Driessen v WEC et al



Ken Driessen (in pro per)                                                                 Case No.: __20CV99___        12022 N Co Rd T                                                                              Case Codes: 30952, 30301        Hayward WI 54843



Wisconsin Elections Commission

PO Box 7984

Madison, WI 53707-7984


Governor Tony Evers 

115 E Capitol Dr # 1 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Madison, WI 53702 Money Judgment

Wisconsin State Legislature


P.O. Box 7882

Madison WI 53707


P.O. Box 8952

Madison WI 53708





  1. The Plaintiff Ken Driessen, hereby alleges as follows:


  1. As a result of the COVID-19 ‘Virus’ pandemic and the Governor’s ‘Order’, the Wisconsin Elections Commission ‘WEC’ did add to the web site, to the affect, that ballot access requirements are determined by statute so the ‘Commission’ has no authority to change the ballot access requirements due to the Corona Virus and the resulting ‘Stay at Home Order’ and ‘Social Distancing’ rules. This statement in itself is an acknowledgment that the virus and said order would in the least hinder the signature gathering process and probably deny ballot access to certain candidates, in this case an independent candidate, that certainly could and would have completed the requirements and gained ballot access if not for these circumstances, see: https://evers.wi.gov/Documents/COVID19/EMO12-SaferAtHome.pdf. In as much as Ken Driessen did successfully meet the qualifications to be listed on the ballot as a candidate for Wisconsin 7th District Representative in United States Congress in 2018, he is a serious legitimate candidate again in 2020.

  2. Ken Driessen stated in his May 28, 2020 complaint delivered to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, Governor Tony Evers and the Wisconsin Legislature in part as follows: “I visited the WEC website and read information there concerning the Commission’s advice in relationship to nomination signature process and the, ‘COVID-19 public health emergency’ and their ‘suggestions’ for seeking nomination signatures under the circumstances relating to the COVID-19 ‘Virus’ and the Governor’s ‘Order’. I attempted to collect signatures by knocking on doors at people’s residences and I considered mailing letters seeking nomination signatures and found the Virus and the Order are undue burdens to my candidacy. I am hereby complaining because the Virus and the Order are an undeserved hindrance to my candidacy and the WEC suggestions are not practical for an independent candidate. I am claiming that the undo burden of collecting the signatures under the hardships caused by the combination of the Virus and the Order are a violation of my Wisconsin and United States Constitutional rights to free speech, assembly, and equality under the law. More specifically guaranteed rights within Article 1, Sections 1, 3 & 4 of Wisconsin’s Constitution and similarly I claim rights under the United States Constitution including but not limited to those under the 1st, 14th and 15th Amendment. With this letter, at this time I plea for the remedy of ballad access, of being listed as a candidate for Wisconsin 7th District Representative in US Congress in the November 3, 2020 General Election.”

  3. While a WEC representative, Nathan Judnic, did correspond with Plaintiff Driessen, he feels it was in a way that, in his opinion, did not address or solve his ballot access concerns prior to his filing of a complaint (Exhibit 1). Copies of the complaint signed in front of a notary public were sent to all Defendant Agencies; since the plaintiff’s delivering of a complaint to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, the Governor’s Office, the State Assembly and the State Senate; he did not receive any answer or correspondence to his complaint other than a gracious letter (Exhibit 2) from his State 25th District Senator Janet Bewley that can be summed up in few words:

  4. “My Democratic colleagues and I were willing to make changes to the laws regarding ballot access due to the public health emergency; however, the Republicans who control the Legislature were unwilling to engage in any meaningful consideration of this idea. …any further action to change the state law (temporary exemption or variance due to the Covid-19 pandemic) on this issue would have to be taken through the court system.”

  5. So Mr. Driessen simply reasonably seeks a temporary variance to, an exception to the statutes to accommodate for the added hardship of collecting nomination signatures during the ongoing Corona Virus pandemic allowing his name to appear on the ballot as a candidate for Wisconsin’s 7th District Representative in the US Congress. The WEC suggestions were not satisfactory for him because of the lack of a mailing list and the cost of mailing nomination signature forms was prohibitive, an undue burden. Also the plaintiff previously promised not to collect campaign donations because the vast majority of voters do not donate to election campaigns, so the plaintiff contends that a few wealthy people and corporations pretty much buy elected officials, leaving the majority unrepresented.

  6. Now let us consider that the WEC, Governor Evers and especially the Legislature, even after being sued, do not agree to allow Driessen ballot access. Let’s say the Judge assigned to the case is not comfortable writing an order allowing Driessen’s wishes to appear on the ballot for 7th District Representative in time for the ballots to be printed. This would reinforce Driessen’s notion that the government consisting of a duopoly, is in fact bought and paid for by a few individuals and corporations, meaning that we live under a plutocracy which does not meet the standards of a constitutional republic. So in the case there is not an agreement on the Defendant’s part to allow Driessen ballot access and no writ of mandamus from the Court to allow Driessen ballot access as prayed for; Driessen will ask for relief in the form of a monetary judgment in the range of what it takes for a candidate for the office he has chosen to run for to be successful. Further discussion, citations of statutes and case law are included in the ‘Statement of Facts’ section of this complaint.


  7. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 5.06, 806.04(1) and (2), and

    227.40(1). Venue is proper pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 227.40 and 801.50 (2) and (3)(a) and (b).


  8. The Plaintiff, Kenneth Leroy Driessen (Ken) is an Independent, Direct Participatory Democracy candidate who did collect the required number of nomination signatures and appeared on the ballot in 2018 as a candidate for Wisconsin 7th District Representative in United States Congress. In that election he received 4,416 votes or about 1.4% which for an independent that raises no money as part of his principles and platform, spending less than $1000 of his own money and a whole lot of his time to promote the cause of Direct Participatory Democracy, was pretty remarkable. Driessen became a felon in 2010 for repeated possession of small amounts of marijuana, the possession charge that made him a felon involved .36ths of a gram of marijuana. He cannot run for, be a candidate for even the office of dog catcher in Wisconsin State Government but he can legally run for Federal office. Plaintiff Driessen has no violence, no stealing, no fraud or anything in his record concerning his trustworthiness as a political candidate. Considering polls and surveys concerning public opinion such as this, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/; the marijuana legalization versus continuation of criminalization mentioned here is just one example of the authoritarian, all about the money, people hijacking of We the People’s government versus an egalitarian popular democratic nature which our government structure rightfully needs to be.

  9. Defendant, Wisconsin Election Commission, is a governmental agency created

    under Wis. Stat. § 5.05 and charged with the responsibility for the administration of Chapters 5

    and 6 of the Wisconsin Statutes and other laws relating to elections and election campaigns, other than laws relating to campaign financing. The Wisconsin Election Commission has its offices and

    principal place of business at 212 E. Wisconsin, 3rd Floor, Madison, WI 53703.

  10. Defendant Governor Tony Evers is the chief executive officer of the State of Wisconsin Government. As such he is the supervisor of the WEC which is responsible for implementing election regulations and the Department of Health Services that is responsible for the “Safer at Home” Emergency Order. Governor Evers address, in his official capacity is Governor Tony Evers, 115 East, State Capitol, Madison WI 53702.

  11. Defendant(s) the Wisconsin State Senate is a branch of the Wisconsin Legislature, along with the Wisconsin Assembly these two legislative bodies are responsible for writing and voting legislation into law. In that capacity, according to the WEC web site, they are responsible for determining any measures to allow for relief here requested within this complaint concerning a temporary variance, an exemption to ballot access requirements, to allow for ballot access during the ongoing Corona-Virus pandemic. The Senate address is listed as, P.O. Box 7882, Madison WI 53707 and the Assembly address as, P.O. Box 8952 Madison WI 53708.



  12. Plaintiff Driessen did submit a ‘Declaration of Candidacy’ to the WEC signed and sent by USPS mail on August 26, 2019 (Exhibit 3). Although the date on their site is in error, the proof of the receipt of this declaration can be ascertained by visiting this page of their web site at: https://elections.wi.gov/sites/elections.wi.gov/files/2020-06/Candidates%20Tracking%20By%20Office%20-%20post%20challenges.pdf .

  13. Plaintiff states: By the few blocks that I covered during a couple days in Superior Wisconsin, knocking on doors and explained my message to district citizens, with as mask on and disinfectant hand wipes, a few did open their doors and were glad to sign did sign my nomination papers, so it can be determined that if I could have collected signatures without the Covid-19 pandemic and the Government’s reactions and policy, I would have been totally capable of gathering the required signatures. See the copies of nomination papers attached to the initial complaint to the agencies as exhibit 1. After this effort I added up an average signatures per hour and determined there were not enough hours in each day of the month and days allowed to obtain the required citizen’s signatures by going door to door to greet people and explain my platform in person. I determined that, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many people being afraid, refusing to answer their door for a stranger, some people stating that with the number of people I came into contact with they were afraid I could be a super carrier of the virus, as well as the fact that what I was doing was technically in violation of the ‘Safer at Home’ order which did contain criminal sanctions under Wis. Stat. § 252.25, “Violation or obstruction of this Order is punishable by up to 30 days imprisonment, or up to $250 fine, or both.”

  14. “On May 13, 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its decision in Wisconsin Legislature v. Secretary-Designee Andrea Palm, et al. and declared the state’s Safer at Home Order unlawful, invalid, and unenforceable, creating a rush by local jurisdictions to issue orders to prevent the spread of COVID-19, resulting in uncertainty for businesses as to how to operate.” https://www.natlawreview.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-invalidates-state-s-safer-home-order Although the order was to take place immediately the legislature and governor asked for a 6 day stay which was rejected by the Court but still presented an amount of legal uncertainty until May 19th, https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-coronavirus-wisconsin-stay-at-home-order-state-supreme-court-20200513-vpjo34p6pfctpazbst7owsze2m-story.html. Regardless of the lessening of legal concerns many people are still afraid to interact with others on a close enough basis to hand back and forth a clip board and sign the nomination papers even if they were interested in helping an independent candidate get on the ballot and voting for that candidate.

  15. In spite of the plaintiff’s political platform based on Direct Participatory Democracy and not accepting donations he did research trying to figure the cost of buying a random list of District addresses and doing a mass mailing of nomination papers requesting signatures as WEC suggested on their web site. The cost of such mailings was prohibitive in itself not even considering the uncertainty of the willingness of people to sign without actually visiting with and being able to ask questions of the candidate in person. The established Democratic and Republican parties have mailing lists of their supporters which gives them an advantage even during a ‘normal’ signature gathering period without adding the Covid virus pandemic factor.

  1. The two party system referred to by some as a duopoly uses many shady non-democratic less than constitutional republic valued means to maintain their power and wealth despite not being nearly as popular as the power and wealth that surrounds them suggests. Here are a few surveys concerning the two party system and We The People’s satisfaction and trust in this facade of a dualistic political system. 40% of people surveyed want 3rd party: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/04/politics/two-party-system-poll/index.html. Only 26% believe in the dominance of the two party system: https://news.gallup.com/poll/165392/perceived-need-third-party-reaches-new-high.aspx. Majority of Americans are dissatisfied with politics: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/poll-majority-of-americans-dissatisfied-with-u-s-politics-doubt-divisons-will-improve-soon, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/deep-boiling-anger-nbc-wsj-poll-finds-pessimistic-america-despite-n1045916, https://news.gallup.com/poll/228281/satisfaction-government-remains-low.aspx

  2. We, all parties to this complaint as well as all Wisconsinites and all Americans need to stop and consider the influence money has on politics especially and increasingly after the Citizens United v. FEC – 558 U.S. 310, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) Supreme Court decision. The name Citizens United is quite nefarious considering it has received funds from The Presidential Coalition, LLC and both Citizens United and The Presidential Coalition have received funding from the Koch brothers, https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Presidential_Coalition. On the average only 5% of Americans donate to political candidates, therefore 95% remain for the most part, unrepresented and certain individuals and corporations spend far more than the average Wisconsinite’s total lifetime earnings, so in reality the United States election process as it exists falls far short of a legitimate election process akin to a legitimate constitutional republic and more in line with a plutocracy, https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jan/24/andrew-yang/what-percent-americans-donate-political-candidates/. When it costs a million or more dollars for the average successful Representative seat in congress it becomes undeniable that the seat is being bought rather than decided upon the principles and platform the candidate presents to the voters. “I realized back in the early 1990s that money had bought the majority of political candidates and my vote did not even give me one in 300 millionth of a say, and that is why I became politically active and why I run my campaigns the way I do.” – Ken Driessen.

  3. Due to the Corona-Virus and the Government’s reaction to it, the Plainiff does contend suffered a loss of his US Constitutional First Amendment and 14th related right to ballot access and did submit a complaint to all three agencies seeking a remedy to correct the undue burden the pandemic and the emergency order caused to his nomination signature gathering efforts on May 28, 2020 (Exhibit 1). A WEC publication related to the nomination signature gathering during the Covid-19 pandemic in part so states:

  4. 1) The Commission reaffirms that it does not have the statutory authority to change or

    modify current statutory procedures related to the circulation of nomination papers for the 2020 General Election.

  5. For this line of reasoning expressed by the WEC agency, it is necessary to address this complaint to and name the Governor and the entire Legislature as Defendants in their official capacity as a set of individuals comprising those entities.

  6. As mentioned in the Introduction/Summary section, the only communication the Plaintiff received in response to his complaint came from his Wisconsin State Senator Janet Bewley which in part stated, “any further action to change the state law on this issue would have to be taken through the court system.” Honorable Senator Janet Bewley further stated, “My Democratic colleagues and I were willing to make changes to the laws regarding ballot access due to the public health emergency; however, the Republicans who control the Legislature were unwilling to engage in any meaningful consideration of this idea.” In the event that the Plainiff’s access to the ballot is not granted, the Senator’s statement tends to indicate that the money judgment portion of the complaint may require a motion be written and submitted to the Court to indicate it be properly directed solely to the Republican members of the legislature. Ballot access is what is really being sought, money judgment is just in lieu of, an absence of an agreement between the Defendants to allow the Plaintiff ballot access to the November 3rd 2020 General Election; as a candidate for Wisconsin 7th District Representative in US Congress. The Corona affect took, ‘all about money’ in politics to the next level, it has deprived the majority of our right to self determination.


  7. In Williams v. Rhodes (1968), the Supreme Court again used the equal-protection clause to invalidate state laws, making it virtually impossible for Alabama governor George C. Wallace to appear on the Ohio presidential ballot. The pandemic and the government’s response to it made it virtually impossible for Plaintiff Driessen to appear on the ballot without Court intervention.
  8. In Bullock v. Carter (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the payment of a filing fee to run for office was unconstitutional. Although the Court based its ruling on the equal-protection clause, it also discussed how the fee affected conduct protected by the First Amendment. Driessen contacted the WEC and asked them if they could supply him with a list of Wisconsin voter names and addresses from the 7th District. WEC then steered him toward https://badgervoters.wi.gov/. They do sell lists of voter names and addresses but the price was in the thousands, therefore since they advised candidates to seek nomination signatures through the mail during the Covid-19 pandemic, having to buy names and addresses in very similar to having to pay a “filing fee to run for office”.
  9. In Munro v. Socialist Workers Party (1986), the Court upheld a requirement that a party secure at least one percent of the vote in a primary in order to gain a spot on the general election ballot. The Court noted that although the one percent requirement did impinge upon the First Amendment rights of the party, these rights were not absolute and it was not burdensome to require the party to demonstrate some minimum level of support to appear on the ballot, https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/980/ballot-access . Note: Plaintiff Driessen did secure 1.4% in the 2018 election, despite Driessen’s use of Direct Participatory Democracy(DPD) as an important part of his campaign platform, the WEC did list DPD as his party in their election postings.
  10. https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin%27s_7th_Congressional_District


  11. In the event that the Defendants do not agree to Plaintiff Driessen’s request to be listed on the coming November 3, 2020 General Election Ballot as a candidate for Wisconsin’s 7th District Representative in United States Congress, in the event that the Court does not issue an order to force the Defendants to grant Driessen ballot access as requested, he then seeks monetary compensation in the form of a Money Judgment. This Plaintiff will then demand that his request for monetary compensation for the violation of his Constitutional, and case law tested, right to ballot access, and for other violations of his natural and Constitutional rights; be decided by a jury of his peers. Driessen does contend that the two parties, divisions of the same system of privately owned monetary system monopoly placing itself above our government and beyond constitutional restraints is the ultimate enemy he campaigns against. Not implementing an exception to, an alternative to, ballot access statutes to allow independent candidates to be listed on the ballot in ‘Corona time’; is an extension of a modus operandi, of tactics used, by the not so secret, not so deep state, not so new ‘world order’ that rules the nations and the planet through it’s monetary system monopolizing weapons dealing war profiteering reign of terror and economic top feeding parasitic ways.

  12. If this sounds too radical and rebellious to the reader’s of this complaint I think it is time for them to study what money currently is, who creates it and how that creation of new money controls and allows a relatively small group of persons yet to be named an unconstitutional “Title of Nobility”. They get a prime cut of everything, every person’s labor and every harvest of natural resources to accumulate wealth unimaginable to working class citizens. This private economic rule and ownership has gone mostly unchallenged continuously for over 106 years since the signing of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act to be precise. Our accessibility to money is the largely unquestioned determiner of where we live, our level of education, who we marry, what level of employment we are able to attain if we are in the working class. If the reader did not believe that the central bank, the bankers of last resort, get together and decide how much money to create and add to the system receiving their cut as if they delivered some sort of commodity and service to humanity, trickling down the magic paper to human society; after the corona-virus pandemic started and the Cares Act was passed and implemented in response to the pandemic, 2.2 trillion dollars was created from nowhere and added to the money supply, trickling the money down, without relationship to any value added, any goods, commodities or services being added to the collective economy. Now no one can reasonably deny that money is created by a private group of people out of nowhere without relationship to gold or any other tangible asset or any relationship to intrinsic value based ethical means tied to it.

  13. There are many books and other writings about the history of money as well as about the current Federal Reserve fiat money system that now dominates every financial and economic aspect of our lives. The purpose of this portion of the STATEMENT OF FACTS section of this Complaint is to express the conflict, the legal and moral travesty of justice, the bastardization of egalitarian principles within the Constitution, the creation of an elite class of royalty implemented by government sanctioned private ownership of our nation’s monetary system, which the Federal Reserve Act does.

  14. Although the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the President, the Federal Reserve branch bank presidents are not appointed by United States Government elected officials, these people are wealthier and have more power than a Senator or Representative in US Congress yet they are not elected. Here are some words from former Federal Reserve Chairman expressing the fact that they answer to no branch of US Government nor to We the People:

  15. The words of past Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, when interviewed by Jim Lehrer of PBS:

  16. Jim Lehrer: What is the ah proper relationship, what should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the ‘FED’ and the president of the United States?

  17. Alan Greenspan: Well first of all the Federal Reserve is an independent agency and that means ah, there is no other agency which can overrule actions that we take so long that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the congress or anybody else is ah requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don’t really matter and ah I’ve had very good relationships with presidents.

  18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJPZS3pqyhs

  19. Words of past Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when being questioned about legislation concerning a Government Accountability Office audit of the Federal Reserve:

  20. “my concern about legislation is that if the GAO is auditing not only the operational aspects of our programs and the details of the programs but is making judgments about our policy decisions that would effectively be a takeover monetary policy by the Congress a repudiation of the independence of the Federal reserve which would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and ah our national economic situation.”

  21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHNuxBwpBpQ

  22. So not one current Democrat or Republican seriously questions the constitutionality of the privately owned and run Federal Reserve monopoly money system, let alone propose legislation to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and replace it with a publicly owned central bank that regulates and distribute public moneys also allowing for coexistence of private monies which then is consistent with clauses in the Constitution pertaining to money and control of it by elected officials of We the People’s government. The only elected official I know of in my lifetime that did question the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve was and is past Representative Ron Paul. Every other Congress person is obviously in office for their own personal wealth and power under the false monetary hierarchy created by the Federal Reserve Act. They take in millions of dollars of fiat money campaign donations to compete with each other like theatrical all star wrestlers of two divisions of the same monetary system monopolizing party. They definitely do not care about what is in the best interests of the majority of United States citizens.

  23. Now let’s compare select clauses within the US Constitution pertaining to money with the words of the independent privately owned and run Federal Reserve Chairman (with added notes to describe the message of the Plaintiff):

  24. Article 1, Section 8,

  25. 1: The Congress shall have Power To….

  26. 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    This is the only clause that could possibly be used to constitutionally justify the Federal Reserve but owning a monopoly over the entire monetary system is hardly in the same league as offering a loan to the USG.

  27. 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, Private ownership of the monetary system and massive government debt to private corporate entities means that those entities own and control the government rather than visa-versa as the Constitution requires, if the nation is to be a valid constitutional republic.

  28. 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, in the days of the writing of the US Constitution, use of ‘coin’ money was more prevalent than paper money, therefore the government, publicly elected officials, are supposed to control the money, not private unelected entities.

  29. 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; When the Federal Reserve Act is compared to the United States Constitution, Federal Reserve money is counterfeit.

  30. Article 1, Section 9,

  31. 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: What is the granting of a private monopoly over the printing of money other than the greatest most powerful ‘Title of Nobility’ on the face of the Earth?

  32. Article 1, Section 10

  33. 1: No State shall…or grant any Title of Nobility, Once again what is a monopoly over the monetary system other than the greatest most economically powerful monopoly know to man?

  34. Article 4, Section 4,

  35. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, living under a private monetary system monopoly violates even the notion of the United States being a Constitutional Republic and a true “Republican Form of Government”.

  36. Therefore every Senator and Congressman now in office whether knowingly or otherwise has to an extent sacrificed their morality and dishonored their oath of office to defend the US Constitution; for the prestige, wealth and power associated with a higher place on the economic totem pole, in an unconstitutional plutocratic kleptocratic kakistocracy rather than a valid Constitutional Republican form of government. While it is totally obvious that a privately owned monopoly over the nation’s monetary system is a ‘Title of Nobility’ and therefor a flagrant violation of the Constitution, this barely describes the level of economic usury of working class people who do not have the royal luxury of being close to the private creation of money as it trickles down.

  37. A more clear internationally recognized legal term for a people’s right called “Self Determination” better describes what has been taken from the working class people of this country by the self entitled nobility class that uses their private monetary system to occupy places of wealth and power obscene to that average producer of goods and services that are the true value of our society and nation producing nothing themselves, not even decent healthy planning for the benefit of us all on a more equal basis, see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/self_determination_(international_law). Some things we all value have no price.


  1. Plaintiff Driessen seeks agreement from the Defendant parties to be listed as Ken Driessen with Independent, Direct Participatory Democracy next to his name as candidate for Wisconsin 7th District Representative in United States Congress on the November 3rd, 2020 General Election Ballot. Plaintiff further asks that he be notified of such an agreement prior to 7 days after the August 11th , 2020 Partisan Primary Election so he can know whether or not to begin campaigning for the November 3rd, 2020 General Election.

  2. In the event the Defendant parties do not agree to allow Driessen ballot access as described, plaintiff Driessen prays for relief in the form of a writ of mandamus, for the Court’s decision to order the parties to allow Driessen ballot access as described above, at the soonest possible date after August 18th so he can get his message out and describe his platform to the voters.

  3. With either of these outcomes, the Defendants agreeing to grant Driessen ballot access or the Court granting a writ of Mandamus ordering the defendants to grant ballot access to Plaintiff Driessen, he agrees not to pursue or ask the court for any money judgment against any of the defendants, nor would he ask for a jury trial, he will be satisfied with the granting of his ballot access request and he will then agree that the case has been settled and can be closed, with his name and his chosen designation in the party field on the ballot as described above. Once ballot access is granted as described through either avenue, Plaintiff Driessen will not even ask for court costs or even reimbursement of the filing fees or for any expenses, this Plainiff will be satisfied with the ballot access relief he believes is rightful considering the effort, the circumstances and established case law concerning 1st and 14th Amendment US Constitutional rights. Plaintiff Driessen also beggs for the rights to ballot access of other candidates in similar situations be considered, if they are independent of the two established parties and their regimentation, including Libertarian, Green Party and most anybody who filed a notice of candidacy as well as some nomination signatures though short of the threshold due to the Corona virus pandemic and the ‘Safer at Home’ order, so the voters have a greater choice of candidates.


  4. In the event that the Defendants do not agree to place Driessen’s name on the ballot as a candidate for Wisconsin 7th District Representative in the November 3rd, 2020 General Election, Driessen then asks for a jury trial to take place at the soonest convenient time after denial or inaction concerning his prayer for ballot access to settle his money judgment claim. Being that information provided by Senator Bewley indicates that the Republicans of the Wisconsin Legislature stood in the way of any modification to ballot access requirements to compensate for Corona virus pandemic hardships to perspective candidates, this second claim should rightly be directed toward those defendants and the plaintiff then agrees to drop or ask the Court to dismiss the rest of the defendant parties that did not stand in the way of ballot access relief. Being that, House candidates who won in 2012 raked in an average of $1,689,580 in campaign contributions, http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/how-much-does-it-cost-win-seat-congre and only 5% of voters donate to political candidates, 95% are less equally represented. Therefore the 5% are paying for favors and for representation that benefits them rather than the whole of the nation, the 95% are unrepresented or not fairly democratically represented within the meaning of a “Republican form of government”, guaranteed to all citizens by the United States Constitution. Therefore if the Defendants so named by the agencies and offices they hold do not agree among themselves to allow Plaintiff Driessen’s name to be listed in the November 3, 2020 General Election Ballot as an Independent candidate for the office of Wisconsin’s7th District Representative, if then the Court does not determine that a Writ of Mandamus is necessary to provide the same, as a remedy in the Plaintiff’s favor; Plaintiff will then seek a monetary settlement in the amount of 1.6 million dollars, which is very near the cost of, the price of, a successful campaign for a seat, a voice, so often bought by money given by the 5% of citizens, the campaign investor class to be represented in the United States Congress, Plaintiff prays for relief as described herein along with any additional punitive measures the jury sees fit.

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of July, 2020.


Ken Driessen

12022 N. Co. Rd. T

Hayward WI 54843



This entry was posted in WTPR Articles. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Specify Facebook App ID and Secret in the Heateor Social Login section in the admin panel for Facebook Login to work

Specify Twitter Consumer Key and Secret in the Heateor Social Login section in the admin panel for Twitter Login to work

Specify LinkedIn Client ID and Secret in the Heateor Social Login section in the admin panel for LinkedIn Login to work

Specify Google Client ID and Secret in the Heateor Social Login section in the admin panel for Google Login to work

Specify Google Client ID, Google Client Secret and Youtube API Key in the Heateor Social Login section in the admin panel for Youtube Login to work

Specify Reddit Client ID and Secret in the Heateor Social Login section in the admin panel for Reddit Login to work

Specify Wordpress Client ID and Secret in the Heateor Social Login section in the admin panel for Wordpress Login to work

Specify Yahoo Client ID and Secret in the Heateor Social Login section in the admin panel for Yahoo Login to work

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *