We the People Want Tesla Direct Dealerships in Wisconsin

Ivan Scharbrough

Petition is addressed to

The People of Wisconsin

1 Signatures

Collection finished

1 Signatures

Collection finished

Launched June 2025
Collection finished
Prepare submission
Dialog with recipient
Decision

Petition addressed to: The People of Wisconsin

We the people of Wisconsin want Tesla Inc. to have direct to buyer dealerships in Wisconsin. For far too long have fat cat middlemen who make obscene salaries for producing absolutely nothing, handing money from one hand to the next whilst taking a huge cut, artificially inflated costs which ‘trickle down’ to we the people. These ‘brother in law’ ‘good old boy’ positions hurt the people, contribute largely to inflation and only benefit the few. These money changers have stood between the people and the products and services which we need long enough. It’s time for 'the wheels of change' to accelerate forward like a Tesla.
This scenario has been exposed in the medical industry, where we the people in the land of the free pay exponentially higher rates for ‘medicines’ and are threatened with criminal charges for daring to step across any border to purchase and return with, in some case life saving medications, in order to avoid the outrageous often ten fold higher prices. This is brought to us by the lobbyists who have well known revolving door relationships with big corporations and ‘regulatory’ agencies who ensure that the usual suspects maintain a proverbial stranglehold on the people and economy of the United States.
   • Wisconsin is a Republic:
   • “Whereas the people of the Territory of Wisconsin did, on the first day of February, eighteen hundred and forty-eight, by a convention of delegates called and assembled for that purpose, form for themselves a constitution and State government, which said constitution is republican, and said convention having asked the admission of said Territory into the Union as a State, on an equal footing with the original States : Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, and is hereby admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever, with the boundaries prescribed by the act of Congress, approved August sixth, eighteen hundred and forty six, entitled “an act to enable the people of Wisconsin Territory to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union.”” Legislative Act Wisconsin's Admission to the Union
   • “Government; Republican government: "One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated." In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.” [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
   • “The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative.” [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 “Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]
   • "The foundation of our system of government rests in the sovereignty of the people." The Declaration of Independence para. 2 (U.S. 1776); Wis. Const. art. I, § 1. Wisconsin Legislature v. Andrea Palm, 2020AP000765-OA (Wis. 2020)
   • “The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.” [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.]
Joshua Kaul, and his excellency Evers has participated in law suits designed to keep un-monitored ballot boxes in use in Wisconsin. https://wisconsinexaminer.com/briefs/kaul-argues-state-law-does-not-prohibit-absentee-ballot-drop-boxes/
Kaul has recently brought a suit against Elon Musk (WI 25'CV1087 Josh Kaul et al vs. Elon Musk in Dane Cnty) for running a giveaway for folks who signed a petition stating that they do not support magistrates (judges) who abuse their power and position on the bench for political, partisan and special interest agendas. This case was filed in Dane Cnty WI on 28 Mar 2025, denied ex parte under WIS. STAT. RULE 809.51(2) on 31 Mar 2025, and dismissed 1 April 2025 by Voigt, W. Andrew.
Before 25'CV1087 case was dismissed Kaul’s deputy AG Karla Keckhaver filed a petition for a supervisory writ with the WI Court of Appeals 29 March 2025. Directly after a Mr Scott Thompson of Law Forward filed a motion to file an Amicus/Non-Party Brief. Can’t say with certainty what that brief would have looked like.
Now Mr Joshua Kaul is representing the regulatory agencies in court, fighting to prevent the people of Wisconsin from being ‘permitted’, by the agents who are sworn to serve us, from being able to purchase a Tesla product without injecting their favorite pay for play middleman, under threat of police force.
It is fairly clear what forces and agents thereof desire to fight legal battles to prevent we the people from having a Tesla dealership in Wisconsin.

Reason

We the People of Wisconsin, and the United States have the inalienable, substantive and constitutionally protected (Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1) right to contract.
I sign this petition as one of the people of Wisconsin, in exercise of my substantive, inalienable and constitutionally protected rights, in full support of an order from a court of record of competent jurisdiction granting the following relief:
   • Temporary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin any unlawful interference with we the people of Wisconsin’s constitutionally protected right to contract including but not limited to actions predicated upon WIS STATS Chapter 218 Sect 218.0121 the ‘Factory Dealer’ statute or any other contrivance or instrument by any agent of the people which would contravene the people’s substantive, inalienable and Constitutionally protected right to contract including but not limited to purchasing Tesla Inc's products from a dealership owned by Tesla Inc.
   • For attorney General Joshua Kaul, the WISCONSIN AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK DEALERS ASSOCIATION, INC.and it’s key principle William A Sepic and those acting in concert with them to show cause whey they should not be charged federally under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and 1985 and 18 U.S.C. § 241.
   • Such other and further relief as the court deems necessary under the circumstances.
The forced commercial commercial relationship between the people and any ‘middleman’ ‘money changer’ standing between the people and our right to contract with any party we choose is a blatant violation of the Constitution for the United States of America (CFUSA) and has and continues to cause direct and proximate injury to the people of Wisconsin. Any statute that is repugnant to the CFUSA is null, void and unenforceable no better than a ‘blank piece of paper’ and is as though it had never been passed. But don’t take our word for it, allow our agents, the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, to speak in our behalf:
   • “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/
   • "Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void." Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803))
   • 371, 376 (1879)) "An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offense created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment." (Ex parte Siebold 100 U.S.100 U.S. at 376-377 1879)
   • "That which purports to be a law of a State, but which is in violation of the Constitution of the United States, is void and of no effect; and the courts, when called upon to give effect to it, must refuse to do so upon the ground that it is not law." (228 U.S. at 566, summarizing the principle from earlier cases like Marbury and Norton) Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Ry. Co. v. Hackett, 228 U.S. 559 (1913)
   • “The mandate of the state affords no justification for the invasion of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States; otherwise, that Constitution would not be the supreme law of the land.” Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885)
   • “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” [Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.]
   • “The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]
   • “The States cannot, in the exercise of control over local laws and practice, vest state courts with power to violate the supreme law of the land.” Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433, 439-38 (1940)
   • “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]