Of State v. Knapp, the anti-Butler forces' signature criminal case:
What you leave out with this creative use of the passive voice is the fact that the police INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED THE SUSPECT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS specifically to obtain such a statement. This is not a case, as you suggest, of the police inadvertently failing to follow some obscure rule, but an intentional violation of the constitution. In fact, such a violation can be a federal crime. I think it’s 18 U.S.C. s.241 - violation of civil rights under color of state law.Sounds familiar. That intentional violation was precisely the reason the Wisconsin Supreme Court distinguished its decision from United States v. Patane, the U.S. Supreme Court plurality opinion to which Daniel Suhr claimed Justice Butler "arrogantly" failed to "defer." In fact Butler also pointed this out during his online debate with Michael Gableman on Tuesday, when Gableman attempted to go after him over Knapp. Gableman had no response, incidentally, only the initial talking point. Said T.P. is not holding up real well.
And I believe Atty. Henak is referring to 42 U.S. § 14141, known in Department of Justice circles as the Police Misconduct Statute.
[eta: My mistake; see Atty. Henak's comment below. - iT]
Let me get this right. Gableman’s campaign makes a statement that is demonstrably false, i.e., that Butler “consistently sides with criminals over law enforcement.” Butler then calls him on it and presents the facts that he has voted to affirm convictions in 98% of the cases presented to the Court. And you say that Butler is the one spinning the facts????? Get real!And this coup de grâce:
Over the years, I have represented many people who were convicted of crimes it ultimately turned out they did not commit. Most of those reversals, by the way, were entered by the federal courts stacked with right-wing, GOP-appointed judges after the Wisconsin state courts had upheld the convictions.Those crazy, madcap liberal activists! (Many of whom were appointees of the canonized St. Ronald Reagan, no doubt.)
Three more spankings, in a row, commencing here. Check 'em out.
Any suggestion that the hilariously ambitious Republican trickster Daniel Suhr quit while he's behind is not an attempt to stifle speech, but rather purely an expression of compassionate conservatism.
[Please visit the iT Butler/Gableman archive.]