STATE OF WISCONSIN ___________________COURT BRANCH________

________________________________________________________________________
) Case No. ___________________________
) Related Circuit Court Case No. 2010FA11
Jeffrey P. Erbs, pro per )
Plaintiff ) WRIT OF MANDAMUS
)
) DEMAND FOR REQUESTED RELIEF
V ) FROM DISQUALIFICATION HEARING
) OF Feb. 26, 2010 by Judge Cameron
)
Judge Roderick Cameron ) DEMAND FOR REQUESTED RELIEF
Defendent ) FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT of Jan.
) 19, 2010, presented to Judge Cameron on
) Feb.26, 2010
)
) DEMAND FOR WRITTEN OPINION
) AND ORAL HEARING
)
________________________________________________________________________

Comes now Jeffrey P. Erbs, pro per, to DEMAND THE COURT TO ENFORCE CONSTITUTIONAL
OVERSIGHT OVER THE BRANCH I COURT and JUDGE CAMERON to stop the unlawful
violations of (1.) Jeffrey’s rights to remedies for wrongs, as required by the Wisconsin Constitution,
Article I, Section 9; (2.) the Wisconsin Supreme Court rules of Conduct for Judges, 60.04 (1) (a) and
(b); (3.) Wisconsin Statute 757.025 (1) and (2); (4.) Wisconsin Statute 757.02(1) the judge’s oath; (5.)
SCR 60.02 and (6.) the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules of Judicial Administration Chapter 70, SCR
70.36(1) (a). The aggrieved party, Jeffrey, also DEMANDS WRITTEN OPINION AND ORAL
HEARING ON THIS MATTER. Written opinion shall include decisions for the relief requested in the
Disqualification Motion and the Default Motion.

AFFIDAVIT

All statements herein are truthful, sworn testimony, as stated.

(1.) On Feb.26, 2010 in Branch I Chippewa County Court, Judge Cameron heard Jeffrey’s Motion for
Disqualification of attorney Lester Liptak for violations of SCR 20:1.9. Liptak was found to have
violated SCR 20:1.9 and disqualified. Attorney Mark Mullen and The Mullen Law Group, LLC were
disqualified by imputed disqualification, SCR 20:1.10. The Disqualification Motion is attached,
marked exhibit A, the Disqualification Order, exhibit B

(2.) The requested relief for the disqualification motion and the default judgment motion were not
decided because Judge Cameron, acting as the Respondent’s (Mary Ann Erbs) counsel decided, without
questioning the Respondent, that the Respondent needed representation, as attorneys Liptak and Mullen
were disqualified. Cameron’s statement was “With that in mind, Ms. Erbs has no representation, so all
the other motions are continued until the hearing is rescheduled”. The order from this hearing dictates:
All motions filed by the Petitioner, Jeffrey P. Erbs, including all additional requests for relief, 2-5, in
the original Motion for Disqualification and the Default Motion also filed February 10, 2010, remain
pending to give respondent, Mary Ann Erbs, an allowance of time to acquire replacement counsel. A
copy of this transcript is attached, marked exhibit C.

(3.) The Default Motion was presented, but not heard, Feb. 26. This requested relief was first heard at
a Temporary Hearing held on Jan.19, 2010, neither the Respondent, nor her attorney Liptak, were
present at this hearing. Commissioner Ferg refused to act on this matter on Jan.19, and also on Feb.1,
2010 at a 2nd Temporary Hearing scheduled by Liptak. This motion’s requested relief is Maintenance in
the amount of $2500.00 per month and that Mary Ann Erbs retain Jeffrey on her company insurance
plan and pay all healthcare expenses. Jeffrey has been disabled since November 2007 and has NO
INCOME. A copy of this motion is attached, marked exhibit D.

(4.) Jeffrey is entitled to justice freely, and without denial, promptly and without delay according to
Article I, Section 9 of the Wisconsin Constitution, Remedy for Wrongs.
Remedy for wrongs. SECTION 9. Every person is entitled

to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries, or wrongs which

he may receive in his person, property, or character; he ought to

obtain justice freely, and without being obliged to purchase it,

completely and without denial, promptly and without delay,

conformably to the laws.

(5.)Judge Cameron is obligated by Wisconsin Statute 757.02 and his mandatory oath of office is
required to support both the Constitution of the United States and Wisconsin. Remedy for Wrongs is
Article I, Section 9 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

(6.) Both 757.025 and SCR 70.36 specify 90 days as the maximum, without granted exception, time for
a judge to make a decision. As of June 27, 2010, it has been 121 days since Feb. 26, 2010, 31 days past
the 90 day limit.. SCR 70.36 also requires the judge to certify, within 5 days of the expiration of the 90
day period, if he is unable to make the decision and also to notify in writing the chief judge of the
judicial administrative district in which the matter is pending. As of June 27, 2010, WCCA did not list
any certification by either Ferg or Cameron. Copy of 2010FA11 WCCA attached, exhibit E
SCR 70.36 Judges' and circuit court commissioners’
certification of status of pending cases. (1)(a) Every judge of a
circuit court shall decide each matter submitted for decision within 90
days of the date on which the matter is submitted to the judge in final
form, exclusive of the time the judge has been actually disabled by
sickness. If a judge is unable to do so, within 5 days of the expiration
of the 90-day period the judge shall so certify in the record of the
matter and notify in writing the chief judge of the judicial
administrative district in which the matter is pending, and the period is
thereupon extended for one additional period of 90 days. This
subsection applies to an assigned reserve judge.

(7.) Wisconsin SCR 60.04 (1) (a) &(b) require a judge to hear and decide matters assigned to the judge
and to be faithful to the law and maintain competence in it. SCR 60.04(1)(e) also requires a judge to
perform his duties without bias or prejudice, Jeffrey is disabled and without income but has been
denied maintenance by both Judge Cameron and Commissioner Ferg. Maintenance is a very normal
action in all family courts, why not this one?? SCR rules are all laws as are the state statutes,
apparently there is some review needed in several areas of our Wisconsin Laws.

SCR 60.04 A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office

impartially and diligently.
The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the
judge's other activities. The judge's judicial duties include all the
duties of the judge's office prescribed by law.
(1) In the performance of the duties under this section, the
following apply to adjudicative responsibilities:
(a) A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge,
except those in which recusal is required under sub. (4) or
disqualification is required under section 757.19 of the statutes and
except when judge substitution is requested and granted.
(b) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence in it. A judge may not be swayed by partisan
interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.
(e) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or
prejudice. A judge may not, in the performance of judicial duties, by
words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice, including bias or
prejudice based upon race, gender, religion, national origin, disability,
age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and may not
knowingly permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's
direction and control to do so.

(8.) SCR 60.02 requires a judge to uphold the integrity and independence of the
judiciary with the example given that a judge is to comply with all law, including the
provisions of SCR chapter 60. I have included SCR 60.02 and the first paragraph of the
comment:

SCR 60.02 A judge shall uphold the integrity and

independence of the judiciary.
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to
justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing,
maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct and shall
personally observe those standards so that the integrity and
independence of the judiciary will be preserved. This chapter applies
to every aspect of judicial behavior except purely legal decisions.
Legal decisions made in the course of judicial duty on the record are
subject solely to judicial review.
COMMENT
Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the
integrity and independence of the judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn
upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply
with the law, including the provisions of this chapter. Public confidence in the impartiality of the
judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of
this chapter diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of
government under law.
(9.) As Jeffrey is disabled, and without income, the abuse, economic abuse,
discrimination, and trespass of his rights in this case is especially cruel punishment for a
crime never committed. It is almost 6 months since maintenance was first requested as
relief in Commissioner Robert Ferg’s court, Jan.19, 2010, where Commissioner Ferg
first refused Jeffrey maintenance, violating Wisconsin Statute 757.69(1)( p)(1). As the
Respondent, Mary Ann Erbs and her attorney Lester Liptak, never made an appearance
at this Jan.19 hearing, the decision by Default Judgment should have been an easy one.
This court, and judges, should stand reminded that Jeffrey is A.D.A. and the state has
NO IMMUNITY for violations of U.S.C. 42, Chapter 126, Section 12202. Section
12202 is as follows:
Sec. 12202. State immunity
A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States
from an action in Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter. In any
action against a State for a violation of the requirements of this chapter, remedies (including remedies
both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are
available for such a violation in an action against any public or private entity other than a State.
(10.) This court’s duty is to offer remedy and justice. It is also very necessary, and past due, in
Chippewa County Court case no. 2010FA00011..The plaintiff requests swift justice and remedy for the
wrongs outlined in this Writ.