Surely the indictment of a judge’s impartiality, and a man’s professional integrity, must be justified by something more than that he voted slightly higher than 50-50.Haha.
Believe it or not, Mr. Dinh is referring to Mike Gableman. Either Mr. Dinh has no sense of irony whatsoever or knows little of his new client, who showed that professional integrity is a legal fiction.
And don't call [him] Shirley.
Rarely does on see such a concentration of power with one law firm and a few people: between MBF's/EMcLeod's work on Gableman's ethics case (and Ziegler's), AND for the Legislative GOP on the redistricting maps and matters, AND for the Excecutive GOP on the collective bargaining and budget matters, (AND the professional bio on the MichaelBest web page noting his involvement in Maple Bluff village governtment and the SAE fraternity), one would be hard pressed to retain a law firm that is more connected in Wisconsin. And that's before even mentioning RPriebus's work in GOP politics. So for Gableman to not pay for MBF legal services--and why would he want to, it would have cost him (as a mere mortal who one suspects would never have been considered for hiring by MBF) a year's salary--but then to hear cases brought by MBF to the WI Supreme Court--and decide for them except in the cases that are not close votes represents what a good buy he was for Wisconsin's business interests in 2008. He's so compromised its hard to imagine that he could vote again MBF even if he disliked their client (too bad they don't have some pro bono criminal work-that would be some nice irony).
ReplyDeleteIsn't $100K in free legal services a gift that would be taxable by the IRS? It seems Gabelman would owe interest and penalties also.
ReplyDeleteWell it's not a gift because Gableman offered MB&F a speculative peppercorn.
ReplyDelete