DID THE CENSORS WIN? PROBABLY


This is a tremendous analytical piece I read while in the hospital detailing how the mainstream media inundated the public with a solitary viewpoint while blocking any alternative perspectives. The one-sided crusade continued uninterrupted, and we more or less were bamboozled and caved. IF the censors did win, many of us might be to blame.

Did the Censors Succeed?

Jeffrey Tucker
September 19, 2022


These days, I rarely encounter people who disagree that the COVID-19 pandemic policy was a disaster.

You can usually get a laugh at a cocktail party when making fun of sanitizer madness, 15 days to flatten the curve, ubiquitous plexiglass, or six feet of distance. The school closures are in disrepute, as is the restriction on hospital visits or the banning of funerals and weddings. Even masking seems ridiculous in retrospect.

And remember when you couldn’t get a haircut for three months? How many lives did that save?

One even encounters widespread derision at the notion that the vaccines were effective at disease blocking. People whisper in private about vaccine injury, which seems incredibly common.

To be sure, there’s still a hard-core of true believers out there, easily recognizable by their beaks worn in public spaces and the funny two-step they do in stores to keep from getting near others. They wish we had stayed locked down longer or imposed even more violence against the unvaccinated.

Let’s say that group constitutes 10 percent but surely no more than 20 percent of the population. As for the rest, the days of delusion are long gone. The entire public health establishment faces tremendous public incredulity. Traditionally, medical science has been among the most trusted of all sectors of life. But the Pew Research Center documents that it has taken a huge hit this year. It’s not as bad as elected leaders in whom three-quarters of Americans say they have little or no trust, but it’s still bad.

And yet, however many people think these things in private, these opinions were nowhere in the mainstream media for the better part of two years. The near-universal opinion was that Dr. Anthony Fauci was a genius with the best interest of the country at heart. Dissidents were silenced and punished with throttles and bans. The government collaborated with Big Tech to mark all opposition to the extremist lockdowns and mandates as misinformation.

What effect does that have? It causes the opposition sectors to migrate into a Samizdat category, a banned point of view that’s nonetheless widely held. Think of opposition to Communist Party rule in the Soviet Union in the old days. Trust in the party was nearly zero, but that was hardly ever expressed in public culture. As a result, people felt a sense of shame for holding perfectly reasonable views.

In fact, most people who today disagree profoundly with regime priorities during the pandemic don’t know that some of the world’s leading experts on the topic shared their views completely. There were some who spoke out—not nearly enough—but there was a conspiracy from the top to crush and discredit them. We know this. We have the receipts.

The government worked closely with social media companies to shut down scientifically informed voices, which isn’t only an outrage against truth and justice; it’s also a flagrant violation of First Amendment rights.

Still, the censors succeeded in keeping these reasonable views out of the mainstream of the public mind, which is to say that their censorship worked. You and I might be pleased to have read the right Substack or encountered a contrarian book or paper. But remember that for every one piece of exposure of a dissenting perspective, tens of millions of others receive the mainstream line.

I was speaking to a group of highly informed finance professionals and making all of the above points. They seemed to be in full agreement. But then I became curious and asked how many in the audience had heard of the Great Barrington Declaration. Only six hands went up from the whole crowd.

Six people out of 600! This was a great reality check for me since this topic had reached more mainstream readers and listeners than any other during the pandemic. But in this crowd of highly educated professionals, only 1 percent had even heard of it.

This statement of public health principles has nearly 1 million signatures after a year of being online, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared with the daily reach of Fauci’s pronouncements. Even if people don’t really believe what they read and hear from the mainstream, a reputable alternative has never really had widespread reach.

The sad reality today is that people who have a seriously informed understanding of the issues underlying the great public health and economic calamity of our lifetimes—and perhaps in all of modern history—constitute a very tiny group. This is the triumph of the censors.

This leaves us today in a very strange position. An economic crisis is brewing, and inflation has already wrecked the value of wages and savings. This is a direct consequence of the pandemic lockdowns and wild congressional spending packages that were funded entirely by funny money created by the Fed. When Americans want to know why all of this is happening, they need only reflect on the policies over the past two years.

And yet, when you scour the mainstream media for this point of view, it’s extremely difficult to find. Even now, there has been no large effort to rethink what happened. Instead, we get the Orwellian memory hole. The entire lockdown experience is being dropped from memory simply because it was such an unworkable disaster but nonetheless one backed by the whole of the public and private establishment as if it were a normal and scientific application of public health mitigation strategy.

These days, the whole subject is treated like something weird that goes on in China and nothing more. The New York Times and CNN write about China’s continuing lockdowns as if nothing like that ever happened here, even though that did happen here. We just pretend otherwise.

Another strange effect of censorship is to train the public mind in a kind of protocol of compliance. We all know what we can and can’t say. We can believe what we want to believe of course, but constant compliance has spillover psychological effects. Force a person to behave as if he believes something long enough and it might eventually become an authentic belief. Even worse, a person comes to believe that authenticity and truth don’t really matter anymore.

I’m graced often these days with the opportunity to speak out about lockdowns and mandates and the remarkable disaster of the past 2 1/2 years. I often hear from listeners that it isn’t only educational; it’s also therapeutic. People truly need to talk, share, learn, decompress, and come to terms with the trauma that all of this has been for the world.

My message states to many people that they aren’t insane, evil, victims of misinformation, or dangerous non-compliers. Instead, they’re reasonable and responsible citizens who are looking at facts and reality for what they are. And the reality is that the ruling class that imposed this new order of things on the world is the real danger.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn served such a crucial role in the latter years of communism and after simply because he told the truth that everyone knew in their hearts but couldn’t formulate fully or state without penalty or personal trauma. He said openly and with moral passion what multitudes knew but couldn’t say.

There’s a crying need today for a coming together of reality and public culture instead of the preposterous game of pretend that Big Tech and Big Media play every day. They know they were and are wrong, but they have to keep up the masquerade as champions of science and slayers of misinformation. They wasted vast amounts of their own credibility in the effort and seem determined to keep it up until their reputations are in complete ruins.

Jeffrey A. Tucker is the founder and president of the Brownstone Institute, and the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press, as well as 10 books in five languages, most recently “Liberty or Lockdown.”

Thoughtful commentary on Franklin’s Trick or Treat

Franklin Alderman Mike Barber posted an e-mail this week requesting the common council’s ridiculous decision on Trick or Treat time be reconsidered.

Barber also issued a thoughtful e-mail from a resident on the matter that the e-mail writer gave permission to publish as long as we withheld personal information:

I am writing for you to reconsider the trick or treat date change for 2022 for multiple reasons:

1) Children (the ones trick or treat is intended for) are not even home from school at 4:00. This either has kids missing part of the time, parents pulling them from school early, and most nerve racking, has more traffic on the roads while parents parents rush to get home with their kids, while other kids are already starting to trick or treat. Kids are going to be coming off a long day of school hyped and are not going to be watching for cars, or maybe hopefully even a bus if the district can secure them. Someone is going to get hurt.


2) Some parents still work until 5:00 as 9-5 is a standard work day. Hence causing even more rushing and unsafe environments.


3) Many children have community/sport commitments on Monday evenings (sports, religious classes, scouts, etc.) Having kids choose between a classic part of childhood or their commitment doesn’t seem fair.



4) If kids are running home to trick or treat, and need to fit in dinner, when are they supposed to fit in homework? Thankfully, my kiddos are pretty bright but in 2nd grade already have 20 min of homework, if they can focus right away. What about the 4-5th graders who have much more?


5) The packer game on Sunday, if that’s really what we are concerned about, isn’t until after trick or treat anyways.


6) While yes, it’s on a school night either way, think about your teachers trying to keep kids attention all day prior to going, and then dealing with the sugar high, and exhaustion the next day as likely due to the timing alone are out later than normal.


7) Moving the times to later on Monday will only make things worse, as then we will be battling trying to get sugar high kids to bed while the doorbell is ringing.


I’m happy to discuss and brainstorm other options, as it is evident in this discussion many members of the council are far removed from having young children and could use some refreshing on how hectic after school hours already are.


WEDNESDAY NIGHT SUMMER RERUN: Incivility

EVERY WEDNESDAY NIGHT THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER, I’M RE-POSTING SOME OLD BLOGS I THOUGHT WERE INTERESTING AND WORTH A SECOND LOOK, OR A FIRST GLANCE FOR MY MANY NEW READERS.

From my blogging vault, July of 2018.

NOTE: I give credit to CBS for tackling this subject, but the fact is the left is far more unhinged and off its rocker.

On several occasions I’ve linked to a 1996 US News & World Report article about this very topic.

More than 24 years later it still rings true.

Read the entire article here.

That leads us to September 12, 2022, and columnist Tom Purcell.


My wife and the older man

In the broadcast industry where I spent a great of time that’s called a tease, a promo. A clever way to entice listeners and viewers to stick around or tune in later.

A radio tease goes like this. The newscaster says:

Coming up, Donald Trump goes off on Hillary. WTMJ Newstime, 7:35

Then comes the commercial break.

And in television…

You get the idea.

DON’T TOUCH THAT DIAL.

“My wife and the older man” is a textbook tease. I’m guessing more than most want to read on. Possibly because you have some sense of what the story might be. But I’m sorry. You’d be wrong. Still good stuff, though.

This popular TV series debuted in January of 1979 and ran for seven seasons.

My wife Jennifer was in the first grade when the blonde star on The Dukes of Hazard” John Schneider got his big acting break…at the age of 18.

Jennifer has told me, many, many, many times how she watched the program religiously and had a massive crush on Schneider. My wife was wise to focus her affection on Schneider. He’s managed to accomplish quite a feat: become a conservative Christian filmmaker.

That means the major news networks and newspapers would shy away from any kind of update on his career. But The Epoch Times has done a wonderful piece on his accomplishments.

Making Movies Outside of Hollywood: Actor–Filmmaker John Schneider Blazes His Own Trail

BY DAVE PAONE, SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 

Hollywood loves a “fish out of water.” Put a poor family from the Deep South into a posh, Los Angeles suburb and you have “The Beverly Hillbillies.” Put a New York City lawyer and his Park Avenue-loving wife on a rural farm and you have “Green Acres.” Put a hardboiled, Philadelphia detective into an Amish community and you have “Witness.”

One might say actor-producer John Schneider is a real-life fish out of water.

Schneider, both a conservative and a Christian, found that jobs become less frequent after his political and religious values were known in the industry.

“What they do is they just don’t hire you,” he told The Epoch Times.

There was a time when Schneider was the go-to presenter or host on award shows.

“A lot of that dried up. A lot of that went away, because again, the people who have control of the microphone don’t want anyone else’s narrative to come through the airwaves,” he said.

Schneider has found a way around that predicament. But let’s start at the beginning.

‘The Dukes of Hazzard’

At the young age of 18, in 1978, Schneider landed the acting job that launched his career. He played Bo Duke, one of a pair of brothers in fictional Hazzard County, Georgia, in the television series, “The Dukes of Hazzard.”

For seven seasons, the “good old Duke boys” and their cousin, Daisy Duke, went wild—much to the chagrin of the corrupt county commissioner, Boss Hogg.

Although technically a one-hour drama, there was a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor from cartoonish characters, with “yee-ha!” shouted from the mouths of Bo and his brother, Luke, quite often. The series ran from January 1979 through February 1985.

All during that time, the Duke boys drove a tricked-out 1969 Dodge Charger, dubbed “The General Lee.” As did the real General Lee, their set of wheels had a Confederate flag. It was painted on the roof, often prominent in shots in the never-ending car chases in the series.

In the 1980s, no one cared.

Epoch Times Photo
A young John Schneider (R), as Bo Duke, in the popular 1980s series, “The Dukes of Hazzard.” (Courtesy of JohnSchneiderStudios.com)

An Early Example of Cancel Culture

By 2015, the world was a different place; or, at least the United States was. After a mass shooting of black congregants at a South Carolina church, it was learned that the white gunman had previously posted images of the Confederate flag. At the time, “The Dukes of Hazzard” was in syndication on the cable station TV Land.

Executives at TV Land concluded since the shooter was racist, and had posted pictures of the flag, and the Duke boys had said flag on their car, then they must be racist as well. They pulled the series from the lineup.

“It’s absurd, but that’s true,” Schneider said.

“‘Dukes of Hazzard’ was not a racist show in any way,” he said. “When they said that the General Lee and therefore everyone who drove it or had anything to do with ‘The Dukes of Hazzard’ was in fact a racist, it was absurd.”

“I have not one time had a black man, woman, or child come up to me and express any concern or problem with ‘The Dukes of Hazzard’ or the General Lee, ever,” Schneider said.

He actually sees the cancellation as a blessing.

“But in many regards, it made the show more cultish, more popular,” he said. “Nothing will make people want to do something more than The Man telling them they can’t.”

A Long, Successful Career

As an actor, Schneider has had a long, successful career, mostly in episodic television. He had a supporting role on “The Haves and the Have Nots” with Tyler Perry for eight seasons, and played Clark Kent’s father for 10 seasons of “Smallville,” to name a few shows. One of his most recent appearances was the “Love is On the Air,” which premiered in 2021.

Schneider is also an accomplished musician, and his latest album, “Southern Ways,” was released in March. Among its 11 new tracks is the touching song, “Younger Man.”

For the general public, this looks very easy and glamorous, but the entertainment industry is both cutthroat and fickle. Getting a job can be downright impossible and the public’s tastes change, which can sink the careers of even the most successful actors.

For Schneider, being a conservative Christian in Hollywood makes getting and keeping work that much more difficult.

John Schneider Studios

There are five steps to making movies and television series: development, preproduction, production, postproduction, and distribution.

For many aspiring filmmakers, getting past step one is nearly impossible. Development is where actors are attached and, more importantly, money is raised. For the most part, finding money is dependent on the major studios. Getting blessed by the studio gods is something every filmmaker wants but few get.

Once a filmmaker accomplishes step one, steps two through four (actually making the movie) are the easy parts, comparatively speaking. But step five, getting the movie in theaters and on streaming services, can be just as impossible as step one. A filmmaker may scrape up the money to make his movie, yet can’t get a company to distribute it.

For the filmmakers who rely on studio money for production and distribution, their lament is being at the mercy of meddling executives who want endless changes but don’t really know much about making movies.

Schneider has found a way around all of this: He opened John Schneider Studios in Louisiana, which is both a film studio for rent and a production company for his own movies.

Schneider finances his own movies and has his own streaming service, Cineflix Digital on Demand, to distribute them—all without having to beg the studio gods for support.

Essentially, Schneider has told the powers-that-be in Hollywood he can make his movies without them. Since he’s paying for everything, there are no meddling studio executives.

On the website for the studio rental, there’s a long list under “amenities” that every production company needs, such as sound stages and production offices, located on John Schneider Studio’s 58 acres. But since it’s in Louisiana, it also has a swamp.

“We have swamp,” said Schneider. “If you’re looking to do a movie called ‘Swamp Thing,’ you don’t want pond; you want swamp.”

A Double Partnership

Not only is Alicia Allain Schneider’s wife, she’s also his business partner. Schneider writes and directs in addition to acting, but leaves the business half of show business to her. He knows that she can’t do what he does—but more importantly, he knows that he can’t do what she does.

Several years ago, Allain was diagnosed with stage-four breast cancer, which had spread to her bones. With a combination of medical treatment and diet change, she’s currently cancer-free.

Schneider credits the power of prayer for giving them the strength to fight through.

“When we prayed for that, we prayed for the strength to do it,” he said.

Their prayer wasn’t “God, cure this cancer,” but “Put us down the right road so that we can take care of this and, basically, not bother you with it,” he said.

Bo Duke at Heart

Though Schneider was born and raised just north of New York City, he describes it as “a rural place,” and that, most of the time since then, he’s lived on a dirt road.

“Every couple of decades, Hollywood will turn their backs on all things rural,” he said. “So when Hollywood turned their back on dirt roads and fast cars and community depending upon beer-drinking, barbecuing people,” Schneider said goodbye.

And that’s when he bought a swamp in Louisiana.

Small Business

The movies that Schneider makes aren’t big-budget blockbusters. They’re low-budget, and since their distribution is mostly digital with limited theatrical releases, John Schneider Studios is essentially a small business—and he knows that small businesses are the backbone of America.

“Go to that kiosk in Poughkeepsie and buy local coffee. Drink local beer,” he said. “Because this country is only as strong as its individual communities, and those individual communities are only as strong as, basically, the chamber of commerce—and you are at the head of that.”

Schneider encourages everyone to dump the chain restaurants and box stores. “Stop supporting that which you disagree with because it’s convenient.”

A sentiment that Bo Duke would agree with for sure.

Today’s highly interesting read (09/13/22): I’ve Decided To Be a Dog

Today’s read is a beauty by Mark Lewis, a native Texan currently living in Thailand. He has Master’s degree in history and has taught history and English in America. Here’s an excerpt:

Yeah, I want to be a dog.  Great life.  I can use anywhere I want as a toilet.  Most dogs eat better than humans.  I can lie around and sleep all day, chase cars, kick cats, chew on anything.  If I get lucky, I’ll get a young, pretty, female owner.  She can feed me steak and pizza all the time.  


What??  What do you mean, I can’t be a dog?  Why not?  If a man can be a woman just by saying he is, and if a woman can be a man just by saying she is, then why can’t I be a dog just by saying I am?  

So, there.  I’m a dog.  What are you going to do about it?  Let sleeping dogs, especially me, lie, hahaha.

I jest, of course, in order to prevent myself from exploding.  A recent Breitbart headline read, “Foundation Run By Trans Billionaire Funds Overnight Camp for ‘Transgender and Non-Binary’ Eight-Year-Olds.”  This is sick, folks.  No, this is worse than being sick.  It’s nothing short of pure, unadulterated, absolute Satanic evil, straight from the deepest, darkest pit of hell.  Stretch your imagination and try to envision anything more vile than mutilating children. 

Read the entire column here.

Whatever happened to Curtis Schmitt of Franklin?

You remember Curtis Schmitt of Franklin, don’t you?

If not, here’s the backstory.

Prosecutors in Milwaukee charged Curtis Schmitt Jr., 38, of Franklin, with three felony counts of possession of child pornography on Jan. 23.

Gov. Tony Evers, who appointed Schmitt to the Wisconsin Board of Veterans Affairs in 2019, asked him the day after he was charged to resign from the board.

Back in March Schmitt resigned from the board, bowing to mounting pressure to step down as he fights child pornography charges.

Schmitt has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and his case remains pending.

Here’s important background.

JANUARY 23, 2022. FROM THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT:

Count 1: POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

The defendant on or about Monday, December 20, 2021, at (his Franklin residence) did, having attained the age of 18, knowingly possess photograph(s) of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and knew that the child was under the age of 18.

Upon conviction for this offense, a Class D Felony, the defendant may be fined not more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), or imprisoned not more than twenty five (25) years, or both.

And furthermore, the Court shall impose a surcharge of $500.00 for each image or each copy of an image, as defined in 973.042(1), associated with the crime. The court shall determine the number of images or copies of images associated with the crime by a preponderance of the evidence and without a jury.

And furthermore, upon conviction the Court shall impose a bifurcated sentence including a term of initial confinement for at least three years.

Count 2: POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

The defendant on or about Monday, December 20, 2021, at (his Franklin residence) did, having attained the age of 18, knowingly possess photograph(s) of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and knew that the child was under the age of 18

Upon conviction for this offense, a Class D Felony, the defendant may be fined not more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), or imprisoned not more than twenty five (25) years, or both.

And furthermore, the Court shall impose a surcharge of $500.00 for each image or each copy of an image. The court shall determine the number of images or copies of images associated with the crime by a preponderance of the evidence and without a jury.

And furthermore, upon conviction the Court shall impose a bifurcated sentence including a term of initial confinement for at least three years.

Count 3: POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

The defendant on or about Monday, December 20, 2021, at (his Franklin residence)  did, having attained the age of 18, knowingly possess photograph(s) of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and knew that the child was under the age of 18.

Upon conviction for this offense, a Class D Felony, the defendant may be fined not more than One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), or imprisoned not more than twenty five (25) years, or both.

And furthermore, the Court shall impose a surcharge of $500.00 for each image or each copy of an image, as defined in 973.042(1), associated with the crime. The court shall determine the number of images or copies of images associated with the crime by a preponderance of the evidence and without a jury.

And furthermore, upon conviction the Court shall impose a bifurcated sentence including a term of initial confinement for at least three years.

I am a Department of Justice criminal investigator and base this complaint upon my investigation and my review of Department of Justice Police reports.

The defendant admitted to having a porn addiction and stated that his addiction is for adult porn because his marriage is struggling and since has been viewing a lot of porn. Curtis stated that his majority of porn viewing has been on Snapchat. The defendant explained how for approximately 2 years he has been chatting with women on Snapchat who he stated all these women stated that they are adults. Curtis stated that some do look young but that he makes sure he always ask for their age or asks for picture to make sure that they are adults. Curtis stated that he gets a lot of nude photos sent to him on Snapchat and that sometimes they send him pictures of child pornography.

The defendant stated he comes across a lot of child porn on Snapchat via photos sent to him or on Snapchat stories. The defendant admitted to sometimes downloading the child porn to his phone and then uploading to his Dropbox account, but stated that the main purpose of him downloading the child porn was to send it back to Snapchat to report it. The defendant was not able to say how many times he has come across child pornography since he has been viewing porn for the last two years but stated that it has been “a lot and its all the time”.

SA (Special Agent) Juanez then showed the defendant a printed photo that was reported on the CyberTipline report and asked the defendant if he remembers seeing this photo. The defendant could not remember that specific photo because he has come across many photos similar to those on Snapchat and he could not say if that was the one or one of them. SA Juanez asked how old he thought the ages of the two people depicted on the photo were. The defendant stated that he thought they both looked to be approximately 8 years of age.

SA Juanez then showed the defendant a printed photo that was reported on the CyberTipline report and asked the defendant if he remembers seeing this photo. The defendant could not remember that specific photo because he has come across many photos similar to those on Snapchat and he could not say if that was the one or one of them. SA Juanez asked how old he thought the ages of the two people depicted on the photo were. The defendant stated that he thought the the small child would be about 4 years old.

The defendant stated that the pictures SA Juanez showed him were clearly child pornography. The defendant stated the youngest child of child pornography he has come across on SnapChat was about 1-2 years old.

COURT ORDER, JANUARY 24, 2022

IT IS ORDERED, effective immediately, and also as a condition of release in this case, the defendant have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTACT with the following witness(es) or victim(s), their residence, subsequent residence, their workplace or other location:

Name

Defendant’s wife and children

Children under the age of 17 unless supervised by a responsible adult

NO CONTACT” means that YOU, the defendant, shall not contact the above person(s) or location(s) by telephone, in person, through the mail or any delivery service, by pager or fax or computer or any other electrical or electronic device, or through another person. The aforementioned condition of release is set pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes § 969.02(3)(d).

This is an official Order of the Court. NO PERSON OTHER THAN THE COURT MAY CHANGE THIS ORDER.

Any violation of this Court Order is a crime, and can result in immediate arrest. YOU, the defendant, could also be charged with the crime of Bail Jumping in violation of § 946.49, Wis. Stats. This Court Order stays in effect as long as this case continues, unless the Court changes this Order. YOU MUST NOT DISREGARD THIS ORDER.

YOU are the defendant. This Order restricts YOU, and it is YOUR responsibility to avoid contact. If the person(s) named above contacts you on the telephone, YOU must hang up immediately. If the person(s) named above comes somewhere near to you, YOU must walk away. If you accidentally come into contact with the above named person(s) in any private or public place, YOU must leave immediately. The person(s) named above cannot give you legal permission to change this Order. If YOU go near the above named person(s), even with permission or consent, YOU can be arrested for violating this No Contact Order.

You may pick up clothing and personal items from the above residence ONLY in the company of a uniformed law enforcement officer and only upon reasonable notice to the person(s) named above.

COURT ORDER, FEBRUARY 17, 2022

WHEREAS 
the current conditions of bond prohibit the defendant from having any contact with his wife and his children; and

WHEREAS the attorneys of record for the State and the defense have reached an agreement to vacate the no contact order as it relates to the defendant’s wife and to modify the no contact order relative to the defendant’s own children;

The State and the defense request that the Court modify the previously entered January 24, 2022 no contact order to read as follows: “No contact with the defendant’s children unless supervised by a responsible adult; no contact with any other children.”

COURT ORDER, FEBRUARY 21, 2022

Based upon a Stipulation signed by the parties and filed with the Court, the Court HEREBY AMENDS the January 24, 2022 No Contact Order to read:

“No contact with the defendant’s children unless supervised by a responsible adult; no contact with any other children.”

The previous no contact order as it related to the defendant’s wife is vacated.

The latest: The case is before Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge J.D. Watts. A status conference was scheduled for May 3, 2022. Schmitt’s address was updated from one Greenfield location to another in Greenfield. The defense requested an adjournment due to a delay in receiving information about evidence from the state. A status conference was scheduled for July 1, 2022.

July 1, 2002: The court was advised that there is a significant delay obtaining information. The defense requested further adjournment. A status conference was scheduled for September 8, 2022.

September 8, 2022: The defense has received new discovery (the exchange of information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence they’ll present at trial) and requested a 30 day status date. A status conference was scheduled for October 10, 2022, when another delay is certainly possible.

Meanwhile Schmitt who is out on bail has been seen almost daily in his old neighborhood on the west side of Franklin, even dropping off children at Franklin’s Robinwood Elementary. Remember he has not been found guilty of any of the charges.

The wheels of justice generally move very slowly. The Curtis Schmitt case is no exception.