Out-of-State agitator seeks Bradley criminal charge

Among the right's relentless and speculative efforts to exonerate the documentedly anger-disposed Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser (at left) from even a whiff of wrongdoing and instead hold an alleged victim of workplace violence responsible for and guilty of whatever transpired in Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's office on June 13, the latest is wing-nut professor William Jacobson's negligently disingenuous "theory."

Bradley may face obstruction charges, avers Jacobson, seizing on her use of the word "chokehold" in describing how Prosser came at her.

Blarghing desperately, Prof. Jacobson scours the literature in a facile attempt to implicate Justice Bradley herself of misdemeanor criminality. Contends Jacobson, if the contact made by Justice Prosser* does not conform to Jacobson's strict "legal" definition of "chokehold" culled from "police control procedures" and also the venerable treatise Wikipedia on Judo, then Bradley must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

"No one should be allowed to escape the consequences of Bradley's chokehold allegation, including Bradley," harrumphs the instructor.

Always thinking, these law professors! Sadly for Prof. Jacobson, a (the?) leading Wisconsin Supreme Court case on obstruction, State v. Reed (2005 WI 53), chokes off his own wing-nuttery. Were State prosecutors to press obstruction charges (§ 946.41(2)(a)) against Bradley per Jacobson's excited fantasies, they would face an insurmountable burden.

Reed unanimously affirms that among the elements the State needs to prove in a successful obstruction prosecution is that "[t]he defendant intended to mislead the [investigating] officer."** And according to the professor's fantasies, the State would further need to prove that Justice Bradley was mindful of Jacobson's technically restrictive understanding of "chokehold," and that Bradley deliberately eschewed Jacobson's definition for some more colloquial understanding. In other words, not quite the normal standard to which victims of alleged crimes are normally held.

Nor in fact Wisconsin's criminal defendants, for that matter.

Even assuming that Justice Bradley, in Prof. Jacobson's fevered dream of seeing her behind bars, must be held strictly to Jacobson's Wikipedia on Judo standard, that Justice Bradley further describes Justice Prosser placing both hands around her neck as a "chokehold," there is this:

Mistaken answers ... are not false statements made with intent to mislead the police. People can also disagree. People can have legitimate disagreements about what the facts are. People can also legitimately disagree on what the facts mean. Legitimate disagreements cannot form the basis for an obstructing charge.

Emphasis added. That's the law right now, in the State of Wisconsin. Which is to say, one person's both-hands-around-my-neck is another person's shime-waza (絞技), or yet another's police procedure manual.

Not only is there that but there is also this:

Knowingly made false statements that are not made with intent to mislead cannot form a basis for the charge of obstructing.

So in other words, even if Justice Bradley knowingly eschewed the pseudonymous internets contributors to Wikipedia on Judo and knowingly ascribed the description "chokehold" to a non-Jacobson-approved-both-hands-around-her-neck move, prosecutors would still need to prove — beyond a reasonable doubt — that Justice Bradley did so with the intent to mislead officers. Good luck with that one buddy.

If Jacobson expects all that to happen, then he's clearly gone 'round the bend. And indeed State v. Reed made the law more restrictive with respect to the rights of criminal defendants than it had been previously.

Prof. Jacobson should read State v. Reed not just to inform himself on Wisconsin law just in case he decides to go off an yet another ridiculous goose chase but to appreciate the clear, stepwise reasoning of former Justice Louis B. Butler, who wrote the majority opinion. Butler lost a close election in 2008 to Mike Gableman, after the latter deliberately and deliberatively lied about then-Attorney Butler's handling of a criminal appeal and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce ran more than 3,000 broadcast ads criticizing a Butler dissent, the substance of which was affirmed by the most conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court.

WMC did not similarly attack Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Roberts.

Doing so would have been too logically consistent and honest and therefore violative of the strictest tenets of political conservatism in the current WISGOP mode, which favors both dishonesty and illogic.

Along the same lines, Justice Butler's opinion in State v. Reed adheres closely to traditional notions of conservative jurisprudence and indeed reverses an earlier Supreme Court case which had written into the obstruction statute an exception for "exculpatory denial[s]." Such exceptions, Justice Butler wrote, are best left for the legislature. Needless to say the cherry-picking practitioners of ad hominem fallacies at Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce never mentioned this case.

* No source denies Prosser came into physical contact with Bradley.

** Jacobson actually leaves this statutory provision out of his blog post.

The statute reads: "'Obstructs' includes without limitation knowingly giving false information to the officer or knowingly placing physical evidence with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his or her duty including the service of any summons or civil process." At first glance it might seem that the "with intent to mislead" applies only to the "knowingly placing physical evidence." But that is not how we read the law. We read the law thus: "'Obstructs' includes without limitation knowingly giving false information to the officer ... with intent to mislead the officer in the performance of his or her duty ... " Based on Prof. Jacobson's truncated presentation of the obstruction statute, it appears he's made an egregious error in statutory construction, and the remainder of his reasoning — such as it is — obtains from that error.

Remarkably, Jacobson ignores the intent element altogether.

This is a professor of law, folks. Granted, a professor of law to the wing-nuts (check out the crazed commentary at Jacobson's blargh post).

Two temper tantrums and a microphone

In this Fox 6 Exclusive.

"And stormed into his chambers."

It bears repeating that three of the four justices who formed the majority in Huebsch v. Dane County Circuit Court have had ethics complaints filed or an ethics investigation undertaken against them.

Justice Ziegler received a public reprimand from the Supreme Court for failing to disclose her financial relationships to parties before the court when she was a circuit judge in Washington County. Gableman was charged with lying about his political opponent in the 2008 election that placed him on the bench. While the Supreme Court split on Gableman's fate, he was found by a three-man panel of appeals court judges to have violated two provisions of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Ethics. Gableman failed to win dismissal of the Judicial Commission's complaint against him, and it remains pending.* Now, the Prosser investigation.

It also bears repeating that these same judges preside over the ethical responsibilities and behavior of the State of Wisconsin's attorneys.

Some may recall the celebrated case of Beams v. Motes.

* Partly because Wisconsin's statutory framework dealing with ethical violation prosecutions is incoherent. They were supposed to fix this.

Now it needs fixing more than ever.

Wisconsin Supreme Court quote of the day

Justice [Louis] Butler was a popular member of the court and a person who was somewhat successful in building bridges among the members of the court. — Attorney Lester Pines

Nice going, WMC/Gableman. And wouldn't you know, it is exactly that contingent now complaining about lack of leadership on the court.

Link to video. Lester Pines is on from 37:00 to 45:00, speaking truths.

Next up is James Troupis, who says of allegations David Prosser grabbed Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck with both hands: "You do have to chuckle about that." Is that so? Troupis was Prosser's attorney during the aftermath of the April 5 Supreme Court election, incidentally.

I suppose that could be the quote of the day, but for different reasons.

Everybody's a Wisconsin political expert now

Via WisOpinion [?]:

Bradley started it by shaking her fist at Bradley and pushing herself nose-to-nose . . . — Megan McArdle, The Atlantic

Um, okay. Thanks for clearing that up.

Reminds me of watching the DC elites "tweet" the Canadian election. What a horrorshow that was. The elite Journolist crowd was beside itself because the Liberals only won 34 seats in the House of Commons. Apparently they were never aware of the Conservatives winning two.

They say stick to writing what you know. 'Twas an object lesson.

P.S. Fox's Greta Van Susteren is horrified Justice Bradley "leaked" emails to the press. Of course if Van Susteren had been paying attention to the Wisconsin Supreme Court some time before today, she would have seen both Justices Prosser and Roggensack "leaking" sheafs of similar correspondence to the press — on television. They're all experts now, eh?

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, relative giantess

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, shown with two representative members of family Hominidae for physiometric purposes. Reportedly right-wing commentators, led by alleged law professor Ann Althouse and Milwaukee radio belligerent Charlie Sykes, are engaged in proposing an alternate theory to Justice Bradley's allegations against Justice David Prosser, that the latter is a frail, elderly man and the former an imposing, aggressive threatenor. Of course it's ridiculous, but what do you expect from them.

h/t Anonymous 8:46 A.M. (Welcome Firedoglake readers!).

Prosser on True Threats

Justice David Prosser was once considerably less tolerant of threatening language than six of six colleagues. 13-year-old Douglas D. was "a troubled young man" who wrote in a creative writing assignment that he was going to cut off his teacher's head with a machete.

The court concludes that a true threat is determined using an objective reasonable person standard. "A true threat is a statement that a speaker would reasonably foresee that a listener would reasonably interpret as a serious expression of a purpose to inflict harm, as distinguished from hyperbole, jest, innocuous talk, expressions of political views or other similarly protected speech." . . .

Today our country is consumed by the outbreak of violence in public schools. Threats of violence in schools must be taken seriously. Almost inevitably these threats produce fear among students and teachers. They inflict harm and impair the atmosphere for learning. Sometimes they create panic. ... The potential for panic suggests an alternative analysis that the parties and the courts in this case have not explored. . . .

Because of the epidemic of violence in public schools, threats against students, teachers, and administrators in a school setting should not be afforded First Amendment protection. Based upon a "falsely shouting fire in a theatre" or "panic" analysis, school threats are incendiary per se. Whether these threats also violate some criminal statute depends upon the evidence in each situation. . . . I respectfully dissent.

State v. Douglas D., 2001 WI 47

The "panic" analysis is Prosser's own. I don't know about you, but I panic in a sense when I read these stories about the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Ann Althouse, like Justice Prosser, sniffs a turd

According to alleged professor of law Ann Althouse, Bill Lueders, who broke the story Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly seized a colleague, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, by the neck with both hands, Governor Scott Walker's momentous budget-singing ceremony "was overshadowed by the gigantic turd Lueders felt moved to drop at exactly that moment." Althouse seems hell-bent on discrediting Lueders's reporting, despite the fact Justice Bradley herself has since affirmed it.

Most rational actors would reverse course at that point.

Perhaps Althouse is too demure to outright call Justice Bradley a liar and instead has been busying herself with attempting to discredit Lueders's confirmed reporting and failing rather spectacularly at that project.*

The alleged law professor's scatological metaphor is especially entertaining when one recalls Prosser's election-time fauxtrage at coming upon a reader post at Supreme Court candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg's Facebook, which read, "Stop the turd, vote Kloppenburg."

"Now, am I the turd?," Justice Prosser had actually inquired.

Apparently so, albeit not Althouse's "gigantic turd," as Althouse also assures us Justice Bradley is "significantly larger" than Justice Prosser.

I've heard students at the University of Wisconsin Law School go out of their way to avoid enrolling in Althouse's classes. That's not surprising.

* WPRI's Christian Schneider lauds Althouse for doing "yeoman's work."

eta 01: Fortunately for the rest of us Ann Althouse is not in charge of the Dane County Sheriff's Office. Justice Bradley's allegations may constitute a felony charge. They need to be taken seriously, contra the alleged professor of law's wild and frivolously idiotic speculations.

eta 02: As they are taken by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission.

As mentioned here previously, the Supreme Court is charged with overseeing the ethical behavior and education of the State's attorneys, an authority that is becoming less and less possible to take seriously.

And I don't believe it was ever possible to take Ann Althouse seriously.

Top blogger Ann Althouse gets her source

Inexplicably popular blogger and alleged professor of law Ann Althouse "tweeted" yesterday that reports Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser seized a colleague, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, around the throat were "unsourced." However they were not unsourced but anonymously sourced, a crucial distinction that should have been immediately apparent to a self-styled media critic such as Althouse and furthermore one who is surely familiar with the traditional discretion of the justices' law clerks, who are often privy to the court's private conferences.

The alleged professor of law went on to warn "you people" on Twitter they may be subject to a defamation action, apparently either unaware or forgetful of the substantial burden imposed on public figures (e.g., Prosser) which requires proof a defendant acted in "actual malice."

And all of that addlepated nonsense packed into one "tweet."

Anyway, now Althouse has her source:

"The facts are that I was demanding that [Prosser] get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold," Justice Ann Walsh Bradley told the Journal Sentinel.

Prosser denies everything.

Following which report Althouse adds, "From what I have heard, Bradley is significantly larger than Prosser." What, she's never even seen them?

It's strange that Althouse, who allegedly professes the law in Madison, Wisconsin, has not attended a hearing at the State Supreme Court, which also sits in Madison (just a brief sashay down State St. in fact).

Justices Prosser and Bradley sit side by each (second and third from the left,* respectively, where the latter appears no larger than the former).

And damn near everybody is "significantly larger" than Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson,** who Prosser previously threatened to "destroy."

Althouse could measure their physical attributes as they ascend the bench, in order to confirm her own "unsourced" assertion that "Bradley is significantly larger than Prosser," whatever that's supposed to mean.

Did not David slay Goliath?

Moreover, Althouse might do well to revisit the law of self defense, if that is indeed among the topics she allegedly professes to law students.

You don't get to strangle somebody who merely raises their hands.

* Conservative hero Mike Gableman is on the far right, where he invents the Supreme Court's jurisdiction from whole cloth and forward slash.

** Not only have I seen the Chief Justice, but I have met her, more than once, and I'm not even an alleged University of Wisconsin law professor.

eta: Much, much more from Wis. Atty. Briane Pagel.

No ethics complaint forthcoming for Justice Prosser

In the Isthmus, Bill Lueders noted the other day that former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Donald Steinmetz filed an ethics complaint with the Office of Lawyer Regulation against Joel Winnig, the Madison attorney who lost to JoAnne Kloppenburg in the February primary.

Steinmetz is upset Winnig referred to Mike Gableman as "a cancer on the body politic" who "continues to pollute the Wisconsin Supreme Court." (This space strongly condemned the remarks as "not helpful.")

It may be recalled that Gableman himself was found in late 2009 by a three-judge panel to have violated two separate provisions of the State code of judicial ethics for his antics in the 2008 Supreme Court election.

Joel Winnig's harsh comments are pure opinion, obviously. On the other hand, what to make of Justice David Prosser's rejoinder:

"I think Joel has been smoking some of the stuff he wants to legalize," Prosser said, referring to Winnig's position on marijuana.

Isn't Justice Prosser accusing Joel Winnig of committing a crime? That's damaging to Winnig's reputation, even if Justice Prosser was kidding.

So where is the OLR ethics complaint against Justice Prosser?

Fair's fair.

Assuming they'd have me

If JoAnne Kloppenburg files suit tomorrow I'm joining the WISGOP.

Election so nice they made Prosser win twice

Item: Wisconsin Supreme Court decount certified

Finally, that stupid charade of a Supreme Court recount is over. So tired of getting updates from Kloppenburg campaign.

Haha. At least I didn't have the latter problem.

But where was Jack Craver (or anybody) five weeks ago?

I've been mighty lonely.

This is funny too. An online "troll" is someone who pretends to sympathize with positions they actually oppose:

@wiunion You know what we all need to do? Contact Kloppenburg to demand a lawsuit. Please rally around this folks. We win! Solidarity.

That's a pretty good troll (although you can sense the halfheartedness).

Decount timeline:
April 8: Anomaly, question
Early April: Prosser, Scott Walker in secret midnight Capitol meeting
Late April: Widespread anomalies and questions about election conduct
Early May: Anomalies and questions about election conduct
Mid May: Anomaly, question (See April 8)
May 23: kthxbai

Maybe.

There is one bright spot, however, in that the GAB has collated and archived an enormous amount of data for the scrutiny of Journal Communications, Inc.'s two political science professors and one lawyer.

Oh noes: Is Kloppenburg lying about our Shark?

Alleges local right-wing perfesser of the law Rick Esenberg:

I understand the Kloppenburg campaign has been claiming that I "work for" [Wis. S. Ct. Justice David] Prosser. Not true. I have nothing to do with the Prosser campaign or the recount effort.

Prof. Rick proffers no evidence. I wonder how many layers of hearsay it would contain, if he had any. Maybe Kloppenburg got Esenberg mixed up with James Troupis, who is working for Prosser, because both Esenberg and Troupis were working for State Senate Republican majority leader Scott Fitzgerald, which you'd never know when Journal Communications, Inc. proffers Rick Esenberg as the disinterested academic observer.

Which he most certainly is not. He is a partisan political operator.

By the way, can somebody explain to me how come a Journal-Sentinel reader might have published by that organ a reference to Kloppenburg as "Kloppenpig," which subsequently receives 82 122 (as of this writing) "thumbs up," more than almost any other comment in this thread, but when another J-S reader calls the organ's right-wing calumnist Patrick McIlheran a "dick" (with good cause), the latter observation disappears with nary the opportunity to garner even one solitary "thumb up"?

Apparently you get to write your own rules in a one-newspaper town.

Statement of Melissa Mulliken

Via Kloppenburgmedia@four.pairlist.net:

Statement of Melissa Mulliken, Kloppenburg for Justice Campaign Manager on Supreme Court Recount

Melissa Mulliken, Campaign Manager for JoAnne Kloppenburg, today issued a statement on the conclusion of the recount process in Waukesha County:

Clerks around Wisconsin have done hard and good work on this recount and all Wisconsin residents owe them thanks. We also thank the hundreds of volunteers across the state who have served as observers. The recount has uncovered numerous anomalies and irregularities. Vote tallies have changed in every county. Now, as the process calls for, we will review the record and we will determine, based on the facts, the evidence and the law, whether to request judicial review.

Lord help us. Poor old Brad Blog's going to have an aneurysm.

h/t A little birdie.*

* Melissa Mulliken wouldn't add me to the Kloppenburg campaign email list despite two requests, the first on February 28, the other in late March. Meanwhile I find myself on email lists of politicians who I've never even heard of, let alone not put in any direct requests to.

Isn't that how politicians usually operate? I would have thought so.

Kloppenburg Supreme Court decount ends today

It says here:

The Government Accountability Board's Kevin Kennedy says a court challenge of the final results is possible. "The grounds for changing the outcome based on a legal challenge are very slim."

Now that's the understatement of the year. Because the grounds for changing the outcome based on the decount were already very slim. I hear Republicans are waiting to hire Kloppenburg's campaign manager.

She's done such a good job at making the left look like fools.

Wisconsin BREAKING: Please give generously

How shall we go on?
Althouse troubled Kloppenburg "consuming [Althouse's] precious time"
Is greatest personal tragedy since Herb Kohl bored Patrick McIlheran

MJS edit board not entitled to own facts

Sez JoAnne Kloppenburg:

The recount has uncovered significant and widespread errors and anomalies in the securing of ballots and recording of votes on election day. There have been changes to vote totals in every county due to miscounted or missing votes.

But neither is JoAnne Kloppenburg entitled to her own facts, and the latter claim is untrue. The recount did not change the vote totals in several Wisconsin counties. Moreover in many, many other Wisconsin counties, the changes in vote totals were so negligible, or exactly what you'd expect in any Statewide recount,* that they are hardly evidence of any "significant and widespread errors and anomalies."

Just a thought, but if you're going to take the MJS to task for drinking the wing-nut Kool-Aid — and there are a number of legitimate reasons for doing so — it's probably best not to accuse the paper of inventing its own facts whilst inventing facts of one's own.

Now please make it stop. Dissipation of sympathy is near complete.

* And they'd change negligibly again if they were counted again. Perhaps the MJS could call up the one or two professors of political science it keeps in its Rolodex to confirm the foregoing observation, which is already more than well confirmed in the academic literature.

eta:

Thanks kloppy-choppy, for identifying yourself as the most pathetic and worthless person in the state. And, that is saying a lot when you consider the last few months, you are perhaps the most despicable and rotten human being in the western hemisphere. To think that your worthless backside could be on the bench is enough to scare the beegesus out of most civil minded wisconsinites. Thanks again, for being such a incredible whack-job.

This is acceptable reader commentary** at the MJS, but don't dare call the newspaper's dissembling calumnist Patrick McIlheran a "dick."

** Complete with 29 "thumbs up" as of this writing.

Wing-nut law prof handicaps Kloppenburg

Jurisprudence alert

I now place the odds of [S. Ct. candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg] conceding without court action at less than 50/50.

Says William Jacobson. When last we encountered Prof. Jacobson, he was claiming Wisconsin Sec. of State Doug La Follette was "likely wrong" when the latter said 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 was not law (La Follette was entirely correct) and claiming the fellow in Buffalo, NY who rang up Scott Walker impersonating Tea Partying billionaire David Koch was guilty of a Wisconsin felony. Impressive track record.

Of course Jacobson doesn't bother contemplating what grounds Kloppenburg might have for a lawsuit.* That Kloppenburg will seek, through the courts, to "have the entire election thrown out" is the latest conservative Republican wet dream, popularized obviously by Journal Communications, Inc.'s marquee radio and teevee personality Charlie Sykes and his various ill-informed disciples for weeks now and most recently by our own local law-prof-to-the-wing-nuts Rick Esenberg. In former times I might have been surprised to see the latter embracing the speculative cacophony, but not any more.

Cut from the same cloth, the lot of 'em.

* The substance of his comment is to make fun of her name, which is apparently what passes for conservative legal scholarship these days.

Justice Prosser leads recount by 7,000 dollars

Freud slipped here, notes @Shripe.

Today's TMJ-4 is Journal Communications, Inc.'s MKE teevee station.

Brookfield's bursting bags-o-ballots bingo

She thinks we are all idiots. — MJS reader comment

Here they are, the famous votes of City of Brookfield, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, those 14,000 or so not included in the running Associated Press totals posted on election night, Tuesday, April 5.*

The results were four votes off compared to the final canvass, which included a total of 14,315 votes. Official canvass for Brookfield: Prosser, 10,859; Kloppenburg, 3,456. Numbers from the recount: Prosser, 10,862; Kloppenburg, 3,457.

These are the votes that Kloppenburg tried to prevent from being counted (which is puzzling as how else are you going to check the canvassed figures, or check the canvassed figures against the figures reported to the Associated Press to make sure if everybody's story squares up). Because it's a decount, obviously, and the only way Kloppenburg can hope to make up anywhere near 7,000 votes is to keep Prosser's votes from being counted, because there's not going to be any extra Kloppenburg votes. Not enough people voted for her.

So you have to decount and not recount, the inglorious approach.

The Kloppenburg objections, it has been reported, arose when it was discovered that so many Brookfieldians voted for Prosser, sacks stuffed with ballots were literally bursting at the seams. Brad Blog composed a 9K-word theorem and a D-Kos diarist had to be sedated.

Nevertheless the ballots were adjudged fit to be re- and not de-counted, and four additional ones were discovered among the 14,000-plus. Statistically notable is that 75% of them were Prosser's, which matches his score throughout the county: 74%. Not an exact match but close enough for government work, as the apt saying goes.

That is, a tiny sample but remarkably accurate, it turns out.

Lord only knows where the darkest of suspicions fomented or, more to the point, where those darkest suspicions persisted unabated by the considerably more parsimonious explanation of gross ineptitude on the part of the top ranking Waukesha County elections official.

When a tearful Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus appeared on a local Journal Communications, Inc. teevee outlet, we believed her d-Based tale of "human error" not out of heartfelt empathy but because she'd pulled likewise egregious stunts so many times before.

And when Kloppenburg's campaign manager Melissa Mulliken filed a complaint with the Government Accountability Board alleging — with nary a scintilla of evidence — a late night meeting between Justice Prosser and Governor Scott Walker and conspiracies involving "conservative bloggers," the jig was up, and only the most credulous of the foil-hatted imagined voting fraud instead of voting farce.

So next time eschew the Roundy's ballot bags for the brand name.**

* The individual City of Brookfield tally was reported by a different WaukCo. election official to a different, local internets reporter, so the bags-o-ballots always existed, and always had been cast. They weren't stuffed into or out of the bags days after the April 5 fact.

** Roundy's aluminum foil remains on the approved vendors list, and works as well as any other to repel the brain-controlling mindwaves.

Kloppenburg decount updates

With 60 of Wisconsin's 72 counties complete and reported, Supreme Court challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg has picked up a net 258 votes: 443 compared to incumbent Justice David Prosser's 185-ballot gain.

Prosser clings to his 7,000-plus vote lead. Decounting in eleven of the remaining 12 counties is reportedly complete but not yet stamped with the State Government Accountability Board's seal of approval.

Waukesha County, where slapdash methods of tabulating inspired the Statewide decount in the first place, has a ways to go, and has requested a two-week extension to tomorrow's 5 p.m. deadline.

Most accurate county: Vernon, with zero net change among 7,909 Supreme Court ballots cast. Least accurate county: Waupaca, with 92 votes net change among 12,233 Supreme Court ballots cast.

Dear Lord, make it end, before Brad Blog is abducted by space aliens.

They're only incompetent* in WaukCo. They're not criminals.

* Allegedly.