, being unable to carry in county parks is CLEARLY more restrictive than the state statute of not being able to carry in state parks. No question about it. I have not heard from any judge or state official (attorney general) that the local ordinance is enforeceable. I have heard that AGA's (armed government agents) have claimed they will arrest for open carry in a county park, but THEN AGAIN, we know that members of this forum have asked AGA's if open carry was legal at all and AGA's say "no". So we know the cops have no obligation to tell the truth, and we know cops will do everything they can to intimidate people from exercising their rights. In none of the memoradums nor training memo's that I've seen where they purport to list all of the exclusions from open carry (alcohol, school zone, vehicle carry, public building) do they list county parks as prohibited places. This leaves the options of just doing it. (which some claim to be doing) and see what happens. Filing a lawsuit to get the ordinances removed, petitioning the county board legislators to get it removed, or perhaps just asking Jesus to go do it in front of AGA's and call their bluff. I suspect worse case scenario, they'll arrest and not charge because the THREAT of reprecussion for carrying in a park carries FAR more teeth than the reality of what happens if the CHARGE IT and have the courts correctly rule that its unenforceable. |
|||||||||
|
hugh jarmis Centurion Member
|
Attorney General Opinions The attorney general shall . . . [g]ive his or her opinion in writing, when required, without fee, upon all questions of law submitted to him or her by the legislature, either house thereof or the senate or assembly committee on organization, or by the head of any department of state government. From statements of board members previously, Scott Walkers office indicated that they did ask for a legal opinion. (was that from the AG? or corporate counsel?) If they really did ask for that opinion, then we should be able to do an open records request? Anyone see a fault in my logic? if not, then I'll write a open records request to the county exec today. |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
Requesting just what, please? |
|||||||||
|
hugh jarmis Centurion Member
|
requesting what response they got from their "corporate counsel" or the Attorney General when they asked about the legal standing of the county park firearm ban ordinace. IF the county execs office really did seek a legal opinion (and that is an "if") then per open records, we would be entitled to it? A citizen cannot ask for an opinion from the AG (if I understand correctly) but we can demand that the county exec does, and then we are entitled to an open records request of what that opinion was. |
|||||||||
|
hugh jarmis Centurion Member
|
made a phone call to a contact at the CE office, waiting for answer, i'll report back as soon as I hear. |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
An oral open records request? Verry good! And entirely appropriate. You've done your reading. |
|||||||||
|
pvtschultz Campaign Veteran
|
Updates? |
|||||||||
|
hugh jarmis Centurion Member
|
Nothing yet, I'm going to give her a couple more days and check back. |
|||||||||
|
hugh jarmis Centurion Member
|
Just an update. I contacted the CE's office again today and received the following reply:No - it seems no one has a direct answer for me - and the County Executive is on his 6th Annual Executive Ride around Wisconsin promoting Milwaukee County. I might not have an answer until next week. So of course I'll update next week or as soon as I hear. |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
I recently sent an Email to Calumet County in regards to the fire arms ordinance in county parks: Ms. Jodar, I was browsing the county ordinances for Calumet County and I did notice that on Page 61 under Fire Arms and Weapons Control the ordinance clearly states: 46-2 (d) Firearms and weapons control. (1) No person other than a sheriff, constable, police officer, or deputy shall fire or discharge any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun of any description or shoot any tipped arrows in any county park. (2) No person shall have in their possession in any county park any firearm or air gun, as defined by statute, unless unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case, or any bow, unless unstrung and enclosed in a carrying case. I would like to point out to you that this ordinance would not be enforceable due to the following: 42 USC 1983 NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 3, 2007 (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscprint.html). - 1 - TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. (R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.) Codification R.S. § 1979 derived from act Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, § 1, 17 Stat. 13. Section was formerly classified to section 43 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality. Amendments 1996—Pub. L. 104–317 inserted before period at end of first sentence “, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable”. 1979—Pub. L. 96–170 inserted “or the District of Columbia” after “Territory”, and provisions relating to Acts of Congress applicable solely to the District of Columbia. Effective Date of 1979 Amendment Amendment by Pub. L. 96–170 applicable with respect to any deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws occurring after Dec. 29, 1979, see section 3 of Pub. L. 96–170, set out as a note under section 1343 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. After the recent Law enforcement Memo distributed from the Wisconsin Attorney Generals Office concerning the open carry of fire arms, in which Attorney General Van Hollen announced it is legal for citizens to open carry a fire arm in the State of Wisconsin in accordance with The Wisconsin State Constitution Article I Section 25 which reads: Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. [1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998] And the U.S. Constitution which clearly reads: ARTICLE II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. All citizens have the right to lawful self defense. As I am sure you will agree, the cost of leaving these unenforceable ordinances on the books would far out weigh the task of removing them from the books. An act of enforcement on this issue would result in a legitimate civil suit against the county for style="" style=""the deprivation of any rights, style=""privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. All actors shall be liable to the party injured style="" style=""in an action at law, suit in equity. The county,the Sheriff's Department and all individual officers involved would be listed as liable parties, costing the county, the individuals and tax payers a great deal of much needed revenue. Therefore I am requesting this ordinance to be removed from the books and/or changed to read: (d) Firearms and weapons control. (1) No person other than a sheriff, constable, police officer, or deputy shall fire or discharge any firearm, rifle, spring or air gun of any description or shoot any tipped arrows in any county park unless the discharge of such weapon is made in the act of self defense or to defend the life of another person. (2) No person shall have in their possession in any county park any firearm, air gun, or bow as defined by statute, unless such person is legally qualified to possess the weapon in accordance with Wisconsin state law. I appreciate your service to Calumet County and your attention to this matter. Sincerely, James A. Gleason 15 Lehner St. Chilton, WI. 53014 Let me know what you think. I will post any reply. |
|||||||||
|
J.Gleason Campaign Veteran
|
My first reply, RE: County Ordinance 46-2(d) From: Lisa Jodar (Jodar.Lisa@co.calumet.wi.us) Sent: Wed 7/01/09 1:20 PM To: 'James Gleason' (j.gleason@hotmail.com) .ExternalClass .EC_shape {;} .ExternalClass p.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass li.EC_MsoNormal, .ExternalClass div.EC_MsoNormal {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass a:visited, .ExternalClass span.EC_MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass span.EC_EmailStyle18 {font-family:Arial;color:blue;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in;} .ExternalClass div.EC_Section1 {page:Section1;} Mr. Gleason – please be informed that I have passed your concerns along to the appropriate personnel. Thank you. Lisa Jodar Corporation Counsel Legal Assistant 920-849-1443 fax: 920-849-1617 [size=jodar.lisa@co.calumet.wi.us] [size=http://www.co.calumet.wi.us] The future depends on what we do in the present. Mahatma Gandhi |
|||||||||
|
Sajuuk Regular Member 
|
4th of July celebrations coming up this weekend. I'm tempted to try my luck at Mitchell Park. |
|||||||||
|
hugh jarmis Centurion Member
|
Just an update on my endeavors with the CE's office. The director of constituent services gave me the deputy chief of staff's number. I didn't have time to call him today. Will do monday. |
|||||||||
|
Sajuuk Regular Member
|
Sajuuk wrote: 4th of July celebrations coming up this weekend. I'm tempted to try my luck at Mitchell Park. Ah, well, I sissied out and didn't carry in the park. I did go empty holster, though, so I'm sure people noticed it.. maybe. The fireworks were great, kids had a blast. |
|||||||||