I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted. They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.Gableman's character and fitness were examined in 2008. They didn't fare particularly well. "Sinking to new lows," as former Justice Janine Geske put it. "Particularly base and deceptive," observed Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Sykes.
That would be Judge Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman: "A peppercorn does not cease to be good consideration if it is established that [Michael Best & Friedrich] does not like pepper and will throw away the corn."
Nevertheless, argues Gableman through his latest counsel, less than a peppercorn — that is, only the wholly speculative recovery of a peppercorn — is not just good consideration but "valuable consideration."
That's preposterous.
http://www.bancroftpllc.com/contact-us/
ReplyDeleteAttn Dinh:
Did Gableman receive any legal services from Michael Best & Friedrich? Yes or No
Did Gableman pay for all legal services from Michael Best & Friedrich? Yes or No
I suspect Gableman and his lawyer are right, albeit for the wrong reason, when they claim MBF received "valuable consideration." Yeah, they in effect bought the fracking justice and his vote.
ReplyDeleteIt's not only that the peppercorn is wholly speculative, but that the peppercorn would have to be given only in the so-unlikely-as-to-be-nearly-impossible scenario that somebody else gave Gableman that peppercorn first.
ReplyDeleteExactly. It was not even Gableman's peppercorn to give.
ReplyDelete