Letter to Cordell Wilson, on his role in Milwaukee corruption:
September 30, 2022
Re: Fraud related to falsified psychological assessment summary reports/ your role
Dear Federal Probation Officer Cordell Wilson, (email: cordell_wilson@utp.uscourts.gov)
You mentioned that it might have been beneficial in the past for me to communicate with your supervisor. Yes; that could be beneficial now. If I could please have their email address and also have you share this letter with them.
In Wisconsin, falsified, summarised psychological reports were submitted to a court in Milwaukee to replace original reports. You were informed of the false summaries by me and by a local psychologist; you were informed that fraud had taken place with regard to the reports.
The fraudulent psychological report summaries are an issue that remains unaddressed.
Falsified summaries of original psychology reports submitted to the court record in Milwaukee were relied upon by two judges in rulings. The falsified reports were also a basis for separating me from my son, denying me contact with him from age five until 18 years-of-age. Your failure to address appropriately the falsified reports was the direct motivation for my leaving your supervision and coming to Switzerland.
Deliberately submitting false information for the court record, as happened in this case, is a felony. Switzerland, where I reside currently, punishes the provision to a court of false, intentionally modified documents with prison and fines. Here is also a translation of relevant Chinese law…
1. The lawyer provides false litigation materials
First, in accordance with Article 306 of the Criminal Law of China, any defender or agent AD litem who, in criminal proceedings, destroys or forges evidence, helps a party to destroy or falsify evidence, threatens or induces a witness to change his testimony against the facts or commits perjury shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention; If the circumstances are serious, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years.
Why mention Chinese law? Because China is often maligned as an obviously corrupt country where the rule of law is presumed meaningless. In fact, China offers citizens redress for such cases as here. What may be surprising for Americans to discover is how easy it was for someone to submit falsified documents to a Milwaukee court, and how lawyers, at least one judge and a probation officer (you) ignored this violation of law.
The following account provides details.
Please recall, I informed you at the start of your supervision that I had undergone two extensive, court ordered psychological assessments in Milwaukee. Nevertheless, you insisted that I have a third psychological evaluation done by a psychologist of your choice, in St. George, Utah, as a part of your supervision.
The two earlier reports were highly favourable to me; one specifically declared that I was entitled to 50% custody of my son if I intended to ask for such; It also stated that there were no negative mental/emotional issues following extensive professional assessment.
The second report stated that I was justified in my concern for my son; concern for his physical abuse (his head was being forced under water). That report also indicated that there were no negative emotional/mental issues pertaining to me. The report was crucial; It explained that the basis for preventing me from contacting my son had been illegitimate. It also called into question a trial whereby accusations were made in public, by Judge D. Hansher, that I was mentally ill. The Chief Psychologist for Milwaukee County contradicted the judge’s assertion and thus the entire basis for a trial that had taken place. Had the assessment been done before the trial, the fact of my rightful concern for my son would have justified my actions to safeguard him. The outcome of the trial would have been different.
After the trial, Hansher claimed in public that it was “obvious” that I suffered from mental problems. What were his grounds for the statement? That I had refused to plea bargain and continued to insist that my son had been harmed. But “obvious” only became “obvious” to Judge Hansher immediately after the trial. In the 18 month run up to the trial Hansher saw no signs of mental illness. Had I plea bargained, it would not have been obvious.
In fact, the false accusation of mental illness was purely political, distracting from the numerous violations of law before and during the trial.
I had personally put the argument to you that the two previous, favourable psychological reports justified my having contact with my son; there was no need for a third evaluation. But you were adamant. I had to have another assessment or else face your threat of incarceration.
Judge Hansher was angered by my refusal to admit that I had confabulated claims of harm to my son by an ill mother. There were no confabulated accusations; my son had been seriously harmed. Because it would have been false to deny my son’s extraordinary suffering, I refused Hansher’s demand for a plea bargain. He made it clear at sentencing that he was angered by my insistence on a view opposite his. He said so. He did not want a credible charge of child abuse in his courtroom, and he appointed Lawyer Martin Kohler to see that I changed my mind about going to trial.
Allowing the evidence of my son’s abuse to reach the public and to be allowed at trial would have drawn-in and made culpable certain colleagues of Hansher and Kohler, an embarrassment and threat to people who had not done their jobs properly during more than two years of related history. It was more convenient for Hansher to have a mentally ill father than an abusive mother. When the psychologists disagreed with Hansher, their reports were altered to state the most convenient narrative for lawyers and the judge.
I went through a trial and stated that my son had been abused. Without any relevant history or reason, Judge Hansher claimed that I suffered from mental issues for insisting that abuse had occurred. After extensive interviews and testing, the Chief Psychologist for Milwaukee County disagreed with Hansher. He submitted a report favourable to me in all regards. But Hansher refused to acknowledge his report. I was prevented from contacting my son until he was 18-years-of-age. He was five years old at the time.
I had made numerous, earlier attempts to draw attention to my son’s abuse, over more than two years. His nervous system was intentionally damaged by an emotionally ill mother who forced his head under water and who caused him extreme fright and pain in other ways, for example by placing him in garbage bags and preventing him from sleeping by feeding him caffeine, and bragging about it.
Regarding the third psychological assessment, the assessment that you insisted had to be carried out, I agreed to it in part because I believed it would bolster my argument to be able to contact my son. Also, you had been issuing threats of prison if I did not cooperate with all of your demands. But my meeting with the St. George psychologist (appointed by you) revealed astonishing information.
The two favourable psychological evaluations in Milwaukee had been summarised by someone to declare the opposite of the original reports. One false report stated that I had not taken my medication. The other false report implied that I was psychotic.
Those falsified summaries replaced original, favourable reports in the court record.
The following is how it went in my first and only meeting with your appointed St. George psychologist:
St. George psychologist: Why did you want to see me?
Me: I didn’t want to see you; I was compelled to do so by Officer Cordell Wilson;
St. George psychologist: I looked at your two previous psychological reports. They are fine, except for something strange.
Me: Strange? What’s strange?
St. George psychologist: Your court file has been altered;
Me. What?
St. George psychologist: I noticed that right away when I compared the two. Someone summarised the two official reports; the summaries are incorrect. Why is someone in Milwaukee summarising reports instead of letting the judge read the actual reports?
Me: No idea; what happened to the original reports?
St. George psychologist: Not in the court file, only the summaries.
One of the reports, by the psychologist who declared I was entitled to 50% custody of my son, had been altered to state that I had refused medication. Whoever summarised that report did not know that the psychologist who wrote the report actually had no authority to prescribe medication. When I contacted him, he said, “That summary is obviously a fraud; I am not authorised to prescribe medication.”
The second false summary report was altered to imply that I suffered from reality distortion (i.e. psychosis). In fact, the opposite was stated in the original report: My grasp of reality had been declared normal. I phoned that psychologist as well. He immediately understood what had happened, telling me, “You are not the only one to have this happen.” When I asked him to come forward, he said, “I am close to retirement; I don’t want to tangle with the lawyers.”
What did you have in your files at the time, Mr. Wilson? The falsified summaries or the originals? Were you at that time comparing my statements with falsified summaries in your files?
I brought the fraud in Milwaukee to your attention, forcefully and immediately. You were not in a receptive mood. I argued that I should be able to contact my son based on, by now, three favourable psychological reports and evidence of fraud that kept me from my son. Your psychologist, a very honourable and courageous woman, supported me in this claim. She was astonished that lawyers in Milwaukee were able to falsify psychological reports, and that I had been sent to meet with her for no reason by a probation officer (i.e. you, Mr. Wilson). She informed you in writing that there was no need for her to continue to see me professionally.
Can you explain why a favourable psychological report displeased you? Generally speaking, why would anyone not be pleased to see a favourable psychological report? But after the third, favourable psychological report, you lost all interest in the outcome of report number three.
Beyond that, you refused to allow me to see my son’s health report. Why? Were you aware that his abuse had already impacted him, and therefore you wished to continue to protect Hansher and Kohler?
You then claimed that a judge’s orders prevented you from allowing me to see my son. But that was a flat-out lie. The judge gave you written discretion in his orders to do just that. (I believe I sent you a copy of his orders with yellow highlighting, but you surely already knew from your copy.)
Judge David Hansher simply refused to acknowledge the report from his own court-ordered psychologist. But you saw for yourself that the favourable report, the report that displeased Hansher, had been fraudulently altered.
At that point, you had a duty to expose fraud and to report. But you did not. Instead, you again refused to allow me contact with my son.
If you had contacted Judge Hansher with the evidence of falsified summaries of reports, and if you had explained the circumstances to him, of course he would have had no choice but to investigate the fraud … and to allow me to contact my son!
I was powerless and under your complete control, while Milwaukee lawyers and a judge could have made your life difficult (or easier).The right things to do would have been: expose and investigate the source of the false reporting and then to allow me contact with my son. It is just as obvious that an easier path for you, personally and career-wise, was to ignore the corruption and to ignore my request to contact my son.
This was the point at which I decided to leave your supervision and move to Switzerland.
Had you given me any hope of contacting my son – such as with a birthday card, a gift, a letter or even a call from your office, I would never have found the courage to leave for Switzerland. Your mean-spiritedness and refusal to provide any hope of contacting my son, your stubbornness, and your determination to exercise maximum control, even after seeing that I had been treated unjustly and unfairly and illegally, led me to leave Utah. The refusal to allow me to see the health records only galvanised me.
A human being with a moral, ethical or proper legal sense does not prevent a father from seeing his son’s health records. It wasn’t the law that prevented you from giving me the health records; it was your nature as a man fully formed in body, but not in soul or spirit.
It is possible that Hansher knew of, or that he even approved of, the false summaries, as that relieved him and colleagues of responsibility. The chief psychologist reported in detail why Hansher had no basis for his damaging public remark about mental illness. If you had reported the fraud, it would have been impossible for Hansher to conceal it.
Again, Judge Hansher had warned me to stop claiming my son had been abused; Lawyer Kohler reinforced his view with coercion. My son had been having his head faced under water for expressing his love of me and wanting to see me. His mother had suffered severe, clinical postpartum depression. She could have killed our child. As you know, mothers in that emotional state can and have killed their children. I was able to stop that from happening. As my reward, I ran into legal system misconduct because lawyers and a judge wanted a different story told, a story that absolved all colleagues of responsibility – because a father was actually mentally ill and none of his story was to be considered true.
It is worth quoting from the prosecutor in the case, Fred Matestik, as also stated in open court to Judge Hansher:
“No outside jurisdiction must ever review this case.”
I wrote to Federal Judge R. Randa, explaining that he also had false reports in his file and that he made rulings based on the false reports. He wrote back, informing me: “the Issue has been transferred to Utah jurisdiction.” But you, Officer Wilson, were “Utah jurisdiction.”
This fraud was covered up by lawyers, helped by a judge and rubber-stamped by a probation officer.
You should update my case file to show what happened with those psych reports. Perhaps the Milwaukee D.A. should be notified. And the Federal Attorney in Milwaukee. I think one or both of them are authorised and required to investigate fraud, even if it is among lawyers and judges well known to them.
A suggestion on where to start unraveling the authorship of the falsified summaries: Lawyer Robert Elliott. He gleefully spread the false information of “mental issues” to lawyers, advising them not to represent me.
To summarise: I was kept from contacting my son until he was 18-years of age based on falsified mental heath reports. Those reports were politically motivated; that is, they were intended as obfuscation of lawyer misconduct. They were to detract from my story of base legal system corruption in Milwaukee.
Have you asked yourself, Mr. Wilson, what kind of crime justifies preventing a father from contacting his child from age five to 18? Murderers get to see their children; terrorists are not denied contact with their children. Then what kind of crime must occur? Exposing dirty lawyers and a judge in Milwaukee, that kind of conduct will have your child removed. We have the proof.
We should perhaps also bear in mind the confession to me by the chief psychologist for Milwaukee county: “You are not the only one.”
One of the saddest, most disturbing and demoralising experiences for an American in Europe is to open the CNN website, or the New York Times, the Washington Post or any other media outlet and read about another case of wrongful conviction in the USA. These cases come to us courtesy of the actions of corrupt, incompetent or negligent detectives, lawyers, prosecutors and police. Such cases are not rare.
As presented on my blog, I sent you a letter sent tome from Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization, confirming that information provided to them by the United States (with you involved) has now been deleted from their information base. There is no Interpol warrant for my arrest. If there ever was, it was based on false information that you helped provide. It is certain that, if there were true information about my being “armed and dangerous” and “mentally ill” as claimed – or if I had been involved in any other crime worthy of Interpol attention – Milwaukee lawyers would have seen to it that Interpol obtained the information.
The fact that false information could be provided by the U.S. to an international policing organisation – one that the U.S. on occasion has claimed was manipulated by e.g. Russia, North Korea – is rich. It shows the extent to which corrupt lawyers will and are permitted to go to cover up legal misdeeds. They found no great challenge in recruiting you as an aid, Mr. Wilson.
The story I tell is a threat to their continued corruption.
It would be maximum folly for me to return to the USA with a case file that still includes false information, You have a responsibility to see that correct information is in your files.
Sincerely
Mark Inglin
Triftweg 42
3920 Zermatt
Switzerland
P.S: This story is told in detail in the book Beyond Outrage (www.beyond-outrage.com)
more information on a dysfunctional legal system also in Lawyers Broken Bad (www.lawyersbrokenbad.com)
