We Ask that the Wisconsin Attorney General Voluntarily Dismiss the Appeal Pursuant to Section 809.18(1), Wis. Stats.
The state is the appellant in this case. The attorney general's office can request dismissal. This would save the state money, and allow a young, hardworking, loving single dad to live in peace while continuing to visit with his two daughters --- and them with each other.
Governor Walker has stated repeatedly that the state of Wisconsin is "broke".
Well, this would be a good opportunity to save some of those taxpayer dollars.
Nothing will be gained by sending Alex to Russia. His daughters will never see him again. Nobody could possibly afford to visit him there.
Governor Walker has stated repeatedly that the state of Wisconsin is "broke".
Well, this would be a good opportunity to save some of those taxpayer dollars.
Nothing will be gained by sending Alex to Russia. His daughters will never see him again. Nobody could possibly afford to visit him there.
Here is What the Statute Says:
{Disclaimer: We are not attorneys, and this does not constitute legal advice. We are grass-roots citizens petitioning our government for a redress of grievances. This seems like the simplest thing to ask for, in order to achieve justice and stop this travesty.}
Section 809.18 Rule (Voluntary dismissal).
(1) An appellant may dismiss a filed appeal by filing a notice of dismissal in the court or, if the appeal is not yet filed, in the circuit court. The dismissal of an appeal by the appellant or by agreement of the parties or their counsel does not affect the status of a lower court decision, the status of a cross-appeal, or the right of a respondent to file a cross-appeal.
Section 809.18 Rule (Voluntary dismissal).
(1) An appellant may dismiss a filed appeal by filing a notice of dismissal in the court or, if the appeal is not yet filed, in the circuit court. The dismissal of an appeal by the appellant or by agreement of the parties or their counsel does not affect the status of a lower court decision, the status of a cross-appeal, or the right of a respondent to file a cross-appeal.
{Judicial Council Committee's Note, 1978: An appeal may be dismissed by the appellant at any time prior to a court decision on the appeal without approval of the court or the respondent. This changes the former procedure and modifies Rule 42, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Rule specifically protects a respondent who has or intends to file a cross-appeal, and for this reason the appellant is authorized to dismiss the appeal at will. The filing of a notice of dismissal does not affect the liability of the appellant for costs or fees, or the power of the court to impose penalties under Rule 809.83 (1). [Re: Order effective July 1, 1978]} ---
The above paragraph is a little bit of clarification and commentary, I think. It's not part of the actual statute. I think the important thing is that first sentence. The appellant (the state, in this case) can withdraw or dismiss its own appeal at any time before the appellate court decides.
This seems to me to be saying that, if the appellant dismisses or withdraws its own case, everything goes back to the status quo that existed before the Notice of Appeal was filed. To wit, that decision of the circuit court of January, 2013, would again be current ---as it is now, but might be subject to change, if J.B. Van Hollen's office does not withdraw it. (See above disclaimer. We are not attorneys. This is not legal advice.) To be fair and accurate, I don't think the state would win anyway, but it's too expensive to find out.
That last sentence, where it mentions Rule 809.83 (1) means that the appellant still has to pay costs or filing fees, and the appellant can still face a penalty for frivolous action. But, that would be the responsibility of the attorney general's office, because they are the appellant.
This seems to me to be saying that, if the appellant dismisses or withdraws its own case, everything goes back to the status quo that existed before the Notice of Appeal was filed. To wit, that decision of the circuit court of January, 2013, would again be current ---as it is now, but might be subject to change, if J.B. Van Hollen's office does not withdraw it. (See above disclaimer. We are not attorneys. This is not legal advice.) To be fair and accurate, I don't think the state would win anyway, but it's too expensive to find out.
That last sentence, where it mentions Rule 809.83 (1) means that the appellant still has to pay costs or filing fees, and the appellant can still face a penalty for frivolous action. But, that would be the responsibility of the attorney general's office, because they are the appellant.