COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

August 25, 2022

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2022AP767 Cir. Ct. No. 2021SC5763

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT IV

TAYR KILAAB AL GHASHIYAH,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

 V.

KEVIN CARR,

 DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County: 

RHONDA L. LANFORD, Judge. Affirmed. 

¶1 FITZPATRICK, J.1 Tayr Kilaab al Ghashiyah is the appellant in 

this appeal and was the plaintiff in the Dane County Circuit Court. Kevin Carr, 

the Secretary of the Department of Corrections, is the respondent in this appeal 

 

1

 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2019-20). 

All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted. 
No. 2022AP767

2

and was the defendant in the circuit court. Al Ghashiyah filed a small claims 

complaint against Carr that goes on for about 45 pages (with attached exhibits). 

The first two paragraphs of the complaint are reproduced here verbatim:

1) The complaint seeks to combine small 

complaint(s) as a title of right as defined in Rule 

401.201(1) “ACTION” in the sense of a judicial 

proceeding includes recoupement, counter-claim, suit of 

equity and “any proceedings in which rights as 

determined, and proof of claim in violation of the 

Clearfield Doctrine, violation of the Fifth Amendment by 

illegal taking, violation of the fourth Amendment personal 

effects, and violation of Title 42 USC 1983 and Emergency 

Motion for preliminary injunction;

2) NOW COMES, the undersigned {known as 

Tayr Kilaab al Ghashiyah [Khan]}, Notice of Acceptance, 

Notice of Fault and Invitation to cease enforcement and/or 

collection(s), and the undersigned reserve his common-law 

right not to be compelled to perform under any contract(s), 

and/or agreement(s), or Bankruptcy.

Because the STATE OF WISCONSIN

[Incorporated] ] cannot have the Superior title, to my life, 

liberty and property and because DEPARTMENT of 

CORRECTIONS [Incorporated] have fraudulently 

recorded by title/action in all capital letters which falsely 

assumed that the undersigned is a FICTION 

CORPORATION, which the undersigned is not, and 

because the respondent’s record(s) the undersigned as a 

white male which are not a RACE of People, the 

undersigned is a sovereign {Ismailis} and/or human 

inhabitant of the Ismailis Monarch; the undersigned is not a 

citizen of KENOSHA COUNTY [Incorporated] nor the 72 

Counties of Wisconsin, the undersigned is not a citizen of 

U.S.A. [Incorporated]. Nor any other name or name(s) the 

respondent(s) may call/refer themselves. The undersigned 

is Ismailis, a sovereign Inhabitant {FREE}, and/or agency, 

or Political sub-division of the Coptic Lunar International 

security Enforcement, and Intentional protected person

[see, Title 22 USC 288, 288a, 1116(a)(c)(2) of Title 18 

USC], Tayr Kilaab al Ghashiyah (Khan) is an Ismailis 

wazir {Pro-consul} per Reg. No. 721525 (USA).

As a Government entity of a foreign State, “the 

Draft on Declaration of the Rights of the Indigenous 

People,” Ecn. 4/sub 2/1994 Add. 1/ (1994). Part VII, 
No. 2022AP767

3

Article 31 and 34, drafted by the Working Groups which 

was adopted at the Karl Ocn Conference, 25-30 May 1992 

“United Nation.” 

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law 

and equity arriving under this Constitution, the laws of the 

United States and Treaties made, or which shall be made 

under their Amnesty.” The undersigned declares that this 

Treaty was renewed in 1986 A.D. and is still in effect 

today.

The complaint does not get any better from there in terms of understanding what 

al Ghashiyah wants or the basis for his request. But, from what I can gather from 

the complaint, it seems as if al Ghashiyah is unhappy with some action of either 

Carr or the DOC when he was in the custody of the DOC or shortly thereafter. 

¶2 It will come as no surprise that Carr moved to dismiss the complaint,

arguing that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See WIS.

STAT. §§ 799.20(1) and 802.06(2)(a)6. Carr also argued to the circuit court that 

the complaint is frivolous and, pursuant to WIS. STAT. §§ 814.04(1)(a) and 

895.46(1)(am), Carr requested an assessment of $300 as statutory attorney fees. 

¶3 The circuit court granted Carr’s motion to dismiss for failure to state 

a claim. The circuit court also concluded that the complaint is frivolous. Further, 

the circuit court assessed $300 statutory costs against al Ghashiyah and ordered 

that, until those costs are paid in full, al Ghashiyah is barred from proceeding in 

forma pauperis in any circuit court. There is no transcript of the circuit court’s 

decision in the record.

¶4 Al Ghashiyah apparently appeals the circuit court’s order. I say 

“apparently” because, on appeal, al Ghashiyah has filed 72 pages that are difficult 

to parse, to say the least. A representative example of al Ghashiyah’s briefing is

the following reproduced verbatim from his brief-in-chief:
No. 2022AP767

4

At this stage, the undersigned express his legal 

expectation and presumption under section 9, Article I 

concludes with the phrase “conformably to the laws.” In 

formal Notification, the legal procedures which the 

undersigned and most other 

incarcerated persons complained as being violative of the 

constitution and statutory 

scheme is not only “conformably to the law,” but it is the 

laws established by the 

United States Congress and Wisconsin legislature.

The following is a representative sample from his reply brief:

Uniquely enough, the Georgia Supreme Court in 

common-law opinion located in action referred to as 

Padlford, Fay & Co – v – The Mayor and Alderman of the 

City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854), clearly expressed, 

“silence “ gives consent, is rule of business life. A tender 

of bank bills is as good as one of coin, unless the bills are 

objected too. To stand by, in “Silence,” and see another 

sell your property, bind you! These are mere instances of 

the maxim in the municipal law. In the law of the Nations, 

it is equally point. Silent acquiescence in the breach of 

treaty binds a nation. (Vattel, ch. 16, sec. 199, Book 1 see 

Book 2, sec. 742, et Seq., as to usucaption and prescription, 

and sec. 208 as to ratification).

¶5 I reject al Ghashiyah’s appeal for two reasons, either of which is 

sufficient. First, he advances no developed argument as to why the rulings of the 

circuit court are in error, and I certainly discern no error in the circuit court’s 

decisions and reasoning. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 647, 492 N.W.2d 

633 (Ct. App. 1992). Second, in those areas in which the circuit court exercised 

its discretion, my review on appeal is confined to the record, and I must assume 

that any missing transcript would support the circuit court’s findings and 

discretionary decisions. See Austin v. Ford Motor Co., 86 Wis. 2d 628, 641, 273 

N.W.2d 233 (1979) (“[T]he court will assume, in the absence of a transcript, that 

every fact essential to sustain the trial judge’s exercise of discretion is supported 

by the record.”). This court has held that it is the appellant’s responsibility to 

provide it with a record sufficient to allow review of issues raised, including any 
No. 2022AP767

5

necessary transcript. Butcher v. Ameritech Corp., 2007 WI App 5, ¶35, 298 Wis. 

2d 468, 727 N.W.2d 546 (2006). Because al Ghashiyah has not provided a 

transcript of the circuit court’s ruling, that is an independent reason to reject his 

appeal.

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.