CFAF "deemed" criminally inept: Part 2

The List(s)

As I pointed out in Part 1, the designation "pro-criminal" is a fundamental absurdity. Nonetheless undeterred by any such self-imposed absurdism, CFAF has most recently attempted to justify its "60% pro-criminal" figure by producing its own list of Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions, beside the names of which appear either nothing or the designation "CFAF deems w/ Criminal." In other words, CFAF "deems" that in such and such a case, Justice Butler sided "with" his buddies, the criminals.

Hmm. This list looks mighty familiar, I must say. Wait a minute ... could it be? Yes! It's the same list that Jessica McBride reproduced at her "special election edition" blog on Tuesday, March 18. It's the exact same list of cases, numbered from 1. to 62. in the exact same order and the same list that McBride says is "the actual list provided to the media by Butler." CFAF is actually using Butler's own list, those wacky scamps!

But hang on then, Mr. tenant, couldn't it be a coincidence? After all, you godless evilutionists are fond of claiming that this magnificently ordered universe of ours came about by "pure random chance," why couldn't have CFAF produced this list before Butler put his together, and it was pure coincidence that Butler came up with the same list of cases! Aha! I've got you now, Mr. tenant!

Only one problem: CFAF's list has the identical typo in case 10., State v. Mayo, 2005AP1592-CR. The correct docket number is 2004AP1592. This is Butler's list, the preliminary draft copy that got out before Butler's revised list of 70 cases. How do you like them apples?

Wall to wall buffoonery

The continually emergent comedy inheres in four aspects.

CFAF and its little helper Jessica McBride wants you to differ from Butler's analysis, but it wants you to differ using the Butler campaign's own research and documents. Isn't that something.

Apparently CFAF couldn't even come up with its own list of cases upon which to support its "60% pro-criminal" figure. That tells me it never had one. Which tells me further that CFAF produced the figure from its collective sphincter, which I really hope tightens a bit more when it gets wind (no pun intended) of this series of blog posts.

Secondly, given the interpretation CFAF has applied to the cases, it has pretty much zero credibility in "deeming" certain opinions "with Criminal," whatever either of those things are supposed to mean.

Thirdly, in many instances, the opinions "deemed w/ Criminal" contain broad, almost philosophical discussions on certain constitutional questions or, in two cases CFAF suggests should be added to the analysis as "deemed w/ Criminal," identical dissents by Justice Butler to questions of statutory construction related to Wisconsin's Truth in Sentencing laws, which have absolutely nothing to do with convictions at all, and which is why they don't appear on Justice Butler's list of convictions.

Fourthly, and this is the best, CFAF has removed the numbers that show how many convictions each case arose from initially, which are the whole point of the exercise, and what make Butler's figures more accurate, more reliable, and more directly pertinent to the heart of each criminal case: the number of convictions.

Scammy scamming scammers

Why did CFAF remove those figures? I can think of at least two reasons. The first is that CFAF didn't know what they meant. This wouldn't be surprising, because ace investigative reporter McBride didn't know what they meant either. What makes me say this? Well, for one thing, these two breathless statements delivered by McBride on March 18:

Butler’s 75% figure is based on outright inaccuracies in the facts and law.

Next McBride retreats from the boldface to submit the following query, in a strange combination of breathlessness and puzzlement:

But how is Butler coming up with his numbers?

She could have asked, I suppose, but since when were investigative reporters in the business of asking questions? That's just crazy talk! Who knows or cares what in the world these numbers mean, the main thing is, they're WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!1 Whatever they are.

McBride then goes on to ramble pointlessly about a number of cases that aren't on the list of 62, despite the fact that, in the meantime, the Butler campaign had released the revised list of 70 cases, which contains all the cases McBride is wondering about (and, natch, taking advantage of the occasion to call Justice Butler a liar, and so forth).

Even when McBride did get her mitts on the revised list, she still has no clue what all the little (0:1)'s mean. What are they?! Oh never mind. Butler's a liar!

A routine traffic stop

Another reason why CFAF may have removed the numbers is that they did know what they meant, but they removed them so they could scam, scam, and scam some more. Because, as I mentioned in Part 1 of this series, where a case is numbered, for example, (2:1), that means there were three convictions and Butler voted to affirm two of the convictions but reverse one.

And then Butler could go on, in his typically incisive and rigorously logical way, to break down each of the four statutory elements of the conviction he wanted to reverse and argue, quite brilliantly in many cases, why the conviction couldn't stand, not because the United States Constitution protects "criminals," but because it protects ALL AMERICANS and if other Americans were subjected to the rule announced by the majority, then probably even CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN FAMILY VALUES PEOPLE might be troubled..

Not only that, but of those three convictions, maybe the two Butler affirmed were the two serious ones, like maybe a dope possession and a resisting arrest, but the one he wanted to reverse was a relatively piddling obstruction charge, and maybe even that charge was so slight and questionable, it was crying out for a closer look.

And, even then, Butler might look at those four statutory elements and agree that the State proved the first two no problem, but faltered on the third, and explain in great detail why, with constant references, naturally, to the requirements of the Constitution.

Cheesehead, reasonably suspicious

Well, yeah, Mr. tenant, you could say, Justice Butler might do that. But did he actually do that? And the answer is, yes, that's exactly what he did, in a case called State v. Young, in which Butler even poses the following question for the ages: "Would wearing a cheesehead provide a sufficient basis for a lawful stop in another state?"

And what, pray tell, did CFAF do with State v. Young? As should be painfully obvious by now, CFAF "deemed w/ Criminal." 100% of Young, "deemed w/ Criminal." That, my dear friends, is yet another example of CFAF's scammy scamming scammery. And there are more to come.

Please don't forget also that Mike Gableman, who apparently is a "candidate" to replace Justice Butler, was relying on that sort of garbage when he started — and continued — to repeat CFAF's fatuous and misleading data mining.

But I must go, for now. Let me say something on a personal level at this point. I must really be starting to sound like a cheerleader for Justice Butler. That's because I'm becoming one. I have read a lot of court opinions over the last several years, and lately I have been reading a lot of opinions by Justice Butler, many that I had not read before. And let me tell you. They are damn good. We are extremely fortunate to have this man on our Supreme Court. Seriously.

Next, we'll start getting into the numbers, and a few more cases.

To part 3 ...