Reminder — Gableman may be under investigation

Annals of the Peppercorn:

¹¹ The other forums may be the Wisconsin Judicial Commission and the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board.

He had better be.

More gems from the Chief Justice:

Justice Gableman’s Order, whether deliberately or accidentally, misconstrues the allegations against him . . .

Although Justice Gableman's Order claims that he "considered the circumstances of this case" and "the submissions of the parties," I conclude that nothing in Justice Gableman’s Order demonstrates that Justice Gableman actually considered the submissions of the District Attorney. Rather, because Justice Gableman's Order either intentionally or inadvertently misstates the grounds of the District Attorney's motion, the Order contains no reasoned basis for the Justice's conclusion that his recusal is "neither warranted nor justified."

The Order inaccurately asserts that the District Attorney seeks recusal because "the Michael Best & Friedrich firm was involved in the cases and had previously represented me." Actually, as I have stated previously, the District Attorney explained in the initial and supplemental filings that he seeks recusal not because Justice Gableman has been personally represented by Michael Best, but rather because Justice Gableman received allegedly free legal services from Michael Best.

Yet, nowhere in Justice Gableman’s Order is there any reference to payment (or absence of payment) for legal services, the fee arrangement with Michael Best, free legal services, a gift of legal services, or valuable consideration for the fee arrangement. None of these words, or any synonyms, appears in the Order.

In other words, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's so-called "conservatives" continue to rule by fiat and Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman hasn't changed a bit in terms of his "deliberate or accidental" misrepresentations.

After all, those are how Mike Gableman got elected in the first place.

However, those were more deliberate and deliberative than accidental misrepresentations, as Mike Gableman himself admitted. Indeed if they were accidental misrepresentations then failure to understand a relatively straightforward appellate case should have disqualified him from the State of Wisconsin's highest appeals court right off the bat.

Wisconsin Republicans must be real proud of this character. But nobody else should be proud of what he's done to the reputation of this court.

Busted

Priceless. 'Twas more than a peppercorn, apparently.

Go Scot. That's me boy.

Peppercorn Mike Gableman

Is back in the news, courtesy of Rep. Robin Vos.

Where are the WJC's complaints against Peppercorn Mike?

Anybody remember this cock-and-bull story?

Wisconsin: It's about time to fire Franklyn Gimbel

Dear sir, your account is net 60 days in arrears.

Admits veteran Milwaukee attorney Franklyn Gimbel, who the Wisconsin Judicial Commission retained to "assist in the prosecution of [the] formal action" against State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser:

“Even though there's nothing in the statutes that requires [an order from the Supreme Court], apparently there's some past practices where that's happened,” Gimbel said.

Apparently?!

This guy filed a formal complaint against Prosser two months ago and he's still stuck on "apparently"? "Apparently," Mr. Gimbel's done little more than look at the Supreme Court's online dockets for a few prior Judicial Commission cases — including two which were filed against Prosser's Republican Party colleagues, Justice Annette Ziegler and Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman; that makes three out of four Republicans* on the court being the respondents in formal disciplinary actions — and was seeing the word "order" at the left hand side of the docket notations.

That isn't law. That isn't even doctrine. And it isn't even past practice, as former Justice Janine Geske points out in the same Shepherd Express article, it's a "referral," a mere acknowledgement. It's like an entry on an accounting ledger. According to Mr. Gimbel, Richard S. Brown, the chief judge of the Court of Appeals who is mandated by State statute to convene the three-judge panel which is to hear the Commission's case, is "waiting for an order from the Supreme Court before proceeding."

I hope he's not holding his breath because there ain't no such thing. The Supreme Court has no authority anywhere to withhold an order that doesn't exist in — nor is even contemplated nor implied by — the law.

The operations of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission's investigations and prosecutions in both ethics and disability cases are at arm's length from the Supreme Court and that arm is a detachable, detached prosthetic.

Seriously, if Gimbel hasn't gotten to the bottom of this after 60 days, it's time for the Commission to hire somebody who will do it. Hell, if David Prosser's Republican buddy Scott Fitzgerald can conjure up fake arrest warrants based on bogus premises derived from frivolous lawsuits, then somebody can compel Judge Brown to obey the clear directive of the State statutes and get on with entertaining the Prosser prosecution.

A prosecution that is separately mandated by State statute — it's one thing to disobey the law, it's another to obstruct its progress on a distinct procedural track: Here now we have both happenstances.

And Ed Fallone is correct, as usual: "[M]y guess is that they do not want to have a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals issue a negative ruling against Prosser." Quite so. And they'll ignore the law to avoid it.

Even the chief judge of the Court of Appeals will ignore it. "Apparently."

What a travesty. Of the law. Courtesy of alleged judicial conservatives.

The latter phony pretense being the grandest farce of them all.

"Your precious belief that we have a government of laws in Wisconsin never fails to amuse." — @BrewCityBrawler

Fortunately that's still funny, but admittedly a little less so this morning.

* The fourth Republican is "hypocritical" and makes stuff up.

What, no bonus for Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman?

"We're broke." — Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, repeatedly

You have got to be effing kidding me:

Assistant Attorney General Maria Lazar, who defended Walker's collective bargaining law in an open meetings challenge and has handled the State's defense of Republican redistricting legislation, got a $1,000 bonus and a $1.50-an-hour raise in March, bumping her salary by more than $3,000 to $104,730.

Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John, who defended the collective bargaining law in front of the State Supreme Court, got a $2.51-an-hour raise in March that adds up to more than $5,000 per year and brings his pay to $134,307.

Some defense.

Ms. Lazar admitted in a Dane County trial court that the Fitz Van Walker regime both broke the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law and violated the State constitution, which was pretty much dispositive in Judge Maryann Sumi's decision to enjoin Act 10, Scott Walker's "signature" union-busting "achievement"* and Mr. St. John, the lead attorney by the time the case got to the State Supreme Court, would have by rights lost that case but not for the alleged "conservatives" on the court dreaming up a jurisdiction unauthorized by the constitution.

Oh and by the way, contrary to the AP story, St. John & Co. were not "defend[ing] the collective bargaining law," they were defending the Wisconsin Republicans' breaking the law and violating the constitution.

This is what passes for meritoriousness under Scott Walker. Incroyable.

* From the MJS's comically fawning report of Walker's "barnstorming."

Why hasn't Prosser called for Gableman's recusal?

File under: Mike Gableman's date uncertain

Anybody remember these two little ditties?

Who will be the next Wisconsin special prosecutor — 09.02.2011

"I'm aware of a story involving another justice." — 09.03.2011

Perhaps Justice Prosser needs "the Honorable" Mike Gableman to testify to Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's history of workplace violence. But seriously, why has Mike Gableman thus far been immune from either a criminal or a judicial commission investigation? Or, for that matter, Justice Bradley? Because Gableman accused Justice Bradley of "striking" him on the back of the head. Or could it be that everyone else — like your humble correspondent — can't possibly take Gableman seriously.*

And, lest we forget the famous peppercorn ...

* With the exception of Justice Prosser, who calls Gableman, "tireless, indefatigable, and brilliant" (brilliance is doubly tiring doncha know).

Prosser also told the public to "get over" Gableman's pisspoor ethics. No. I personally find Justice Prosser's latter admonition ironic, as it was he who swore me into the Wisconsin bar immediately upon delivering a lecture on the paramount importance of professional ethics.

Was I not to have taken him seriously either?

Of Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman's "peppercorn"

In a word, preposterous:

The notion that the judicial code and ethics laws permit a judge to secretly receive expensive legal services (or fancy cars or lakefront real estate) in return for sham, symbolic payment — say, a "peppercorn" — is not merely frivolous, it seeks to play the [Wisconsin Supreme] Court and the public as fools. Here, Justice Gableman did not ever need to provide even a peppercorn.

Intervenors' Proposed Reply in Support of Recusal or Disqualification

Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman must go

Sign Wisconsin Rep. Kelda Helen Roys's petition.

Gableman lied. It wasn't a loophole and Butler didn't find it.

Simple as that.

Interview with Wisconsin Rep. Kelda Helen Roys

In re Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman, linky here.

On teh web: Kelda For Congress.

WTMJ's Charlie Sykes publishes some more lies

And the said liar proceeds to defeat his very own allegations:

As Gableman's NEW lawyer wrote in a letter to the editor that the Journal-Sentinel has conveniently refused to publish . . .

Reporter Patrick Marley published it about a week ago. It's right here.

And we've been enjoying it ever since. Where you been, Chuckles?

How is it that a contingency fee arrangement is suddenly a "gift"?

Because there was no valuable consideration. There is no value in some wholly speculative, arguably non-monetizable recovery, where third parties only may have reimbursed Gableman for his legal services if he had won his ethics case. That is, even if he had won — which he didn't — the likelihood that he would have recovered anything was equal to the likelihood of his recovering nothing. The former likelihood may have been a consideration in the de minimis, peppercorn sense, but the Code of Judicial Conduct requires it to be a valuable consideration. Otherwise Gableman's tens of thousands of dollars in legal services was a gift, according to the Code's own definition. This question of what is valuable consideration is not so easily hand-waved away by Gableman's defenders.

A legal "if" followed by a legal "may" starts to make stuff mighty attenuated from the ability to place an actual value on something, whatever that something may have been wholly speculated to be.

[Contingency fee arrangements are] what gets the jackpots that are used to fund a huge part of the Left’s political apparatus.

Really, well there clearly was no "jackpot" here, buddy. And that is precisely why there was no valuable consideration, and precisely why Gableman's tens of thousands of dollars in legal services was a gift.

But yeah, y'all keep emphasizing the extremely high-dollar value of what Gableman did receive,* because that really buttresses his apparent claim that his entirely speculative consideration** was in fact a valuable one.

In the meantime maybe Gableman can waive his attorney-client privilege so the people who elected him can have a look at what went down here.

And compare it with what was required of him by the Code of Conduct.

* And is receiving, from the looks of things.

** Which, by the way, was not even Gableman's consideration to give.

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Comedians

Walker jobs billboard outside shuttered car plant in Janesville

WMC is the outfit that put "Peppercorn" Gableman on the Wis. S. Ct.

'I like firing people.' — A top Republican*

Then how's about firing Scott Walker. And liking it. A whole lot.

* As opposed to a Republican top.

The lawyer in question was Rich Esenberg

Hilarious:

[Dr. Ernie Pelegrino] cited as authority for this professor Scott Idleman of Marquette University Law School, as quoted during an interview on a local right-wing talk show. I have had a telephone conference with Idleman, who indicated he did not appear on that radio show, does not agree with these assertions, and would not comment on legal ethics, which he does not teach.* Idleman was concerned enough about this matter that he did some research to discover that the lawyer in question was in all probability Rich Esenberg, a former part-time instructor at Marquette. — from the (Madison) Capital Times mailbag

Scott Idleman happens to be a fine fellow and a personal hero of mine.

* Neither does Esenberg, but try telling that to Journal Communications, Inc. That respondent "Peppercorn" Gableman's arrangement with Michael Best & Friedrich is commonplace is an utterly fatuous claim. It ain't.

The very action Gableman faced is rare, let alone his fee arrangement, which is commonplace only in completely different circumstances, where its contractual benefits inhere to plaintiffs, and not to defendants.

Incidentally I notice this column by Bill Lueders is making the rounds in republication today. When Eric McLeod told the Journal-Sentinel that Gableman paid his bill, he could have meant the bill for photocopying.

Wisconsin electoral redistricting errors revealed

Waukesha Co. clerk relieved it's not her fault for once
Reports the Wisconsin State Journal

Those affected are advised to contact the responsible WISGOP attorneys at Michael Best & Friedrich and Troupis Law Office who, in return for one wholly speculative peppercorn, will arrange to have them "carried ... feet first" into the correct municipality (provided they have a photo ID).

"Peppercorn" Mike Gableman's "nonsense"

Missed a spot Bruce:

Typically, personal injury lawyers take cases on a contingency basis, with the understanding they will collect a big percentage of the jury’s award. — Milwaukee Magazine's Bruce Murphy

More to the point, it's plaintiffs' lawyers who take cases on contingent fee arrangements. In Gableman's atypical case, he was the respondent.*

* It's complainant v. respondent in these cases, the functional equivalent of plaintiff v. defendant in the types of civil action "Peppercorn" Gableman's latest high-priced GOP attorney, Viet Dinh, is contemplating.

And nobody seems to know what Mr. Dinh's own peppercorn might be.

His representation of Gableman had better not be a gift or a favor. There ain't enough trees to bear the flurry of complaints against G-Man.

Another complaint for "Peppercorn" Gableman

"It was really outrageous to have Gableman sitting there, knowing he had this big gift from our opponents," said Dana Schultz, local director of the 9to5 National Association of Working Women.

Ayup.

h/t Jim Rowen.

What an embarrassment ...

A reader writes:

What an embarrassment to have the comments of the writer connected to Marquette University Law School.

Tell me about it. I'm thinking the Dean should be open to affixing an asterisk to all pre-Esenberg juris doctors, denoting them as such.

Energetic Mike Gableman apologist Rick Esenberg completely avoids the dispositive question, in that if Gableman gave "valuable consideration," then what was its value? Gableman is prohibited from accepting favors without his valuable consideration in return. All Esenberg needs to do is answer this simple question. But he can't because whatever consideration there was is not able to be valued.

Elsewhere Esenberg asserts, "Gableman did not have the money" to hire counsel whose competence was commensurate with the public importance of his case. Gableman, a lifelong bachelor who has been collecting nearly $150,000 per year in Supreme Court salary* since September, 2008, has no money. The least Prof. Esenberg of MULS could do is place a value on the Florida swampland he's offering.

Then the wholly speculative peppercorn is all his.

Try telling regular folks making considerably less than $150K who do have to pay their lawyer what a sad state of penury Gableman is in.

And beginning this month the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel expects people to pay money to read this evasive nonsense? Not bloody likely.

* Approaching half a million dollars worth of public funds gained through an unethical political campaign. How's yer Tea Party now?

Today's informative headlines

Gableman should remain on redistricting case, GOP group argues

No shit. "Peppercorn" Gableman is their bought-and-paid-for boy.

Did "Peppercorn" Gableman's attorney also lie?

Bill Lueders wants to know:

"[Michael Best & Friedrich LLP partner Eric M.] McLeod said Gableman had a standard billing agreement with the law firm and has paid that bill" [emphasis added].

Mr. McLeod was personally sanctioned by a federal court on Tuesday.

All this must be doing wonders for MB&F's reputation, aina?

"Peppercorn" Gableman's attorney sanctioned

Personally sanctioned. Together with his law firm.

Now that is what I call an asskicking.

WISGOP flouted the law so egregiously that even a court noticed.

To clarify, if perhaps the Legislature's lawyers failed to read or understand the Court's prior orders entered under the heading "Before WOOD, Circuit Judge, DOW, District Judge, and STADTMUELLER, District Judge," . . .

Ouch. And that's just them gettin' warmed up.

ORDER: Plaintiffs are free to seek eleventy brazillion peppercorns.

Dump Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman

That is what Mike Gableman deserves.

"Valuable consideration."