Saturday, March 17, 2007

James Schultz, Innocent

• Do you believe law enforcement officers will not arrest you unless you are guilty of a crime?
• Do you believe law enforcement officials tell the truth?
• Do you believe the constitution provides for adequate counsel representation should you be accused of a crime?
• Do you believe you will have your "fair" day in court if you are accused of a crime?
• Do you believe public opinion does not influence arrests and convictions of crime?
• Do you believe law enforcement and/or district attorneys don't withhold evidence favorable to the person accused of crime?
• Do you believe you have adequate appeal rights should you be found guilty of a crime you didn't do?
.. .if you answered yes to all of the above, you are disillusioned.
Law enforcement officials don't care if you're guilty. Their only concern is they have a crime to solve. Once a person is convicted, they "clear the books," guilty or not, and they will do whatever it takes to convict someone so the media can inform you the crime is solved.
Most citizens have to rely on court-appointed counsel, should they be arrested, because their financial status won't allow them to retain private counsel. That's akin to sleeping with the enemy because court appointed counsel works for the State.

Courts have stated many times that court appointed counsel's duty is not to prove your innocence; rather, to obtain the "best deal." But your constitutional rights are being protected because you're arrested by the (State) law enforcement officers, prosecuted by the (State) district attorney before a (State) court, with a (State) appointed counsel to represent you. Just because your counsel is dependent upon the State for his or her livelihood - i.e. a license to practice law by the State - is no reason to believe you will not have adequate representation. And if you should get convicted, don't worry, the (State) Public Defender's Office will determine if you have any issues for appeal!!

That's the Wisconsin "Just-Us" system. You are arrested by the State, prosecuted by the State in a State Court and represented by State counsel. Additionally, the sheriff, prosecutor and judge are all concerned with public opinion - after all, they are all elected officials.
For example, say the sheriff arrests someone for a murder. The news media picks up on it and tells you the gruesome details that State officials want you to hear. The district attorney may believe the person is not guilty but now he's concerned with public opinion because you have been convinced of the persons' guilt through the media. The district attorney knows his job is in jeopardy if he doesn't get a conviction, as does the judge and sheriff. Will the district attorney be totally honest? Or does he have incentive to distort the truth? Is the judge totally impartial knowing what you have been told of the case and knowing the actual facts of the case?
Consider the James R. Schultz case ............

I have been attempting to gain access to the Sheriffs Office Files in my criminal case that are being held under the guise of District Attorney Work Product since 1988 to no avail. They show my actual innocence; that the alleged crime for which I was convicted and have been incarcerated for over two decades was the product of police negligence and cover-up.

Shortly after my forced transfer, in the year 2000, to the Prairie Correctional Facility, a private prison located in Appleton, Minnesota, another prisoner suggested I write the attached article for his non-profit organization's newsletter and their website. It was published but immediately after publication it was withdrawn because it prompted enough interest for a prominent Wisconsin legislator to have a private investigator attempt access to the files the Green County District Attorney was withholding.

The legislator was not investigating to determine guilt or innocence, but rather to see if justice was served. The lawmaker determined there was a definite cover-up in the case and believed there to be a definite miscarriage of justice.
The article wasn't withdrawn soon enough as Green County officials became aware of it and intervened. They issued a search warrant from Green County (A southern Wisconsin county) where I was convicted, and carried out the warrant, personally, on the non-profit organization's office located in a northern Wisconsin County (Brown County); they confiscated the organization's computer equipment, disks, paperwork, etc. The Governor of the State of Wisconsin intervened and Green County Officials returned the confiscated materials the next day.

Green County Officials managed to successfully shoot down the website and the newsletter publication. The prisoner affiliated with the non-profit organization was returned to a State of Wisconsin prison and subjected to numerous conduct infractions - written in Wisconsin - for conduct regarding his actions in my criminal case while he was incarcerated at the Prairie Correctional Facility, a private, for-profit prison. He ended up with thousands of days in segregation for alleged misconduct. His attorneys successfully challenged said conduct reports in court and won. All because of my case.

The legislator who hired the investigator supposedly had the investigator turn over his files to the FBI in Alexandria, Virginia, who was going to turn them over to the Wisconsin FBI office for further investigation. However, that was before 9/11 and before the present FBI Director took office so I don't know the status of said investigation. The prisoner wouldn't tell me anything more for fear that I would be subjected to the same retaliation he was and because I do not have attorneys or prominent citizens at my disposal to combat the retaliation.


Green Co. Case No.:85-CR-234;(C85-4841 - Green Co. Sheriffs File)
Trial Judge:William Johnston
District Attorney: Nicholas Funkhouser
Def. Trial Counsel:Roger Sturdevant (State Public Defender);Gary Watts (State Public Def. Appellate Counsel: Robert Duxstad (Appointed);Daniel Bestul (Appointed)
Published State Cites:State v. Schultz, 148 Wis.2d 370, 435 N.W.2d 335,152 Wis.2d 408, 448 (Both decisions based on untrue facts)

I was arrested, tried and convicted of [intentional homicide] causing the death of my wife, Nancy Schultz, in an entirely circumstantial case. An accident was turned into a crime through the negligence of the first law enforcement officer on the scene and the EMT that intubated my wife. Had it not been for their negligence, there would have been no death.

1 had started a collectable car in our residence's attached garage [in November], to let it warm up because it was not winterized and went in the house. The furnace fan motor was malfunctioning so I turned out the fuse that controlled the house furnace [This fuse also controlled the garage electricity as the property only had a 60 amp, 4 fuse service. Heat wasn't a problem because the house also had a bottle gas space heater.]. I then fell asleep on the living room couch.

I woke up to my wife's car door slamming in the driveway; startled and dazed, 1 met my wife in the, by then, carbon monoxide filled garage. Attempting to leave the environment, we both became paralyzed.

My wife and I both yelled at our five-year-old daughter to not come into the garage; she was calmly watching television when my wife's father, Ole Anderson, arrived and found my wife and I unconscious; the Dane County Sheriffs Department was contacted by him via 911, reporting "two unconscious people in the garage across the street from the residence he was calling from.
Officer Geske was first to arrive at the scene. The only information he had was the "911" report; yet, before he arrived at the scene, he surmised this was a suicide; then a murder-suicide.
Officer Geske arrived at the scene at 21:08; he wasted precious time in a prolonged search, lasting several minutes, for a controller for the electric garage door opener and did not perform CPR on either "victim" because my wife appeared to not have a pulse and I was breathing; finally, he opened the door manually and dragged me out of the garage. After finding me unresponsive to his questions, Officer Geske purviewed the "alleged crime scene." Green County Sheriffs Deputy Pepper arrived; advised Belleville EMS that my wife was not dead.

Another female arrived at the scene [my wife's sister] who started to drag my wife out of the garage and asked Officer Geske to help do CPR; Oregon EMS arrived at 21:30. Oregon EMS Technician Susan Osmond intubated my wife with an 8 mm endotracheal tube into her esophagus [stomach] instead of into her trachea [lungs], sealing it at the neck [basically suffocating her], and bagged her on 100% oxygen. Oregon EMS transported my wife to a more equipped ambulance en route to the hospital because they "...would not be able to sustain enough life support en route; needed advanced life support". My wife arrived at hospital 10:08 p.m.; given intravenous medications; pronounced dead 10:32 p.m.

I was given a 100% oxygen mask at the scene, and was continued through law enforcement accompanied escort via ambulance to St. Mary's Hospital, Madison, and after arrival; blood was drawn from me on two separate occasions while in the hospital. No determination was made as to the percent of carboxyhemoglobin [the medical measure of the amount of exposure to carbon monoxide] in my blood when I was admitted. I had a 28% hemoglobin carbon monoxide count at 23:15 p.m. on November 19, 1985 and had been on a 100% oxygen mask since approximately 9:22 p.m. When a person is breathing room air, the half-life of CO in the blood is about five (5) to six (6) hours. Breathing 100% oxygen reduces the half-life to about 1 % hours. Source: Emergency Medical Treatment, by Nancy L. Caroline, M.D., 1987.

Utilizing the Emergency Medical Treatment, supra., formula, and factoring in an approximate time spent in the garage after exposure and before treatment, it is estimated my hemoglobin percentage to be 60%. [The symptoms for less than 60% hemoglobin are headache, dimness of vision, fainting, ataxia [loss of muscle control], collapse, and hyperventilation, near coma state, loss of short-term memory. There's a marked decrease in the ability to move; speech is affected. From Interpretation of Diagnostic Tests, 5th Ed., by Jacques Wallach, M.D., 1992.

Despite my condition while recovering in the hospital from carbon monoxide asphyxiation, Green County Sheriffs Department Officials repeatedly questioned me. Notes of alleged questions and responses were documented; a report was written, the notes were destroyed, and said "oral" responses to the alleged questions were presented to the jury, despite the fact that sometimes 1 [on 11/20/85] would not finish my sentences and questions had to be repeated to me [It should be noted that I adamantly refute any of the "alleged" responses]; on 11/21/85, T.V. Caughlan, M.D. stated I had a slowing of intellectual processes. On 11/21/85, my speech was still slurred and I felt faint; I was very lethargic, appeared dazed and slow in my responses when interviewed by my counsel on 11/22/85]; and that on 11/25/85 I felt my head was clearing up.

While still in the hospital recovering from carbon monoxide asphyxiation on 11/21/85, I was served with Green County criminal complaints, simultaneously by various jurisdictions - i.e. a City of Madison Police Officer and a Green County Sheriffs Department Officer; then I was placed in a City of Madison squad car which transported me across the street to a waiting Green County squad car which transported me to the Green County jail. No extradition papers were ever filed. Defense counsel objected to jurisdiction at every Court appearance.

The trial court denied my motion to dismiss based on an unlawful arrest and motion to dismiss the complaint and amended complaint [Magistrate Callahan dismissed the original complaint for lack of probable cause; the identical complaint was then submitted to another magistrate, family related to the sheriff, who issued a warrant, contrary to law.]. However, there were three complaints - the first was dismissed for lack of probable cause; the second issued on the identical information; the third [amended] submitted and addressed at the December 13, 1985, Preliminary Hearing [In an unrelated matter, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals took judicial notice of the fact that I was arrested, tried, and convicted, illegally, against the mandates of the United States Constitution due to the dismissal of the first complaint and the identical one being submitted to a second magistrate who issued a warrant.]. Despite the fact that the Court lost jurisdiction over me when the prosecution "forum shopped" for an arrest warrant, the Court continued to hold me for trial.

The arrest was determined legal and with probable cause at pre-trial, despite my being denied my constitutional right to confront my accuser. The first two complaints were signed by Officer Scott Pedley; yet, he never testified to anything in the complaint at any preliminary hearing or court proceeding. The third complaint, submitted at the March 26, 1986, Motion Hearing, was signed by Investigator Terry Argue. However, that complaint could not be challenged because the complaint [the first two] had already been ruled on by the Court. Consequently, I was denied my constitutional right to confront my accuser.

The only evidence the Court had to bind me over for trial was my daughter's statements. She was not made available at the preliminary hearing; no determination was made as to her competence as a five-year-old witness.

I testified at a Goodchild hearing wherein the trial court found the State met its burden of proof and found that officers had informed me of my Miranda rights before questioning, that I understood my rights, and waived them voluntarily on 11/20/85. However, there was no expert medical testimony to establish my mental and physical condition at the time of questioning, nor was there testimony to determine why I was lethargic, appeared dazed, and slow in my responses two days later on 11/22/85. The Court found that the arrest was with probable cause, but the actual time of arrest was not determined.

The Court found there were sufficient facts contained in the Schultz residence search warrants for a detached magistrate to find probable cause to issue them. The Court did not mention the fact that the December 7, 1985, search warrant was issued for the sole purpose of taking our then 5-year-old daughter to the residence to "refresh her memory."

There was no testimony showing that Joseph Klassy, the brother-in-law of my wife, was illegally given the keys to our residences and all my motor vehicles and was used as an investigative arm of the Green County Sheriffs Department. All items received by the State Crime Laboratory and labeled "AV" were received from Joe Klassy who took the evidence from the Schultz residence without any warrants.

I entered a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect on advice from and through counsel, despite the fact that I maintained it was an accident.

My trial commenced in LaFayette County on April 7, 1986. The court advised the jury panel of my plea both at the beginning of trial and after the jury was selected. Potential jurors were systematically excused for cause because they were small business owners. During individual voir dire, the State did not ask questions concerning the insanity defense. However, defense counsel asked specific prejudicial questions concerning the insanity defense and psychiatry that influenced the jury's verdict.

The pathologist, Dr. Engstrand, was the State hired and trained expert who did the autopsy on Nancy Schultz [He was influenced by Green County Sheriff Department's Investigator Quittschreiber who informed him prior to the autopsy of "what was to be expected."]. He testified that the cause of death was carbon monoxide asphyxiation; yet there was no testimony presented at my trial about the fact that Nancy Schultz was suffocated due to being intubated wrong [Neither Officer Geske's nor EMT Osmond's negligence were addressed by trial or appellate counsel.]; there was no testimony presented explaining why there were different levels of hemoglobin in her blood as the samples were supposedly taken after she had expired. Dr. Gary Anderson stated my wife's hemoglobin count was 60%; Toxicologist Matejczyk stated it was 63%.

Various officers testified there were "signs of a struggle" [These "signs of a struggle" - from Ole Anderson attempting to move my wife and all the other EMT and Sheriffs Office Personnel - transformed the alleged crime scene and were used as a basis to find probable cause for arrest.]. Yet, Ole Anderson testified that he "may have knocked Nancy's glasses off and "attempted to move her but couldn't due to his arthritis." The only fingerprint found on Exhibit #34 (flashlight) was that of Ole Anderson.

Dr. Engstrand stated that, externally, there was no evidence of any bruises to Nancy Schultz's head; that, internally, there was evidence of two bruises; that these bruises could not have been caused after death. No expert testimony was presented by the defense to refute how these bruises may have been inflicted [It should be noted that long after direct appeal, a prison officer, who was also an EMT, informed me that when a long board is used in EMT transport, it causes head injuries 60-70% of the time.]. Nancy Schultz was not dead at the scene; she was transported by EMS via a long board.

Dr. Engstrand was released from sequestration after he testified in the case-in-chief; after hearing all the testimony, he was permitted to testify again, and tailor his comments to the evidence presented, without objection. During this "tailoring," the doctor stressed the "countercoup" theory - i.e. that something had to have hit her head.

Since the time of the autopsy, the "countercoup" theory has been determined to be false. The bruising to Nancy's head wasn't because it was hit. A person can be hit by a freight train going 100 miles an hour and as long as his or her skull isn't damaged, the brain won't be either. This is because the brain is suspended in this solid/liquid, web-like material that surrounds the brain in the skull. When unconscious, this web-like material turns to liquid; and, when unconscious, if a skull hits cement [the floor of the garage], it will bounce and make it look like something hit the skull.

Countercoup can only occur while unconscious; spaces are caused only after unconscious; the only way spaces can occur is if the brain moved; the only way the brain can move is if unconscious. According to the autopsy, it could not be determined when the "blows" to her head occurred. This is bull. There was no bruising on the outside of her head which there should have been if she was conscious; therefore, if this was the "death wound", it had to have happened after she was unconscious; if it happened while she was unconscious, there would be a dark bluish circle because the bruise didn't have time to form itself. If already dead, the bruise looks like the rest of the body. If conscious, fibroblastic material would be present; the autopsy shows this did not occur.

Not only did the autopsy report leave out obvious things that should have been included - two of which are in defendant's favor - it is also in error as to the cause of death. The cause of death is not carbon monoxide asphyxiation but rather asphyxiation from EMT negligence. After all, both my wife and I were exposed to approximately the same amount of carbon monoxide [Wife's 60-62%: defendant's 60% after factoring in the oxygen treatment]. The only difference - my wife was intubated with the breathing tube inserted into her stomach instead of into her lungs.
There was no testimony to show how much carbon monoxide we were exposed to. There was no testimony to show it was impossible for me to have given the "alleged" statements I supposedly gave the police due to the after effects of carbon monoxide poisoning. There was virtually no testimony on the effects of carbon monoxide asphyxiation.

There was absolutely no testimony depicting the actual cause of death -i.e. suffocation/strangulation from not inserting the endotracheal tube correctly;
nor was the actual cause of death listed on the death certificate. There continues to be a disputable issue of fact regarding the certificate because there are two - one that was shown to the jury that the State Registrar alleges to have been altered; and a different one on file with the Registrar. I was accused of altering the certificate; I showed "proof I did not. The certificate on file and autopsy were "allegedly "in order pursuant to a "Cause of Death Amendment" that was submitted to Vital Records; yet, no "Cause of Death Amendment" was seen by the court, defense or jury; a response was never received answering my question as to which report was "alleged" to be correct when neither show the actual cause of death [It should be noted that a Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General was asked to join me in requesting a new trial because of the autopsy report being in error; the AAG declined, despite taking an oath to uphold the constitution.].

There was no testimony to show the alleged "crime scene" was altered to give credibility to our then five-year-old-daughter's programmed statements -i.e. Detective Argue moved the car in the garage during the execution of a search warrant at our residence on December 7, 1985. Proof of the car being moved is found by comparing the view of the car in the garage through the breeze way window on Exhibit #29, videotape, to the pictures that the crime laboratory took of the crime scene two weeks before [It should be noted that the defendant continues to be denied access to photographs taken by the Crime Laboratory; the Lab says it turned them over to the sheriff; the sheriff says he gave them to the district attorney; the district attorney claims attorney work product.].

There was no testimony or challenge to the known illegal search warrant of our residence on December 7, 1985, when the purpose of said search stated on the December 4, 1985, videotape was to "refresh our daughter's memory" and to videotape our daughter at our residence. Yet, neither the warrant, nor its return, state anything about any videotape or refreshing our daughter's memory [It was specifically noted on the record that that warrant's purpose was to "obtain evidence of the crime of first degree murder."]; nor was any mention of starting the car in the garage and moving it forward (to lend credibility to our daughter's statements); or of diagramming the residence/garage; or having an electrical expert check the residence's electrical circuitry. The return to the search warrant did not list any videotaping, diagramming, or checking electrical circuits - all of which were introduced at trial through said alleged legal search warrant.

Our daughter was manipulated/programmed. According to all officials, this was a very traumatic experience for her, a little girl who had just lost a mother by death and a father taken away by local authorities. She responded to what happened repeatedly with, "1 don't know, I wasn't in the garage; I was in the house," She did not hear a car running; nor peek in the garage. She was repeatedly questioned by Inv. Argue and led to believe she saw something she could not have [Investigator Argue admitted to asking our daughter leading questions like beginning his questions with, "Daddy hit your mommy and our daughter was also led by Dr. Robert McKinney, a child psychiatrist, who was hired by the State for the exclusive purpose of eliciting testimony from her. She was literally forced by him to return to the "alleged" crime scene with Detectives Argue and Roderick, without any psychologist, psychiatrist or attorney present, contrary to Wisconsin Law. Dr. McKinley instructed law enforcement to take her to the alleged crime scene; to video and audio tape her as you walk her through it; to use trickery and deceit - i.e. that you'll get what you want out of her if you're patient, persistent, and clever enough.

Dr. McKinley was chosen because he testified for the prosecution in many Wisconsin cases. The Court allowed his testimony to bolster the credibility of our daughter's taped statements by stating she wouldn't lie, despite the fact that she had 2 sources of information - her recollection and the questions put to her; that there was an opportunity for distortion of her memory. These video and audio tapes were admitted under both present sense impression and excited utterance because of our daughter's age, despite the fact that she was calmly watching television when her grandfather arrived at the residence and didn't make any statement for several hours afterwards and the Court previously ruling they were not admissible under excited utterance.

Additionally, I was denied the right of confrontation. When our daughter testified, my right was observed. However, after she was released from the sequestration order, hearsay testimony was elicited from several witnesses regarding our daughter's statements to them and the defense could not question our daughter regarding the circumstances of the interviews and the contents of the audio and video tapes after they had been played.

The video tapes of our daughter were taken home and copied on Investigator Roderick's personal equipment, leaving huge blank spaces on the video tapes of the interviews played to the jury [The information that was deleted in these blank spaces appearing at crucial times would prove my actual innocence.].. The videotape was turned off for 27 minutes during CS's interview. The same identical "blank spaces" appeared on the audio tapes that were taken home, copied and edited by Investigator Argue on his personal equipment, outside the chain of custody. Moreover, the Court did not have copies of either the video or audio tapes at my trial. These tapes had a definite impact on the jury.

I testified at trial because I felt I had to considering my counsel's opening remarks, the questions asked the jurors and the juror's comments in voir dire. Many potential jurors expressed the opinion that 1 had something to hide if I did not testify; most of the jurors selected had the same opinion (Individual Voir Dire of the Actual Jury Selected - [Juror #1] "I (defendant) would have to prove innocence."; [Juror #2] "Would want me (defendant) to testify."; [Juror #3] "Might wonder why I (defendant) didn't testify."; [Juror #4] "Believes I (defendant) have an obligation to testify."; [Juror #5] "Would wonder why I (defendant) didn't testify"; [Juror #7] "Believes I (defendant) should testify; that if I (defendant) didn't, would think I (defendant) am holding something back."; [Juror #8] "Believes I (defendant) should tell my side; possibly would bother her if I (defendant) didn't testify."; [Juror #9] "I (defendant) might possibly be holding something back if I (defendant) didn't testify."; [Juror #10] "Believes I (defendant) have done something wrong; believes I (defendant) should testify."; [Juror #14] "Believes the defendant has the right not to testify and that it's my responsibility to understand that, 1 guess"; [Juror #15] "Mr. Schultz must have done something wrong because he was arrested."

The prosecution hypothesized that Nancy's death was premeditated because I turned out the fuse that controlled the furnace fan motor which also controlled the electricity in the garage. The turning point in the trial - when the jurors believed I was guilty - was after I told them about the furnace fan motor not working properly; then the State put a law enforcement officer on the stand that had been at our house on December 7, 1985, and stated the furnace worked fine. The defense had no rebuttal. The jurors would not look at me after that. After trial, the motor was analyzed by an expert and found to malfunction the way I said it did; however, appellate counsel did not link it back to the time of the alleged offense.

At the beginning of trial, the choices for the jury were guilty and not guilty of first degree intentional homicide; at the end of witness testimony, the choices to the jury were guilty and not guilty of first degree intentional homicide, guilty and not guilty of second degree homicide, guilty and not guilty of homicide by reckless conduct and nothing.

On April 19, 1986, the jury returned the verdict of guilty to the charge of first degree murder. The jury was not polled. On April 21, 1986, the court permitted me to withdraw my plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect before the second phase began. The effect of the waiver barred me from presenting statutory evidence of non-criminal responsibility in the first phase. The State of Wisconsin's preemptive strike, in its case-in-chief, which argued for my criminal responsibility during the first phase (i.e. showing motive and intent), could not be rebutted with non-criminal responsibility evidence by me simply because it was a bifurcated trial.

By statute, non-criminal responsibility evidence is barred in the first phase of a bifurcated trial because it relates directly to [any] question of mental disease or defect. In contrast, non-criminal responsibility evidence is allowed in a non-bifurcated first-degree murder trial. The court sentenced me to life imprisonment on April 21, 1986.

I, through my attorneys filed post-conviction motions alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel because trial counsel:
1. insisted on maintaining a Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity plea, despite my professing it to be an accident;
2. had no theory of defense; yet, the theory of defense has been an attempt by me to remove my wife from the environment.
3. did not present any expert witnesses on the effects of carbon monoxide asphyxiation, allowing the prosecution to call me a liar; allowing the prosecution to speculate (how come the defendant can't pick her up and drag her out; he's got no more than a few feet and he says he can't get in there to save the one he loves; if carbon monoxide affected defendant's memory, where is their expert; the defendant goes from having a great deal of information on 11/20 to knowing nothing in March, to knowing a great deal now);
4. did not know what I would testify to;
5. believed I was the world's worst witness; would hang myself if testified at trial; yet, put me on the stand anyhow;
6. did not believe anything 1 was telling them; thought that I was manipulating them; therefore, did not investigate because counsel didn't want to participate in what they thought to be perjury; despite being very dazed when I talked to them for the first time on 11/21/85; my speech was slurred on 11/21/85; I felt as if I were in a daze; I was very lethargic; had this lethargic quality for five (5) months; that carbon monoxide poisoning affects memory.
7. did not question the Green County Sheriff about doctoring evidence at the crime scene.
Trial counsel testified at my post conviction hearing that he was going to take notes to protect himself [6/5/87, Post-Conviction Hearing, Atty. Sturdevant testimony, p. 145]; that "as far as Jim Schultz was concerned, he could go fuck himself [6/10/87, Post Conviction Hearing, Atty. Watts testimony, pgs.41-43]; that he "was going to protect his ass and fuck the client." The trial Court denied the motions; an appeal was taken. My conviction was upheld.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV, in State v. Schultz, 148
Wis.2d 370, 435 N.W.2d 335, affirmed the conviction based on untrue facts -i.e. Nancy Schultz was not dead at the scene; she was not subjected to blows to the head; defendant's daughter was not a witness, etc. The Court refused to correct its decision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in addressing the voluntariness of my alleged statements, reaffirmed the conviction [152 Wis.2d 408, 448 N.W.2d 424 (1989)] without any facts regarding my physical and mental condition (i.e. the actual level of hemoglobin in my blood and the subsequent effects which would show that it was a medical impossibility for me to give any statements to the police much less participate In my own defense — it was logical and consistent with carbon monoxide poisoning that, as time went on, I remembered more of the facts of November 19, 1985; this memory problem left me without counsel because counsel believed I was manipulating them.). The Green County District Attorney is still withholding these crucial facts.

The State Public Defender's Office declined to appoint counsel for me beyond direct appeal. As a result, I was forced to proceed pro se in attempts to show my actual innocence. I began by addressing the invalid, illegal arrest warrant. The Court of Appeals admitted said "forum shopping" for an arrest warrant actually occurred; however, it stated that the coram nobis petition I filed wasn't the proper procedure to address the issue [State v. Schultz, 90-2786-CR].

I then filed a complaint for a John Doe Investigation alleging crime[s] were committed by County Law Enforcement officials in my case, in attempts to show the court my actual innocence; I did so in documents filed in said investigation and my testimony at the "application" hearings held on September 9, 1992, and October 19, 1992, respectively, before the Honorable Mark J. Farnum, Green County, Wisconsin [No case number was assigned]. It should be noted when I submitted documented evidence - i.e. police reports, etc. - to prove my allegations, the John Doe Judge informed me that said documents were "open to interpretation"; yet, used against me, they were considered gospel. An Order issued on January 22, 1993, found no crimes[s] were committed by officials in my criminal case.

I filed a supervisory writ action to oversee said John Doe Investigation [State ex rel. Schultz v. Circuit Court for Green County, Case No. 92-1524-W] due to the "appearance" of a possible conflict of interest - i.e. one judge investigating another judge, etc.; said action was transferred from the State Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals on June 23, 1992; the Court of Appeals denied my request on October 20, 1992; reconsideration denied on November 24, 1992; the State Supreme Court denied review on December 9, 1992; theUnited States Supreme Court denied review at 114 S.Ct. 1229; rehearing denied 114 S.Ct. 584.

I did not appeal the findings of the John Doe Investigation; instead, I appealed the decision not to issue a Supervisory Writ to oversee said investigation because of the apparent "conflict of interest." Had I known the proper procedure, the political conspiracy in my case would have long been exposed by the higher Wisconsin Courts.

I filed a mandamus action in the Green County Circuit Court [Schultz v. Elmer, 88-CV-384] seeking access to the Sheriffs Office files in my criminal case; the lower Court denied my request; the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's denial; the State Supreme Court denied review. The Courts all agreed that, because I had an appeal pending was a legitimate reason for non disclosure because access would thwart future investigations.

I subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act action in the District of Columbia Circuit, seeking access to the Green County Sheriffs Office files [Schultz v. Elmer, et ai, 91-3263-LFO]; the district court denied same for lack of jurisdiction. An appeal was taken to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals [92-5195]; the lower court's decision was upheld in an Order, dated June 8, 1993. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals also took Judicial Notice of the fact that I was arrested, tried, convicted, and am presently incarcerated on an illegal arrest warrant. However, I did not know I had to request the Court to issue a mandate for my release. The U.S. Supreme Court denied review at 114 S.Ct. 401.

A pro se habeas corpus petition for my release from custody was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western Dist. of Wisconsin [96-C-790-S]; and dismissed without a hearing or response and with prejudice by the Hon. Jon C. Shabaz. Reconsideration was also denied [The volumes of documented evidence submitted with my Motion for Reconsideration to the Honorable Jon C. Shabaz were all returned to me AND NOT MADE A PART OF THE RECORD. If I would not have made arrangements to pick them up, they would have been destroyed]; the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Certificate of Appealability [97-1369]; the U.S.S.Ct. declined review [98-5807].

Through the course of arrest, trial, and appeal, I have been subjected to the following constitutional deprivations:
Green County officials violated their oaths of office and my constitutional rights to a fair and meaningful trial and appeal by:
1. withholding and covering up the negligence of the first law enforcement officer on the scene;
2. withholding and covering up the negligence of the EMT that intubated my wife;
3. influencing the pathologist doing the autopsy to "cover up" the actual cause of death - i.e. suffocation from being intubated wrong;
4. withholding reports and documents that show I had a much greater percentage of carboxyhemoglobin in my blood, proving it was physically impossible for me to move;
5. constructing "alleged" statements for me to have made when it was mentally and physically impossible for me to have said;
6. withholding the signed Order to not issue a warrant for my arrest because the complaint did not establish probable cause;
7. illegally arresting me on the identical dismissed complaint that was filled with inferences known to be false - i.e.:
a. inferring 1 knocked Nancy's glasses off when, in fact, Ole Anderson did and testified to same;
b. inferring a broken flashlight was used as some sort of a weapon when the only fingerprint on it belonged to Ole Anderson; that the flashlight was broken and would fall apart by itself;
inferring that my eye glasses were broken when, in fact, I received them back after trial, intact;
inferring a struggle took place from the dust on the floor and on Nancy's panty hose when several officers and EMT's physically dragged both my wife and I out of the garage and many officers walked through the "alleged" crime scene;influencing the pathologist in skewing his findings to that what the Green County Sheriffs Department was trying to prove.
8. serving the illegal arrest warrant on me outside their jurisdiction; physically transporting me to their jurisdiction, without extradition.
9. applying for and carrying out an illegal search of our residence; altering the "alleged" crime scene to lend credibility to our daughter's programmed statements;
10. manipulating and programming our five-year-old daughter into believing she saw something she could not have possibly seen;
11. altering both video and audio tapes of our daughter's statements outside the chain of custody;
12. giving the keys to our residences and automobiles to a hostile, maternal relative and using him as an investigative arm of the police department without having to issue search warrants.

The Green County Circuit Court:
i. excused potential jurors for cause without objection by the State or defense so they could plant their fields - denying me my right to a jury of my peers (small businessmen) because I was a small businessman;
ii. ruled there was probable cause to arrest, despite the fact that the officer who accused me of the crime did not testify; made rulings on two (2) complaints, when, in fact, there were three (3);
iii. had ex parte communication with our daughter before she testified;
iv. always assisted the State in arguing issues, motions, etc., and often changed rulings after objections from the State;
v. held extensive "meetings" with my counsel and the prosecutor at his bench in front of the jury and outside my presence every day of trial.

I filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in my Court of Conviction, the Green County Circuit Court, the Honorable William D. Johnston, presiding. In said petition, I claimed:

1. My wife] was intubated wrong by the EMT, causing the death.

2. A conflict of interest in securing the arrest warrant -i.e. The Court Commissioner issuing the warrant was family related to the sheriff.

3. I was denied the right to be present at all discussions "off the record" at the judge's bench.

4. I was denied his right to have the jury polled.

5. I was denied my right to challenge the verdict, via a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
None of the above were addressed by the Court. The lower court did not hold a regular hearing on said habeas petition; Instead, it held a telephonic, motion hearing, and a telephonic status conference, in which the Court referred my petition, against my wishes, to the public defender's office; the public defender refused representation [The Public Defender made his determination on 2006's requirements for the appointment of counsel instead of what was in effect in 1985.]. The State was never ordered to respond to my petition, despite my Motion requesting a response; none of my supplemental motions were addressed - i.e. Motion for Leave to Proceed without Paying Costs in Habeas Action; Motion for Subpoenas to Issue; Motion for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor and Substitution of Judge from Another County; Joinder of Persons Needed for Just and Complete Adjudication; Motion for Production of Documents and Things; Motion in Limine for Court to Accept Affidavits as Evidence; Motion to Exhume the Body of Nancy M. Schultz. My separate Motion for Evidentiary Proceedings was never addressed. The court dismissed my petition based on the public defender's refusal, despite the fact that the Court stated there is "[g]oing to have to be an evaluation by a medical expert as to whether there is a basis for this on the records you are presenting ..."

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, without considering the RECORD of the underlying conviction, and chastised me for requesting said RECORD, despite mandatory Statutory procedure [See 809.19(l)(d), Wisconsin Statutes]; the Court refused to follow case law on accepting unrefuted facts as true and refused to consider any argument without reference to the record; the Court also refused to reference the underlying conviction number in the appeal.

I subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the State Supreme Court along with a Motion for Appointment of Counsel; the petition was denied; no action was taken on my Motion for Counsel Appointment.

Throughout this case, I have been totally on my own. I was suffering from the after effects of carbon monoxide poisoning and could not assist in my defense [It has since been determined that I suffer from short-term memory loss due to my exposure, the extent of which has yet to be determined.]. Defense counsel stated this was "an entirely circumstantial case" [4/19/86, Jury Trial, Arty.Watts, p. 137]; the district attorney stated the case boils down to the credibility of the defendant [4/19/86, Jury Trial, DA Funkhouser closing remarks, p.46]; and the defendant is a liar [4/19/86, Jury Trial, DA Funkhouser] because trial counsel would not investigate what the defendant told them about the furnace fan motor.

Technology today proves the bruising to Nancy Schultz's head could not happen as Dr. Engstrand stated; yet, the Courts won't allow evidentiary proceedings.

I am actually innocent, convicted solely on circumstantial evidence and the use of a child witness who had been manipulated into believing what authorities wanted her to "remember" regarding events that she could not possibly have knowledge of. An accident was turned into a murder through the combined negligence of the first law environment officer on the scene and the EMT that intubated my wife. It appears that Green County officials will go to great lengths to keep this case from justice. I was threatened with "you'd better leave this case alone if you know what's good for you" by Green County officers who transported me back to prison from a John Doe hearing. Just five years ago, Green County officials issued [By Green County] and carried out a search warrant [In Brown County] of a non-profit's business because it posted a statement of my case on its website; it took then Wisconsin Governor McCallum to intercede and Order Green County officials to return the non-profit's computers and equipment. The website was subsequently shut down because of the posting of my case. Why the paranoia?

I have attempted [without counsel because I am poor] to address the many constitutional deprivations I have been subjected to, beginning with my unconstitutional arrest, through trial and post-conviction procedures at the hands of incompetent counsel. However, I have not been afforded the opportunity, to establish a record due to "government misconduct" inferences having political connotations.

I was prosecuted by the State in a (State) Court, and forced to be represented by (State counsel) a Public Defender (trial counsel) and a (State paid-for-counsel) on appeal simply because I am poor. I have not had access to the sheriffs office files that continue to be withheld by the Green County District Attorney as "attorney work product." [These files were generated under the direction of then Green County Sheriff Elmer who was removed from office on a recall election after my conviction for misconduct.]. The current District Attorney stated to a private investigator that "it is not his job to provide evidence to get me a new trial." Discovery documents showing my actual innocence were not turned over to me before my trial; yet, the district attorney can claim attorney work product over two decades later!

Additional information can be obtained by writing me at:
James R. Schultz #8151 Stanley Correctional Institution
100 Corrections Drive Stanley, WI 54768-6500

...and I will be happy to provide you with a complete statement of the facts, coupled with court record references, showing that "justice" no longer exists for the average citizen in Wisconsin. ...or call, write, fax or e-mail:
.your State Representative at:
Box 7863 Madison, WI 53707-7863
FAX: 267-8983 E-MAIL:

the State Supreme Court at:
Box 1688
Madison, WI 53701-1688 FAX: 261-8289 Internet Address: compel Green County District Attorney Gary Luhman to turn over to you and me the investigatory files that were compiled by the Green County Sheriffs Department in Green County Case No 85-CR-234 (Green County Sheriffs Department Case No. C85-4841) that reveal the cover-up and conspiracy to convict me, an innocent person, of the death that law enforcement and EMT negligence actually caused.


five year old girl said...

I am the five year old girl that lost her mother in this case. I can't believe after all these years he still claims he's innocent. I think the person that wrote this should get herself checked out at a mental hospital. If you only knew who James Schultz really is. He is a lying manipulative monster. He doesn't need to see the light of day ever again.

five year old girl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
five year old girl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
five year old girl said...

I can't believe that James Schultz would think that this was an accident. He has no idea what it feels like getting his mother taken away from him by his father. He doesn't know what it's like having to grow up without his parents. He thinks he's out doing himself by putting on this show for anyone that would listen to him. He's been in prison for a long time. He knows how to manipulate people. He even tried to get me to believe he was this loving, caring father. If he was so great, why is he in prison for murder. Why does he only care for himself and how he looks in the spotlight. He needs to grow up and deal with himself. He needs to understand what he did was wrong and stop trying to get credit for being insane. I have never understood what my mother seen in him. I am glad to have been brought into this world even though I never had a normal life. James Schultz may have married my mother, but he was never my father. He lies to all of you. My Grandfather had no part in my mothers death. He came to the house because we were supposed to be at my grandmothers house for her birthday and we never showed up. He never told you that. Did he? He's only making it worse for himself. He's trying to get you to believe he's innocent. Did he tell any of you what he was convicted of in the 70's. He strangled his pregnant girlfriend with a telephone cord. Great person to be out on the streets huh? Why didn't you ask him about that?

five year old girl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

i admire your tenacity. good luck with your case.

Anonymous said...

I am a college student studying criminal justice. In my criminal investigation class we are using this case as an example and we will be conducting a mock trial at the end of the semester.

We are being presented the story and evidence from an law enforcement perspective. We are aware of Jims first conviction of the murder of his gilrfriend in 1965.

I have become aware of many "mistakes" the investigators made. I do not know the truth about Nancy's death, but i am finding it difficult to believe that Jim Schultz could of been found guilty beyound resounable doubt.

Forum for Understanding Prisons (FFUP) said...

Jam Schultz has sent us more documents and evidence in his case and would like to write anyone who is interested. Slowly they will be going upon the web. Contact FFUP if you are interested

About FFUP