In the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin; & also:  
in the Circuit Court for the State of Wisconsin, in Sheboygan County;
& also: in the Supreme Court-of-Law for the United States of America:
****************************************************************************

Proceeding In the Name of, & on the Behalf of, “The People”, who Lawfully Constitute  our Socially-Compacted Organic Body-Politic Communities, which are known as our Constitutional “State of Wisconsin”; & also of our “United States of America”; 
& here-under, Proceeding 
In the Nature of Quo-Warranto; 
which translates, as: “Wisconsin State-Ex-Relatione”; & this, by & through the “Relationship” there-with, of one: “Jason James Goodwill”; & here-under, also, Proceeding as a “Private Attorney General”, & also In the “Public-Interest”, all as: Grievants/Plaintiffs/Accusers/Claimants; 

Versus: 
The Legal-Fiction/Lawless/De-Facto 
Military-Police-State & Roman-Empire Modeled Statutory Civil/Municipal  Governing-Body, which self-identifies as: 
the “STATE OF WISCONSIN”; 
& here-under, also, & operating under Limited-jurisdiction Municipal Corporation Franchise & Agency, as the “WISCONSIN STATE BAR ASSOCIATION”, & as  
“SHEBOYGAN COUNTY”; & various holders of Public-Offices there-under, 
including the various Complicit Individual Public-Office-Holding Conspirators; Including, but not limited to: Circuit Judge Borowski, District-Attorney Urmanski, Ex-Deputy-Assistant-DA Meulbroek; Ex-Sheriff Todd Priebe; Ex-Deputy-Sheriff John Winter; Ex-Deputy-Sheriff Joel Clark; Sheriff Cory Roeseler; & in “WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS”  Secretary Kevin Karr, & Agent Nate Barrington;  & various other complicit but yet un-known John & Jane Does; 
                 Accused Criminal Defendants.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)

Proceeding under “Concurrent Jurisdiction”; 
under first: Wisconsin State’s 
Civil-Government’s Fourth Judicial-District’s  
"Circuit Court, for Sheboygan County, 
& in Case-Numbers: 2009-CF-000299, 
2013-CF-000360, 2016-CF-000628, 
& 2019-CF-000317; 
& also under: 
the “Supreme Court for the State of Wisconsin”,
under a New Case-Number of _____________; 
& also In the Supreme Court-of-Law for the USA:
Case-#:  2023-0003.

Demand for Habeas-Corpus Proceeding;
&: Criminal Counter-Complaint, 
as Against Original Plaintiffs under the here-in above-described Wisconsin Case-Numbers;
&, here-under, Proceeding 
in the Nature of Quo-Warranto,
Qui-Tam, Scire Facias, Mandamus; 
& further here-under, presenting: 
Sworn True Accusation, that 
certain Holders of Public-Offices in 
the Local Civil/Municipal Government
of Sheboygan County, have Actively Participated 
In the Crimes of Malicious Prosecution, 
Felony Kidnapping,  False-Imprisonment, Extortion, & Theft;  as against 
Co-Plaintiff Jason-Goodwill; 
all of which amounts to their own private 
but Massive Criminal Racketeering Conspiracy,
Chain-Conspiracy, & Wheel-Conspiracy; 
all Multi-Tiered, & Multi-Faceted: & there-by also corrupting many surrounding jurisdictions.

(Edit-Preliminary-Version-5; 
Last Up-Dated: 2023-June-06.)

	This is a “Preliminary Version” of this Complaint; & we expect to up-date it soon. We are Rushing to Complete & Distribute this Preliminary-Version of this Complaint, because, the Co-Plaintiff here-in, Jason Goodwill, is in a “Life-Threatening Danger” Situation, which is presently being exacerbated by the Accused Criminal Conspirators named here-in; which Desperately Needs to be Addressed Immediately by either the Sheboygan Circuit Court, or by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 	
	Here-under; the “Habeas Corpus” portion of our Counter-Complaint here, is particularly important for we Complaining Parties to emphasize before the above two last mentioned Courts.
	Here-under, & in pursuit of this more pressing “Habeas Corpus” issue:

	On Three Separate Occasions, in the years of 2013, 2016, & 2019; Co-Plaintiff Jason Goodwill was Kidnapped From his Home-State in Michigan; & on each of these occasions, he was Forcibly & Coercively Taken to Wisconsin, by People Holding Franchises or Agencies from Public-Offices in the State of Wisconsin.
	Those Public-Office Franchisees or Agents, then Abused Their Franchises or Agencies, by & through Referring to their Milicious Kidnapping Activities, as Lawful “Arrest” of a Criminal.  
	The Fact that Co-Plaintiff Jason Goodwill has Never been Lawfully Convicted of the Crimes which were then alleged against him, is Documented in Extensive Web-Page Files of Documents & Videos, as available under the following web-links:

http://RicoBusters.com/
http://PowerCorruptsAgain.com/
https://ConstitutionalGov.us/sub/Michigan/Cases/David-Schied/2017_JasonGoodwillHabeasCorpus/

"RICO Busters #17 - The Framing of Rev. Jason Goodwill (PART 1)", 48-minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQW5k-0d8UA&t=1094s

"RICO Busters #18 - The Framing of Rev. Jason Goodwill (PART 2)": 69-minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gFrJnXm0A8

~~~
	Case-Law which Clearly Explains the Prioritized Duty of All Public-Servants to Respect Habeas-Corpus is explained as follows:

U.S. Supreme Court; Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963)
	(a) The basic principle of the Great Writ of habeas corpus is that, in a civilized society, government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man's imprisonment: If the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release. Pp. 399-402.		
	(b) A review of the history of habeas corpus shows that, when the Suspension Clause, Art. I, 9, Cl. 2, was written into the Federal Constitution ..., there was respectable common-law authority for the proposition that habeas corpus was available to remedy any kind of governmental restraint contrary to the fundamental law; and it would appear that the Constitution invites, if it does not compel, a generous construction of the power of the federal courts to dispense the writ comfortably with common-law practice. Pp. 402-406. ...
	Thus there is nothing novel in the fact that today habeas corpus in the federal courts provides a mode for the redress of denials of due process of law.  Vindication of due process is precisely its historic office.
	... Only two Terms ago this Court had occasion to reaffirm the high place of the writ in our jurisprudence: "We repeat what has been so truly said of the federal writ: `there is no higher duty than to maintain it unimpaired,' Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 26 (1939), and unsuspended, save only in the cases specified in our Constitution." Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 713.
	These are not extravagant expressions. Behind them may be discerned the unceasing contest between personal liberty and government oppression. It is no accident that habeas corpus has time and again played a central role in national crises, wherein the claims of order and of liberty clash most acutely, not only in England in the seventeenth century, but also in America from our very beginnings, and today.
	Although in form the Great Writ is simply a mode of procedure, its history is inextricably intertwined with the growth of fundamental rights of personal liberty. For its function has been to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy for whatever society deems to be intolerable restraints.  Its root principle is that in a civilized society, government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man's imprisonment: if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release. 
	Thus there is nothing novel in the fact that today habeas corpus in the federal courts provides a mode for the redress of denials of due process of law.  Vindication of due process is precisely its historic office.  In 1593, for example, a bill was introduced in the House of Commons, which, after deploring the frequency of violations of "the great Charter and auncient good Lawes and statutes of this realme," provided:
	"Fore remedy whereof be it enacted: That the provisions and prohibicions of the said great Charter and other Lawes in that behalfe made be dulie and inviolatelie observed. And that no person or persons be hereafter committed to prison but yt be by sufficient warrant and Authorities and by due course and proceedings in Lawe . . . .
	"And that the Justice of anie the Queenes Majesties Courts of Recorde at the common Lawe maie awarde a writt of habeas Corpus for the deliverye of anye person so imprisoned . . . ."

	Although it was not enacted, this bill accurately pre-figured the union of the right to due process drawn from Magna Charta and the remedy of habeas corpus accomplished in the next century.
	"[w]hatever disagreement there may be as to the scope of the phrase `due process of law,' there can be no doubt that it embraces the fundamental conception of a fair trial . . . . We are not speaking of mere disorder, or mere irregularities in procedure, but of a case where the processes of justice are actually subverted.  In such a case, the Federal court has jurisdiction to issue the writ.  The fact that the state court still has its general jurisdiction and is otherwise a competent court does not make it impossible to find that a jury has been subjected to intimidation in a particular case.  The loss of jurisdiction is not general but particular, and proceeds from the control of a hostile influence." (Page 9 Line 7)
	"it would be unseemly in our dual system of government for a federal district court to upset a state court conviction without an opportunity to the state courts to correct a constitutional violation . . . . Solution was found in the doctrine of comity between courts, a doctrine which teaches that one court should defer action on causes properly within its jurisdiction until the courts of another sovereignty with concurrent powers, and already cognizant of the litigation, have had an opportunity to pass upon the matter." Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 204. 
	The rule of exhaustion "is not one defining power but one which relates to the appropriate exercise of power." Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 27. Cf. Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1; Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519; Douglas v. Green, 363 U.S. 192. (Pg 13 Ln 2)
	Holmes, writing for the Court in Moore ... said: "if in fact a trial is dominated by a mob so that there is an actual interference with the course of justice, there is a departure from due process of law; . . . [if] the State Courts failed to correct the wrong, . . . perfection in the machinery for correction . . . can[not] prevent this Court from securing to the petitioners their constitutional rights." 261 U.S., at 90-91. (Pg 14 ln 1)
	Mr. Justice Holmes in his dissenting opinion in Frank v. Mangum, supra, at 348: "If the petition discloses facts that amount to a loss of jurisdiction in the trial court, jurisdiction could not be restored by any decision above." It is of the historical essence of habeas corpus that it lies to test proceedings so fundamentally lawless that imprisonment pursuant to them is not merely erroneous but void.”

~~~
	Incorporated in-to this document, by way of this reference to them, are two other documents; which, describe More Details concerning the Massive & Criminally-Treasonous Social-Engineering Policies which are being Perpetrated by the lower-level Conspirators who are here-in Accused.    
	These two documents are available on the web-pages here: 

	https://ConstitutionalGov.us/SupremeCourtOfLaw/Treason-USA/1-TreasonComplaint-ConstrctiveNotice-AllOfficers&Agents-V1.5.pdf
	https://ConstitutionalGov.us/SupremeCourtOfLaw/Treason-USA/2-TreasonConstrctvNtc-CitationsSupportive-V1.2.pdf

	Building there-on, & similarly incorporated by in-to this document by way of this reference to them; are two additional documents, which explain the Constitutional Right of the Common People to Form Their Own “Courts of Common-Law Jurisdiction”; all where-under our Common People May Directly Adjudicate Any & All such Cases similar as this one, & that especially when the Civil-Servants occupying the Offices of the present Roman Statutory Municipal/Civil Circuit & Supreme Courts might either be too incompetent or too corrupted to so adjudicate. 
	These Two Additional, which, again, explain the Constitutional Right of the Common People to Form Their Own “Courts of Common-Law Jurisdiction”; are web-linked here:

	https://ConstitutionalGov.us/SupremeCourtOfLaw/Treason-USA/3-TreasonRemedy-BuildingSelfGoverningCommonlawCommunities-V4.pdf
	https://ConstitutionalGov.us/SupremeCourtOfLaw/Treason-USA/4-TreasonRemedy-Building-Communities-Citations-V1.3.pdf

	We expect also to soon include in amended versions of this complaint, references to 
Case-Law known as “Chisolm Vs Georgia”, & such others as appropriate; the former of which is discusses nicely in the web-link here: 
	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisholm_v._Georgia

***********************************

	Common-Law Witnesses who here-by Certify that they have Responsibly Reviewed the Merits of Jason’s Habeas-Corpus Complaint, & whom Affirm & Testify of their/our Solemn Belief that Jason Goodwill’s basic Complaint is Justified & Warranted by the Evidence which is available to us; are here-by listed as follows:

Charles Stewart.
1117 North Neches Street, in Coleman, Texas [76834]
325-603-0334; home/office, land-line-voip-1.
Charles@ConstitutionalGov.us
https://ConstitutionalGov.us/
http://ConstitutionalGov.us/Archive/Charles/CBS-Info/CBS-Bio2.3.pdf 

David Schied.
South Dakota. 
http://RicoBusters.com/
http://PowerCorruptsAgain.com/

~~~
	Here-under; I Swear, before God & before All Honorable People, that, this Complaint is in the service of a very Highly Prioritized “Public Interest”; & is entirely Truthful & Justified.    

______________________
Jason James Goodwill. 
goodwilljason99@gmail.com
Hotel: 920-458-8080