To the Citizens of Wisconsin: Be you protestor, or free-speech assassin, no one in this great nation has the right to silence you. I share with you the immortal legacy of Bennett A. Masel, Madison’s own counter-cultural icon. I bet you thought that since Ben’s tragic death, his victories at trial would be long forgotten. You thought wrong. Ben’s words and actions live on in many minds, hands, and hearts. His legal actions may well have ensured your personal freedoms.
Before I start, let’s get one thing straight. I’m not a lawyer. I can’t give you legal advice, but I can share with you some of Ben’s tools; tools that stood up for him in a court of law… on more than one occasion. I will refer, in this article, to a particular set of court cases; which are listed below with details. This is merely a brief glimmer in Ben’s bright litigious history. As with the rest of this article, I have bolded details that may prove highly important. When I’m quoting code, but have a subjective interjection, I’ll italicize my remarks. Here are:
Case No. 87CV5457 (1987-1988)
Wisconsin Marijuana Action Committee and Bennett Masel (Plaintiffs) Tommy Thompson, individually and as Governor of the State of Wisconsin, Michael C. Metcalf, individually and as Chief, Wisconsin Capitol Police, and James R. Klauser, individually and as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Administration (Defendants)
Plaintiff’s Attorney: Richard B. Jacobson (Borns, Macaulay & Jacobson)
Result: Dismissed when neither party appeared. (I can only speculate as to why.)
Case No. 88 CV 5121 (1988-1989)
Wisconsin Marijuana Action Committee and Bennet [sic] Masel (Plaintiffs) v Tommy Thompson, individually and as Governor of the State of Wisconsin, Neal Steinhoff, individually and as Administrator, Division of Buildings and Grounds of the Wisconsin Department of Administration, and James R. Klauser, individually and as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Administration (Defendants)
Plaintiff’s Attorney: Richard B. Jacobson (Borns, Macaulay & Jacobson)
Result: Attorney General’s office moved for summary judgment in defendants’ favor (dismissed)
Case No. 93C 0630C (1993-1994)
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Wisconsin Chapter, Inc., and Bennett A. Masel (Plaintiffs) v Tommy Thompson, individually and as Governor of the State of Wisconsin, James R. Klauser, individually and as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Administration, and Michael C. Metcalf, individually and as Chief, Wisconsin Capitol Police (Defendants)
Plaintiff’s Attorney: Byron J. Walker
Result: Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff awarded in monetary settlement: attorney’s fees plus $1.00 in damages (injunctive relief based on applied challenge to Wis. Admin Code Adm. 2.04 (7)) Defendants also were granted an injunction entitling them to a restraining order against defendants for the duration of permit, so as to utilize their right to free speech without interruption or unjust persecution.
While the final case’s verdict was an important victory, it does appear the court was also wary of the decision’s weight.
[Loophole or not, the judgment states: “3.) This consent judgment shall not constitute an admission that Wisc. Admin. Code. Adm. 2.04 or Adm. 2.05 violate federal or state law and shall not constitute a waiver of any defenses that the defendants could have asserted in this action.” Basic application of the defended statute ought to remind us that this doesn’t constitute a censure either. (see Admin. Code 2.04 (6) to be exact) It’s not a “waiver”… but it appears to be a start to collapsing spiral of corruptive errors in bureaucratic syntax.]
Adm. 2.04 (6) The utilization of state office buildings and facilities by an organization shall not imply endorsement or approval by the state of Wisconsin or the department, nor the extension of special privilege. Likewise, the refusal by the department to permit use of a state office building or facility shall not be interpreted as disapproval or censure of any organization, but shall be for any violations of the conditions set forth in sub. (1) (a) to (e).
Restraining orders against the DOA and Governor’s office? Cyclical language? Now, do I have your attention? Ben spent a significant portion of his life in a courtroom. The sequence of adjudications you see (above) the payoff of persistence and good will to those who choose to speak out. I feel I should point out the obvious. None of these civil cases are charging simply the individual; they are charging the office holders. Ben didn’t just drag the Governor’s office into it; he made sure the Secretary of the DOA, the Administrator of the Department of Buildings and Grounds (charges dismissed…), and the Chief of Capitol Police all got wrapped up into this. Are you paying attention, Mr. Governor?
In the above cases, but specifically Case No. 93C 0630C Ben proved:
1.) No one can lawfully deny your right to speech. It’s defended by the Constitution. It’s that one amendment… you know; the first one.
2.) Capricious or deliberate censure (without “just” cause) creates a great case against your government and office holders.
3.) As “an appropriate facility” to demonstrate free speech, it is inappropriate to capriciously deny (or charge for!) permits. You can’t put a price on free speech... Charging for the right to utilize your right to free speech to create a productive dialogue relevant to your State’s well-being is contrary to the DOA Administrative. Code. See Admin. Code Adm. 2.04 (1) (a-e).
4.) Policies cannot be administered with bias.
Furthermore…
Adm. 2.04(5) The department and the applicant may not discriminate against any individual on the basis of age, race, creed, color, handicap, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, arrest record or conviction record in the utilization of state office buildings and facilities for government business, public meetings for free discussion of public questions, or for civic activities.
5.) If there is a threat that your actions will cause physical harm or disruption to a space, you are potentially liable to a fee no greater than $100. ($500 if you break a “big” rule… see the following passage regarding Sec. 16.846 and for examples of these behaviors see end passages of this article.) The greatest penalty you could suffer would be the fine and 30 days in jail. I know Ben considered his experiences a privilege and an honor… but also as a duty. (See Adm. 2.14 (zd)) I hope you would, too. Don’t worry your pretty heads, though. It makes little to no sense to arrest hundreds or thousands of people. In fact, we are all beginning to see how improbable mass arrests can be. If enough people amass, it’s downright impossible.
16.846 Rules relating to use, care and preservation of property under department control.
(1) (a) The department shall promulgate under ch. 227, and shall enforce or have enforced, rules of conduct for property leased or managed by the department. Unless the rule specifies a penalty as provided under par. (b), a person found guilty of violating a rule promulgated under this subsection shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned for not more than 30 days or both.
(b) A rule promulgated under par. (a) may provide that a person who violates the rule is subject to one of the following:
1. A lesser criminal penalty than the criminal penalty specified in par. (a).
2. A forfeiture of not more than $500.
(2) A forfeiture under sub. (1) (b) 2. may be sued for and collected in the name of the department before any court having jurisdiction of such action. An action for a forfeiture under sub. (1) (b) 2. may be brought by the department, by the department of justice at the request of the department, or by a district attorney.
(3)All fines imposed and collected under this section shall be transmitted to the county treasurer for disposition in accordance with s. 59.25 (3) (f) and (j). All forfeitures, including forfeitures of posted bail, if any, imposed and collected under this section shall be transmitted to the county treasurer for disposition in accordance with ss.
Fines? Jail time? Learning the rules could be fun, right? Red tape aside, you have the right to assemble and to be hopeful you are still encouraged to hold your liberties. DOA code supports this concept when it’s not trying to scare you away.
Adm 2.04 Public meetings and events.
(1) The department of administration as managing authority of the several state office buildings and facilities may permit the same to be used by any governmental body or official or any nonprofit, fraternal, religious, or veterans’ organization for purpose of governmental business, public meetings for the free discussion of public questions, or for activities of a broad public purpose if such use:
a. Does not interfere with the prime use of the building or facility.
b. Does not unduly burden the managing authority.
[Does new code propose that four individual demonstrators at a time constitutes undue burden? This would negate regulation structure, as is constitutes capricious basis for permit necessity! FOUR people hardly constitutes undue burden!]
c. Is not a hazard to the safety of the public or state employees; nor detrimental to the building or facility.
d. Does not expose the state to the likelihood of expenses and/or damages which cannot be recovered.
e. And is appropriate to the physical context of the building or facility.
BINGO. Where better to exercise your right to free speech than the Capitol Building? The application fees contemporized by policy change constitute political bias against the poor, among many other equally valid charges; which are, seemingly supported by egregious DOA code. For instance, the fact that four homeless people (let alone one… see 2.14 (i) (1) for more information) cannot enter the Capitol to scrutinize their representative on the increasing losses of local and state support for non-land-owning citizens should be much more disturbing to public consciousness. This is a fracture point in the basic function of our administrative system. Denying the freedoms of some, refutes freedom for all.
Lest I digress and leap to further injustices practiced for the sake of “order”, let us now assume, as it is proven, we all have the right to assemble, and when in groups, permits cannot be charged for in ways that demonstrate capriciousness or bias. What does a permit entitle a group to?
Adm. 2.04 (8) (b) The permit shall be issued for any period requested, including business hours, but not to exceed 2 hours.
This is why multiple permit holders, be they man or institution, are integral to the legitimate success of massive future demonstrations…
But, do you even need a permit? As we have now (albeit unconstitutionally) defined “undue burden” as four people, it seems rather simplistic but plausible that a few thousand individuals do not constitute undue burden. That’s right, boys and girls! This whole thing hinges on your personal corruption… your NEED to be part of the group OR an individual. I want you to memorize this. Learn it by heart, and learn to repeat it like your freedom and that of your descendents in perpetuity depended on it, because it just might:
“I am here as an individual. I am not part of a group. I am here to express my own beliefs which I have deemed relevant to the use of this facility; beliefs which are important to the ethical and moral existence of our current political structure in my state, my country, and my world.”
Or if your voice trembles too much, just say, “I’m alone.” or “I’m with less than three other people.” If the DOA adheres to their new rules, they will talk themselves into a corner where a blind mob of individuals has more rights than a highly organized demonstration.
Should you be pressed, there are so many more things you could recite to better demonstrate your individualism. I recommend reciting the Girl Scout/Boy Scout/4-H/Allegiance Pledge(s)… Just remember, you are here to contribute to “the free discussion of public questions”, at an "individual" level.
They can’t silence you.
But they do think they can scare you.
They think they can discourage you and lead you back down the path of apathy and disconcert. They think they can cram you into the shell of a cog so that the predominance and contrary nature of their own devices can remain hidden. They want to force public abstention from democratic process. And to remain silent is to give your consent in absentia… sometimes, inaction is a far worse sin.
Now, let’s get another thing straight. I don’t necessarily care about what you care about. (Again, see Admin. Code. Adm. 2.04 (6)) I might even think something you plan to express up there is downright stupid and potentially unpleasant. But I care that you have the right to say it. (Your) God be with you; go be you. If an individual has more rights than a mob, a mob of individuals can be so much greater than the men we elect to office. This conversation must continue… This “free speech” we’re fighting for, here, isn’t simply a right. It’s an obligation. Every day, people die to protect our freedom, and what do we do with it? We let it be taken away. There is something perpetually damaging about allowing people to be silenced. That sort of attitude leads to the ultimate silencing of all.
Speak though your voice may tremble. It should tremble, as you are part of a larger political process… and because Ben Masel is no longer here to fight your battles for you.
Tools and Potential Tricks
Deeper into this passage is Ben’s standard permit application. Learn to love it and live by it. Don’t just look at it; use it. Permits are granted for up to 2 hours at a time, and this doesn’t include any additional set-up times you might stipulate are necessitated in your application. The Capitol is typically open for business 8:00AM to 6:00PM on weekdays. (But, for after hours permit potential, see Admin. Code 2.13 and Admin. Code Adm. 2.14 (z)) If individual organizations teamed up to file this simple permit application on a particular day, we would only need 5 groups to secure the Capitol all day long. Now, consider what might happen if they applied for permits every day for the next year… perhaps even sending all of those permit requests within a short period of time. The possibilities are spectacular.
Adm 2.13 Building use during closed periods.
(1) The buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department shall be used by state employees for the purpose of state work. Employees, vendors on state contract, and the public who use the buildings and facilities after those buildings are locked and secured by the managing authority, shall have express written permission of the managing authority.
(2)The tenant agency shall be responsible for any costs incurred by the department due to the actions of employees, visitors and vendors permitted into buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department by employees of tenant agencies when the buildings and facilities are closed.
Under this beautiful provision, I reason that any state employee or [hopefully representative] Union can apply for, and must be supplied a permit if it is relevant to that employee’s State political environment AND their job. I know a few tens of thousands of people this actually applies to. The permit should be granted so long as the individual can defend the necessity within the parameters of the law and administrative code. There are plenty of reasons and no need to deviate into further detail.
Apart from State Workers, The Solidarity Sing Alongs, for instance could also be particularly aided by Ben’s experience. A permit application would “legitimize” use outside the parameters of individuals gathering, and while the DOA may believe that they can antagonize a group with a named permit holder, under the letter of the law open discrimination via means such as excessive fines or forced penalty could be used against the State itself in a court of law. Notwithstanding, another permit being granted for same period of time as desired by another party does not preclude the issuance of a permit… after all, “undue burden” is being contemporarily defined by the DOA as four people; otherwise, a fee would not be up for consideration…
But if you really get down to brass tacks and isolate free speech as a right, permits might not be at all necessary, especially as expressed in a letter from Chief of Capitol Police Michael Metcalf which Ben used as exhibit A in all of the above cases, Metcalf clearly states “No permit is required to gather on the Capitol grounds for the purpose expressed in your application.” Metcalf is referring to the exterior area surrounding the Capitol, but the same logic can be applied, as Admin. Code 2.04 (e) clearly states: “And is appropriate to the physical context of the building or facility.” It is a cyclical argument. It is appropriate to start a productive dialogue inside the Capitol, so such action may be allowed with an issued permit; however, the First Amendment allows the freedom of speech. If you apply for a permit, you can’t reasonably be denied within this context, but through application of our innate freedoms expressed by our constitution you have the right to not request one… but I still recommend requesting one, or several.
Ben’s exhibit B was a stand-all; his permit application… a letter to the Chief of Police, but I’ll leave it like a Mad-Lib, because you aren’t Ben.
[XXXX Your address here
City, State ZIP
Month Day, Year]
Wisconsin Capitol Police:
_____ hereby requests that your department issue a permit for a rally to be held (on/at) the ___ [street steps/area] of the Capitol Building on _____, commencing at ___ and concluding at ___. This event will feature ________. This event (will/will not/may) include (amplified sound/amplified music). It is requested that electrical access be made available, as in the past. (Equipment setup will commence at ___.) We (intend/do not intend/may choose to) have a table offering printed material for sale or donation, State regulations notwithstanding, as this activity is protected by the US Constitution. (See Citizens for a Better Environment v. Schaumberg for a Supreme Court case on 1st Amendment protection of political fundraising.)
Your prompt response to this permit application will be appreciated.
[Your Name Here]
(applicant)
This permit application could be sent to:
Capitol Chief of Police Charles Tubbs
Division of Capitol Police
B2N State Capitol
Madison, Wisconsin 53702
But this can be easily amended if you want to apply for internal demonstration access. Here’s my suggestion:
[XXXX Your address here
City, State ZIP
Month Day, Year]
Department of Administration:
_____ hereby requests that your department issue a permit for a rally to be held within the Capitol Building on _____, commencing at ___ and concluding at ___. This event will feature ________. This event (will/will not/may) include (amplified sound/amplified music). It is requested that electrical access be made available, as in the past. (Equipment setup will commence at ___.) We (intend/do not intend/may choose to) have a table offering printed material for sale or donation, State regulations notwithstanding, as this activity is protected by the US Constitution. (See Citizens for a Better Environment v. Schaumberg for a Supreme Court case on 1st Amendment protection of political fundraising.)
It is not anticipated that this event will cause undue burden or disruption to daily events, so a fee is not appropriate, but should expenses present themselves within the letter of the law, please contact us. Your prompt response to this permit application will be appreciated.
[Your Name Here]
(applicant)
[CC: Capitol Chief of Police]
This permit application could be sent to:
Secretary Mike Huebsch
Office of the Secretary
101 E. Wilson St.
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
I anticipate these permit applications would fit on an index card appropriate for mailing, en masse, at reduced postage. Let’s give the US Postal Service a hand, and start sending some permit applications. It’s a lot cheaper than the DOA would lead you to believe.
Whether or not you choose to apply for a single (or multiple…) permit(s)… you should know the code, constitutional or not. Again, please, don’t consider my comments endorsement or censure of any actions you might insinuate I’m suggesting be practiced. [see Admin. Code Adm. 2.04 (6)] But DO consider this my endorsement for creating some very interesting permit applications!
Here’s what you “CAN’T” do at the Capitol*
* = “Unless permitted…” may apply
Adm. 2.14
Pursuant to s. 16.846, Stats., whoever does any of the following shall be subject to a forfeiture of not more than $500:
(a) Without a permit, possesses an open container which contains an alcoholic beverage on the grounds or in public places of those buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department.
Brandy candy or alcohol laced foams might pass the test… but I have my doubts…
(b) Without a permit, consumes alcoholic beverages on the grounds or in those buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department.
Get a permit for your brandy candy. You could share. You might even be able to solicit if you are ‘permitted’.
(c) Smokes a cigarette, a pipe or a cigar in any area which is not designated by sign as a smoking area in those buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department.
(d) Without authorization, enters private offices or nonpublic areas in those buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department.
(e) Without the express written approval of the department, uses a public address system or sound amplification system in those buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department.
Permit request = protection.
(f) Fails to comply with any existing noise ordinances of the communities in which those buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department are located unless specified by the department. The department shall first notify the party responsible for the sound amplification equipment or public address system to reduce the level to the prescribed decibel level.
No warning, no ticket?
(g) Fails or refuses to return access devices pursuant to s. Adm 2.15.
(h) With the intent to annoy another, makes a telephone call from or to a telephone located in those buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department or on state properties surrounding those buildings, whether or not conversation ensues.
I wonder if Ben had anything to do with this…
(i) Procures or attempts to procure a handout from another person in a manner or under circumstances manifesting an express or implied threat of coercion. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such purpose is manifested are any of the following:
1. The person is a known panhandler.
Don’t panhandlers have the right to speak their mind? Are they not defended by our Constitution?
2. The person repeatedly and in a threatening fashion beckons to, stops or attempts to stop passersby.
3. The person engages passersby in threatening conversation.
4. The person utilizes threatening bodily gestures.
(im) The violator's conduct must demonstrate a specific intent to induce, solicit or procure goods or money from another person by threat or coercion. No arrest shall be made for a violation of this subsection unless the arresting officer first affords the person an opportunity to explain their conduct.
(j) Brings a live animal into those buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department, with the exception of dogs used to assist physically disabled individuals or with the express written permission of the department.
(k) Engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances where the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance in public places or private areas in those buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department, or on state properties surrounding those buildings.
(L) For the owner or keeper of any animal, permits the same to run at large in those buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department, or on state properties surrounding those buildings. Animals shall be deemed at large unless under the control of a person or restrained by means of a chain, rope or cord of sufficient strength and of a length not to exceed six feet to control the action of the animal. The department may prohibit animals at certain public events upon notification to the public.
(m) Without a permit, operates devices such as skateboards, coasters, roller-skates, sleds, toboggans or other similar devices, in those buildings and facilities managed or leased by
the department, or on state properties surrounding those buildings.
Ooo! Oooo! Idea for a permit application!
(n) Loiters in or near any thoroughfare or public place in a manner and under circumstances for the purpose of inducing, enticing, soliciting or procuring another to commit an act of prostitution. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such purpose is manifested are the following:
1. The person is a known prostitute or panderer.
Modest readers, forgive my saying, but an off-duty prostitute is still a Citizen.
2. The person repeatedly beckons to, stops, or attempts to stop or engages male or female passersby in conversation.
It would seem the Capitol is meant to be a terrible place to fall in love.
3. The person repeatedly stops or attempts to stop motor vehicle operators by hailing, waving of arms or any other bodily gestures.
But Officer, I’m just hailing a cab!
(nm) The violator's conduct must be such to demonstrate a specific intent to induce, entice, solicit or procure another to commit an act of prostitution. No arrest shall be made for a violation of this subsection unless the arresting officer affords the person an opportunity to explain their conduct.
Sure, you were just playing around with your wife… but they don’t have to believe you…
(o) Urinates or defecates in areas that are not officially identified for that purpose in buildings or facilities managed or leased by the department, or on properties surrounding those buildings.
See (zb) and (y).
(p) Enters a locked building or facility managed or leased by the department, or on the grounds surrounding the executive residence, without the approval of the department or the tenant agency.
(q) Scales or attempts to scale exterior walls of those buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department.
(r) Casually possess marijuana or cannabis in a public place unless the marijuana or cannabis was obtained directly from or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of their professional practice.
I can imagine Ben aided in the creation of the beginning and end of that statement.
(s) Uses or possesses with the primary intent to use, drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance.
Don’t plant. But if you happen to see something, don’t look at or ingest it.
(t) Builds a fire or burns materials in buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department or the grounds that surround them without the express permission of the department.
Could we get a permit for a fire pit at our next camp-in?
(u) Willfully, maliciously or wantonly defaces, injures or destroys any public or private property of another in buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department or on the grounds that surround them.
(v) Without approval of the department, conducts a picket, rally, parade or demonstration in those buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department or on properties surrounding those buildings. In order to preserve the order which is necessary for the enjoyment of freedom by occupants of the buildings and facilities, and in order to prevent activities which physically obstruct access to department lands and buildings or prevent the state from carrying on its instructional, research, public service, or administrative functions, any picketing, rally, parade, demonstration, other assembly, or congregation of spectators to the activity may be declared unlawful if its participants:
1. Intentionally gather, or intentionally remain assembled outside any building or facility managed or leased by the department in any numbers, in any proximity to each other, or in any fashion as to physically hinder entrance to, exit from, or normal use of the building.
2. Intentionally congregate or assemble within any building or facility managed or leased by the department in any fashion as to obstruct or seriously impair state-sponsored or state-authorized activities.
If your permit is authorized, anyone who obstructs you is liable to
suffer a stern penalty.
3. Enter the private office of any state employee, unless invited by the authorized occupant of that office, and then not in excess of the number of visitors designated or invited by the person.
4. Obstruct or seriously impair passage through corridors, stairways, doorways, building entrances, fire exits, and reception areas leading to offices in buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department.
I clearly recall being told by Police Officers during earlier Capitol demonstrations that I could not leave the building. (And exits I approached were unobstructed.) I’m assuming none of those officers were fined.
5. Enter or occupy any building or facility managed or leased by the department, without authorization from the person in immediate charge of any room in the building, or by a person designated to approve requests for the use of rooms for meetings.
6. Assemble immediately outside rooms in any building or facility managed or leased by the department at times when they are normally in use for state business.
But that’s every room, isn’t it?
7. Bring signs supported by standards or sticks into a building or facility managed or leased by the department.
8. Intentionally create a volume of noise that unreasonably interferes with department-sponsored or authorized activities.
See (f).
9. Intentionally employ force or violence, or intentionally threaten the immediate use of force or violence, against state employees or officials when in buildings or facilities managed or leased by the department.
I already regret bringing attention to the words “in buildings”. Remember, kiddos, threats of violence are enforceable under other regulations. Also, don’t be an xxxxxxx.
a. In this section "intentionally" means that the participant or spectator knew, or reasonably should have known, that the participant's or spectator's conduct by itself or in conjunction with the conduct of others would have the prohibited effect.
b. The department may designate a state official or officials who shall have primary authority to implement this paragraph. The official shall prescribe limitations for any picketing, rally, parade, demonstration or other assembly in order to meet the requirements of this paragraph. When informed of any picketing, rally, parade, demonstration, or other assembly, the department official or designee may proceed immediately to the site to determine if there is compliance with this paragraph. If the official prescribes limitations, and those limitations are not observed by the assembly, the official may then declare the assembly unlawful. Any declaration of illegality or prescription of limitations shall be effective and binding upon the participants in the assembly, unless and until modified or reversed.
Repeat after me: “I am here as an individual apart from any group that may or may not be present.”
c. Any participant or spectator within the group constituting an unlawful assembly, who intentionally fails or refuses to withdraw from the assembly after it has been declared unlawful, shall be subject to the penalties identified in sub. (2) (intro.).
(w) Possesses fireworks, as defined in s. 167.10 (1), Stats., on state property without authorization from the department.
Do I know anyone qualified to file this permit application?
(x) Without consent, intentionally takes, carries away, uses, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of another person's property valued at $100 or less.
Don’t steal… unless it’s big… seriously, though, don’t steal. I’m sure
this is just a matter of jurisdiction.
(y) Knowingly gives false information to a state police or a security officer, with the intent to mislead the officer in the performance of their duty.
See (zb). Ha. Duty.
(z) Camps in buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department, or on the grounds that surround them, without the express written approval of the department. No person may place or erect any facility or structure in or on the buildings, facilities or grounds which surround them.
I smell a permit application.
(za) Parks or stores a bicycle in buildings, on sidewalks or driveways, or in motor vehicle parking spaces. Bicycles shall be parked in areas designated for that purpose or in bicycle racks so as not to obstruct free passage of vehicles and pedestrians.
I wonder if you could ride your bike in there. You can’t park it if you don’t stop, right?
(zb) Dumps any waste, trash, debris, rubbish, earth or other fill, at any buildings or facilities managed or leased by the department, or in a department collection device without authorization from the department unless the material was collected at the building or facility. This paragraph does not restrict the proper disposal of incidental litter.
To avoid (zb), I suggest asking an official or member of the police before you poo… but see (y) first!
(zc) Removes any shrubs, vegetation, wood, timber, rocks, stone, earth, signs, fences, or other materials from buildings and facilities managed or leased by the department, unless authorized by the department.
(zd) Engages in conduct otherwise prohibited by this chapter without the
express written approval of the department.
Learn to live by and love these rules… within reason. The exception that proves the rule is a false statement.You only have as much power as you refuse to surrender, so please, speak out, and always remember, every one of us is blessed to be here now. Go get ‘em.