By Bruce Murphy.
More accurately, Gableman was unsuccessful in having the Judicial Commission's complaint against him dismissed. It remains pending.
And the black letter law of admissible evidence is not a "technicality."
Earlier: "I'm aware of a story involving another justice."
Earlier: Who will be the next Wisconsin special prosecutor
Where is that investigation.
Justice David Prosser on Gableman's ethical breaches: "Get over it."
Yeah I don't think so.
December 20, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
And remember, Eric McLeod now sits on Gov. Walker's Judicial Selection Advisory Commission.
Yep.
Hey, Ese says there's nothing to see here
It is simply incorrect to assert that the investigation remains pending. The Wisconsin Judicial Commission officially discontinued prosecution in this matter. The charge cannot be both discontinued and remain pending at the same time.
http://wispolitics.com/1006/large/100708_WJC_statement.pdf
"I don't think that the Gableman decision provided a final resolution of the charges that were brought by the [Wisconsin Judicial Commission] and that are pending against Justice Gableman. Why do I say that? Well, I say that because, if you look closely — and I'm sure you have — at what the Judicial Commission did, they did not dismiss the charges against Justice Gableman." — Justice N. Patrick Crooks, 08/05/10
Justice Crooks is certainly entitled to his opinion. (And I am sure that the 3 other justices believe exactly the opposite). But Justice Crooks' opinions do not change the fact that the WJC discontinued the prosecution and filed the appropriate paperwork with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I fail to see what other way the Statement of Discontinuance can be construed, other than dismissal. Especially when the WJC itself recognized that it "lack[ed] legislative authority to do otherwise."
(As an aside, I would imagine that a system that allows charges to remain pending essentially indefinitely without any action by the prosecuting agency, does not comport with due process requirements).
If I'm not mistaken Mr. Alexander testified at the same hearing as Justice Crooks. If memory serves Mr. Alexander expanded on his decision and if memory serves he did not take issue with Justice Crooks's procedural observations. As another aside the system, as you call it, is unique and the WJC is unique in its status as a plaintiff.
P.S. Why is mine an "incorrect assertion" whereas Justice Crooks's precisely exact statement is an "opinion"? If it's the case that Justice Crooks's is an opinion then so is mine. As a matter of fact I believe I said it before he did.
You assert it as a fact. Justice Crooks prefaced his statement with "I don't think..."
As to whether Mr. Alexander did or did not contradict Justice Crooks while being a panelist (and consequently not acting in his official capacity) is also not particularly relevant. What IS relevant is the content of documents filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. And that document does not talk of "suspension of prosecution." Rather, it talks about "discontinuance of prosecution."
Crooks: "I don't think that the Gableman decision provided a final resolution of the charges that were brought by the [Wisconsin Judicial Commission] and that are pending against Justice Gableman."
The charges that were brought and the charges that are pending. They're the same charges.
Today I learned that Justice Gableman posts as "Anonymous."
Again, other than a bald assertion by Justice Crooks, there is no support for that assertion. Indeed, the official statement of discontinuance proves the exact contrary conclusion.
Additionally, merely bolding an already cited quote does not add any more weight to it.
sigh
Es serio? No!~ Es no posible!
Post a Comment