Mr. Reak is David Prosser's attorney, corresponding with Mike Gableman.
Most unusual indeed. Hardly at all surprising, however. #BFFs
Sabotage
eta: Prosser attorney letter to Gableman seeking recusal
Predictably, it's larded with nonsense at odds with Wisconsin law.
And it's dated May 8 but according to the docket not received by the Supreme Court until May 10 (except by fax). So much for formal proceedings. Maybe Mike Gableman can "tweet" his reply to Prosser.
And then Justice Prosser can "like" Mike Gableman on teh Facebook.
7 comments:
'bout time.
Amazing and, predictably, outrageous. If we had a functioning legislature, Prosser and Gableman would be impeached.
In the letter from the Gunta & Reak source**, it states, "The complaint will remain in the Supreme Court until the Court issues an order sending the matter to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the appointment of a three-judge panel. These orders are issued after a decision by all participating members of the court. This has been the practice of the Supreme Court for many years."
Now, I'm just trying to follow the narrative, because you, Illy-T, have been touting otherwise. That is, you insist that the matter is NOT before the Supreme Court, correct? And that the appointment of the three-judge panel to investigate the matter involving Prosser shall commence without any orders from the Supreme Court. I believe you have also made this clear, right?
So, I am confused here, because this statement** seems to refute your claim. I am just seeking clarification on your part. Thanks!
Mr. Reak has no substantive legal authority for those claims. In fact the substantive legal authority contradicts his claims.
I say it's not a matter "before" the Supreme Court because the complaint filed with that court is mere notice that an action has been commenced by the Judicial Commission. The statutes unequivocally direct the Commission and the judges of the Court of Appeals to conduct their investigation independent of the Supreme Court, before which the case is not presented until the three-judge panel has made its findings and its recommendations.
Mr. Reak claims "orders" from the Supreme Court were a requirement in prior cases, but just because the Supreme Court's docket uses the word "order" it doesn't make those notations on the docket "orders" any more than similar notations on the WJC v. Prosser docket make Mr. Reak's letters to Roggensack and Gableman "motions."
Thank you for your response.
Still trying to figure it out.
So. a complaint was made to the Judicial Commission. The JC informs the Supreme Court that it will investigate the complaint, which is standard procedure. This notice means that action shall be taken by the JC. Ok so far, so good on my end.
Now, Reak claims that the SC has in the past given
"the go ahead", i.e. the orders, to the JC to investigate the complaint.
But it seems you are saying that "the go ahead", i.e. the orders, is really informal, an OK, a nod of the head on the part of the SC. This unofficial recognition, it seems you are saying, is just that, unofficial recognition.
That is, "the go ahead" is NOT rooted in law or statute, but merely a practice, a tradition. So the JC does NOT need the order, but is acting like it requires the order. Because, clearly, as you say, the JC SHALL investigate the complaint, on its own, and does NOT legally require the SC to give "the go ahead", although in the past "the go ahead" has been used because it is tradition.
That, in essence, "the go ahead" has been granted out of deference, but is NOT required. The order, in reality, is not an order in the legal sense, but in the traditional sense.
Are you following so far? Am I following your logic?
So, basically, the case is in legal limbo because the JC and the SC is using this "tradition" to thwart the process.
And I suppose no outside group has legal standing to force the hand of the JC in this matter.
The JC has done its own initial investigation, having been alerted to "possible misconduct" by a Wis. judge, namely David Prosser. The JC found probable cause that Prosser "has engaged" in misconduct. The JC has filed a formal complaint "with" (not in) the Supreme Court.
Now, the JC "shall prosecute any case of misconduct ... in which it files a formal complaint." (All of these quotations are from the Wis. statutes, by the way). And now, "[t]he chief judge of the court of appeals shall select the judges [for the three-judge panel] and designate which shall be presiding judge."
But the JC cannot prosecute its case until the chief judge selects the panel, which he hasn't yet done because apparently he's waiting for an order from the Supreme Court. There is no such order mentioned, contemplated, or even implied by the Wis. statutes.
Why Franklyn Gimbel, who is the attorney the JC has retained to prosecute the case, hasn't explicitly pointed this out, or taken steps to force the chief judge of the court of appeals' hand, I have no idea.
Even if it is the case that the Supreme Court "ordered" the formation of the panel in the past, it has no statutory authority to do so, nor, more importantly, has it any statutory authority to withhold such an "order," because such an order does not exist in the Wis. statutes.
It could be that some members of the court believe its supervisory authority -- which is constitutionally granted -- supersedes the clear directive of the statutes. I don't know, because none of them has ever said so, and perhaps nobody has ever asked them.
I thank you for your clear and concise response!
Post a Comment