PUBLIC NOTICE | Burt v. State
JEDVIDENCE™ Enters Wisconsin’s Notice-of-Claim Stage
OUTPOST 422® | Journalism eDiscovery™
September 27, 2026
The next stage of Burt v. State: The Wisconsin DVR Documentary is not a declaration of liability.
It is notice.
After months of documenting Wisconsin Equal Rights Division proceedings, administrative appeals, investigative records, public-record responses, and agency correspondence, I am preparing a formal notice under Wis. Stat. § 893.82 concerning documented administrative actions involving the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development’s Equal Rights Division.
The purpose is straightforward: preserve the record, preserve potential legal rights, and allow the administrative process to continue.
No court has determined that ERD Administrator Colin R. Stroud, Investigator Matthew Meissner, DWD, or another Wisconsin official violated my constitutional or statutory rights.
JEDVIDENCE™ will not manufacture that conclusion.
It will document what happened.
The record begins before the next decision
On June 13, 2026, I submitted a written request to ERD administration seeking administrative review, consideration of investigator reassignment, preservation of records, and a written agency response.
Importantly, the request expressly stated that it was not a personal attack against an investigator. I explained that my concerns involved the handling of evidence and confidence in the investigative process, while reserving available state and federal remedies. Pasted text
That distinction remains important.
Disagreement with an administrative decision does not, by itself, establish misconduct. An investigative mistake does not automatically establish a constitutional violation. And a procedural disagreement does not automatically create civil liability.
The question for JEDVIDENCE is narrower:
What does the documentary record show?
June 17: ERD administration responds
On June 17, ERD Administrator Colin R. Stroud responded directly.
Stroud stated that ERD investigators are neutral factfinders who base their decisions upon information presented by the parties. He further explained that when a complainant objects to the handling or outcome of an investigation, the complainant can appeal to seek redress for errors that may have occurred during the investigative process. He also stated that ERD preserves case records according to the applicable records-retention schedule. Pasted text
That correspondence has become an important documentary marker.
Why?
Because it identifies ERD’s stated corrective mechanism:
If investigative error occurs, appeal provides an avenue for redress.
That proposition can now be tested against what actually happens in the administrative record.
I preserved the specific objection
I subsequently responded that my concern wasn’t simply that an investigator had reached a result I disliked.
I identified concerns involving evidentiary development, record preservation, corroboration, documentary evidence, witness statements, chronology evidence and potentially available objective evidence.
I specifically requested that those matters receive consideration before a final determination was issued. Pasted text
On June 19, Stroud confirmed that the correspondence would be added to the case file. Pasted text
That sequence matters journalistically because it creates a timestamped record before the next administrative outcome exists.
I am not reconstructing an objection after receiving another unfavorable decision.
The objection was documented beforehand.
July 2: ERD defines the administrative boundary
The record developed further on July 2.
Stroud instructed me not to send case material to him for inclusion in individual records. Instead, he directed communications concerning specific cases to the assigned investigator or administrative law judge and stated that, as Division Administrator, he was not directly involved in processing or adjudicating individual cases. Pasted text
That statement is also being preserved exactly for what it says.
JEDVIDENCE will not transform it into something it doesn’t say.
Instead, it establishes another point in the administrative chronology:
Complaint → supervisory notice → agency response → preservation of objection → direction back into the investigative/adjudicative process.
Now the documentary project follows what happens next.
Why I am preparing notice to the Attorney General
Wisconsin law contains a notice procedure for certain civil claims involving state officers, employees or agents.
Wis. Stat. § 893.82 generally requires qualifying claimants to provide a sworn notice describing the circumstances of the injury-causing event within the statutory period.
Preparing that notice does not mean a lawsuit has been filed.
It does not mean liability has been established.
And it does not mean the administrative proceedings have ended.
The notice is being prepared to preserve potential rights while the underlying administrative record continues to develop.
For purposes of protecting against a potential deadline dispute, I am presently treating June 17, 2026 as the conservative working date for the Stroud-related notice analysis.
The notice will identify documented events and preserve potential claims without representing unresolved allegations as established facts.
March 5 remains evidence—not a manufactured new deadline
There is another important distinction.
The March 5, 2026 Initial Determination involving Investigator Matthew Meissner remains part of the documentary history.
My pending JEDVIDENCE submission alleges that the determination did not separately adjudicate every theory I contend was properly presented. The filing asks ERD for corrective proceedings, including complete investigation or, alternatively, a de novo probable-cause hearing. RE_JEDVIDENCE_Motion_Brief_and_… RE_JEDVIDENCE_Motion_Brief_and_…
But Journalism eDiscovery will not artificially move the March 5 date forward.
Instead:
March 5 becomes supporting evidence.
Any subsequent Initial Determination or ALJ decision will be examined as its own event.
That distinction is essential to credible evidence reporting.
The STEMoir now has a control variable
ERD’s own investigative instructions provide an unusually useful benchmark.
They tell investigators to identify the bases and discriminatory actions alleged, determine what additional information is necessary and make sure to address all alleged bases and issues. How to do investigation (1)
Those instructions also direct investigators preparing determinations to address the bases and adverse actions and explain material factual disputes and their evidentiary support. The instructions state that unresolved material factual disputes need to proceed to a probable-cause hearing. How to do investigation (1)
That gives the STEMoir a measurable structure:
Written ERD standard → evidence submitted → administrative action → determination → appeal → corrective opportunity → resulting record.
The agency’s written standard becomes the control.
The actual administrative record becomes the observed variable.
JEDVIDENCE performs the comparison.
The adjudicator decides what that comparison legally means.
What happens next
The next steps will be documented rather than predicted.
I will complete the Wisconsin notice-of-claim process concerning the presently identified Stroud events while continuing to participate in the existing ERD proceedings.
I will preserve the certified filing record.
I will continue pursuing the pending administrative remedies.
When another Initial Determination is issued, JEDVIDENCE will compare that determination against the allegations actually presented, the evidence actually submitted, ERD’s documented investigative procedures and the objections already preserved in the record.
When an Administrative Law Judge rules, that decision will be added to the chronology too.
The result may support my allegations.
It may contradict them.
It may resolve some questions while creating others.
That uncertainty isn’t a weakness in Journalism eDiscovery™.
It is the reason for doing it.
Burt v. State will not begin with the conclusion and work backward toward supporting evidence.
It will move forward through the record.
Notice → preservation → investigation → determination → appeal → adjudication → review.
And wherever that record ultimately leads, the same rule applies:
THE RECORD DOES NOT NEED A SIDE. IT NEEDS TO BE READ.
Outpost 422® | Journalism eDiscovery™ | JEDVIDENCE™
Primary sources. Human submission. AI-assisted evidence framing. Transparent chronology. Human adjudication.