Having a little trouble keeping the lies straight

"What is going on?" Heidi Green's email asked. "Why would I interview on August 25th if she* got the job on the 18th???"

More great stuff from Patrick Marley.

* "Embattled" Walker political confidante Cynthia Archer.

Journal-Sentinel joins Robin Vos in Gableman recall

So the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which frequently asserts its corporate constitutional rights to press freedom, has come out in favor of abridging the constitutional rights of the citizens of Wisconsin.

The Journal-Sentinel didn't appreciate this summer's recall elections, the right to which is guaranteed by the State constitution, arguing against along two fronts: 1) Elected officials shouldn't be recalled simply over policy disagreements and 2) The recall elections were too costly.

Journal Communications, Inc.'s business side can't possibly endorse the latter jusification. A huge portion of that $44M spent on advertising ended up as JRN revenue and the Journal-Sentinel's online edition's page views were through the roof, satisfying and attracting advertisers. In fact JRN has an affirmative duty to its shareholders to lobby for more and more and more recall elections and their attendant political gossip.

Nevertheless this morning the Journal-Sentinel supports Republican Assemblyman Robin Vos's proposal to amend the constitution, requiring specific grounds upon which to initiate the recall process — "higher standards," it says, as in, the commission of crimes by elected officials or findings by the Government Accountability Board of ethical violations.

Fine, then, let's accept that for the sake of argument. However, the Government Accountability Board is not responsive to ethical complaints against members of the judiciary which, as we have been observing for the last several years, suits the definition of "elected officials" better even than the elected officials in the political branches of government.

Thus there is no more reason to absorb the Government Accountability Board into the proposed rejiggered recall process than there is to absorb the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, the GAB's corollary for the judicial branch. And as we learned, the statutory framework for the processing of complaints against members of the judiciary proved ineffective in 2010, when the WJC's complaint against a justice of the Supreme Court, Mike Gableman, reached the impasse of an evenly divided tribunal.

The statutes direct the Commission to follow the rules of civil procedure to the best extent possible but at the same time the statutes thwart that goal. It doesn't happen in civil procedure that courts divide on motions for summary judgment (dismissal) because motions for such judgment are brought in trial courts, where a single judge presides.

Recall that, procedurally, the three-judge panel in the Gableman action convened on Gableman's motion for summary judgment. While the panel recommended dismissal, its recommendations are toothless, as they are subject to review by the Supreme Court, which retains the discretion to ignore them completely. And then that court, necessarily Gableman-less and reduced to six members, failed to reach a majority disposition.

Wherefore does the Gableman complaint remain pending to this day.

Which, according to both Robin Vos's and the Journal-Sentinel's own reasoning, presents a classic case for the recall of an elected official in strict conformance with their proposed constitutional amendings.

In other words since the system currently in place failed to get the job done, the remaining recourse is for the people to exercise their right to recall and one expects Vos and the Journal-Sentinel to lead the charge.

Earlier: Robin Vos clears the way for Mike Gableman recall

Walker aide Archer removed from fraud commission

Today in damage control.

"This commission is the first step in restoring the people's trust in their government." — Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, 01.04.11

How's that workin' out for ya.

"Sen. Lasee wanted to talk about where the DOT puts flower beds."

Scott Walker’s spokesman [Cullen Werwie] said the executive order creating the commission called for a DOA representative on the panel and Archer is no longer with that agency.

No it didn't.

The order called for "including the Secretary of the Department of Administration or the Secretary’s designee." It didn't say that the Secretary's designee had to be a DOA representative. More evidence Republicans are not the strict constructionists they claim to be. And whomever the designee, they "serve at the pleasure of the Governor."

Clearly the said service was no longer pleasurable.

Will Governor Scott Walker ever stop lying?

Now he's even lying directly to his own "campaign" supporters.

Have you noticed Republican liars prosper in Wisconsin? I have.

Walker. Rich in Retail. Ellen Nowak. And of course Mike Gableman.

And on and on.

There is a finite amount of currency

Concentrated in fewer and fewer hands:

Adjusted for inflation, median household income in the State declined 14.5% between 1999 and 2010, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates released Thursday. — Is what it says here.

Actually it's not true there is a finite amount of currency because I hear from conservative Republicans that the Federal Reserve keeps printing it — almost to the point of treason, according to the current GOP favorite — and yet it's still getting concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

No wonder folks are pissed off at corporate toadies like Scott Walker.

"Walkergate" — Shots Fired

Thing "carried ... feet first" into completely different thing

This could be entertaining.

Popularly cited election law expert Prof. Richard Esenberg knows Chris Liebenthal wasn't "campaigning" and that Chris is criticizing something entirely different than what he was accused of doing,* but Esenberg doesn't quite make those substantive distinctions clear, now does he.

Sort of like quoting a Wisconsin statute starting from the middle of it.

As for speculation and innuendo, how about Esenberg's pal Charlie Sykes and his tasteless musings over what personal information was redacted from Justice Ann Walsh Bradley's statement to Dane County detectives?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that condemnation of pure innuendo.

* Reading an online newspaper at work, essentially — the horror of it all.

Unsolicited PR advice for Cynthia Archer

Archer had been ordered not to discuss the investigation. That means don't discuss the investigation, including your involvement or non-involvement. It also gives you a convenient excuse to shut your pie hole. — Unsolicited Public Relations Advice

A new blog that promises to be pretty entertaining.

Scott Walker was unfit for student government

Courtesy of One Wisconsin Now:

Marquette Tribune, February 24, 1988.

"The Desperado."

Newspaper lead of the day

By far the biggest beneficiary is Cindy Archer, whose house was raided by the FBI last week. — the MJS's Patrick Marley

Everybody else took a pay cut and had their rights stomped down.

"We're broke," as Scott Walker is fond of saying. Morally, perhaps.

Gummint bennies pretty handy for Walker crony

Dept. of IOKIYAR:

Cynthia Archer is currently on paid sick leave, using 344 hours of banked sick leave accumulated in large part from her previous time in State government from 1987-2003 — a perk that is allowed for employees who leave State government, but later return as appointees to "career executive positions."

Not bad, ten weeks off at full pop. And if it was anyone other than a longtime Scott Walker henchperson — for example, a schoolteacher — Charlie Sykes and his raving disciples would be bellowing like hyenas.

Chris Liebenthal has been following developments since day one as closely as anybody except for the DA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Cynthia Archer and another person were up and about when rubber-gloved FBI agents and other law enforcement raided her Madison home on Wednesday morning, confiscating a carton of baubles and even a hard drive from her neighbor, which Archer had sold at a yard sale.

No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No persons being seized, it would appear the law enforcement agents who descended on Archer's home knew what they were looking for.

And discovered some.

As for Scott Walker, he claims he knows nothing other than what he reads in the paper about a widening investigation into the activities of aides current and former and political cronies he's known for decades.

So apparently the governor is in for some more surprises too.

Earlier: Sick leave benefits were once less convenient for Walker

More Republican lying in Wisconsin

Strong words:

In their letter, the Republicans state incorrectly that, as mayor, I ordered Madison police to not participate "in any law enforcement actions to remove or control siege protesters within the Capitol." What happened is on that March day, our police department was asked if it would help forcibly remove protesters from the building. Chief Noble Wray refused on the grounds that he saw no credible public safety threat from the protesters.

It's now clear why the Republicans wanted the building cleared. That evening, they forced through a vote on the governor's union busting bill with less than the required legal notice.

And:

Not too long before, in the same building, the governor of our State told who he thought was a major campaign contributor that he and his staff had considered hiring thugs to create possibly violent disruptions to the protests, and he rejected that idea because it might have backfired politically. There was some indication that the suggestion to hire outside agitators had come from a Republican lawmaker.

There should be an investigation so that we can know just how seriously violent disruption of the protests was considered by Governor Walker, his staff and Republican lawmakers.

— Dave Cieslewicz

"That March day," of course, is when the Republicans violated the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law, which the Supreme Court said was cool.

Scott Walker rarely tells the truth

Caught lying again, in a "campaign fundraising letter"

Earlier: The Journal-Sentinel endorsed a liar for governor

That's what her lawyer told her to say

"I feel no need for legal representation."

(This is her lawyer, by the way.)

Unfortunate metaphor timely strangled off

"The focus here again has been drawn into, 'Boy those people must really be at each other's — you know, on each other's case' when we're back in conference. And it's just not the case," Justice Annette Ziegler said. — Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

That was close.

Scott Walker's darkening Wisconsin job numbers

They were supposed to be "brightening," remember?

Then there was July.

And now there is August (7.9%).

Probably the recall elections'* fault, again.

* Which Republicans initiated, by the way.

Steve Walters not struck on back of the head

For repeatedly calling Justice Geske "Janine"

Emphasis on "federal raids" on Scott Walker

"Two previous federal raids on Walker staffers ended with the seizure of work computers." — Scott Walker probe growing

Those were "federal raids" as well?

I thought not, but it sure sounds good!

Deep thinkers finally catching on

"We favor moving to an appointed system." — MJS

Also this, the other day.

As this space observed, in April, 2008:

And the reason I said I'd changed my mind about electing vs. appointing Supreme Court judges is not because I don't think the voters can handle it. It's because the nominee couldn't handle it.

An appointment process can at least ensure that only the most talented are considered to begin with and the general public can continue to participate in whatever "liberal" vs. "conservative" controversy erupts then. But the debate will necessarily be of a higher quality. Anything would be of better quality than the recent unpleasantness.

Surely the general public would appreciate a more heightened debate as opposed to getting taken for and treated as suckers by third-party special interest groups, most of whom do not have the public's own special interests at heart whatsoever.

Did anybody seriously think anything was going to change?

Some people even think it's gotten worse.

Feds execute search warrant at Walker aide's home

This can't be good (for Walker, that is — it's fun for us)

In an email, former deputy DOA secretary Cynthia A. Archer said she was "not involved in any way in the John Doe investigation."

Only an FBI investigation. Whew!

Wonder if the Western District judge who Ron Johnson did vote to confirm approved the federal warrant. Wouldn't that be amusing.

eta: That's all wrong: too much fun.

Your morning facetiousness, courtesy David Ziemer

Jeez Louise.

By the way, the Seventh Circuit decision to which Mr. Ziemer refers, available here, is possibly the narrowest victory for religious accommodationists yet achieved. The panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Frank Easterbrook, Joel Flaum, and Kenneth Ripple,* split 2-1 on the question of whether a Waukesha County school district violated the First Amendment's Establishment of Religion Clause when it held a graduation ceremony inside a church populated to the brim with "indisputably and strongly Christian" sectarian proselytizations — which, unlike David Ziemer's personally offending "socialism" bugaboos, are manifestations of actual, as-legally-defined religion for Establishment Clause purposes.**

Judge Ripple wrote the majority opinion (pp. 1-54) while Judge Flaum authored its dissent (pp. 55-67). Judge Easterbrook joined Judge Ripple's opinion but wrote nothing, which is unfortunate. Because the last time (Chief) Judge Easterbrook weighed in on an Establishment Clause case, he completely missed the point*** and addressed the president's responsibilities pursuant to the National Day of Prayer rather than the Act of Congress that imposed those responsibilities. Thus Judge Easterbrook's attitude toward these types of controversy is suspect.

In other words, the challengers to the school district lost by the luck of the draw. They need to get a hearing before the entire Seventh Circuit.

* All three are Saint Ronald Reagan appointees, incidentally.

** Unless maybe Mr. Ziemer can detect some elements of Paganism.

*** Deliberately, one cannot say. And that's the problem.

Rick Perry's government injections

Four executions in eight days:

In 2000, the then-attorney general of Texas and now-U.S. Senator John Cornyn, admitted that the racial testimony of a psychologist had wrongfully been allowed to prejudice sentencing in seven separate cases. Six of those cases were reheard as a result, but, in a legal oversight, Duane Buck's never was.

Nice.

America: Your latest Obamacare ruling

Goudy-Bachman v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services:

[T]his case concerns the precise parameters of Congress's enumerated authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Specifically, the issue is whether Congress can invoke its Commerce Clause power to compel individuals to buy insurance as a condition of lawful citizenship or residency. The court concludes that it cannot. The power to regulate interstate commerce does not subsume the power to dictate a lifetime financial commitment to health insurance coverage. Without judicially enforceable limits, the constitutional blessing of the minimum coverage provision, codified at 26 U.S.C. § 5000A, would effectively sanction Congress's exercise of police power under the auspices of the Commerce Clause, jeopardizing the integrity of our dual sovereignty structure [a.k.a. federalism].

Kind of like I was just saying.

(Police power is constitutional law-speak for State power.)

A deep strain of Republican madness

Steve Benen:

Taken together, over the last five days, we’ve learned that the way to impress Republican voters, at least the ones who show up for events like these, is to support letting the uninsured die, accusing the Fed of treason for trying to improve the economy, and executing lots of people.

And booing when somebody (the Texan libertarian-of-convenience Ron Paul) tries to tell you that not all Muslims are homicidal terrorists.

There’s a deep strain of madness running through Republican politics in 2011, and it appears to be getting worse. Those wondering why the GOP presidential field appears weak, insipid, and shallow need look no further than the voters they choose to pander to.

More interesting to me is that Michele Bachmann, who claims to be the bona fide Tea Party Republican — and who reportedly has a degree in law — doesn't even understand how federalism, the motivating principle of American government, works. Last night she asserted that it's unconstitutional for a State to impose what's known in the federal Affordable Care Act as the individual insurance mandate. But the whole point of the Constitutional Convention was and is to limit federal power in order to preserve the States' powers to do whatever they need to do.

So of course States may impose such a mandate.

Not only does the Constitution not forbid it, the Framers devised the 10th Amendment, for which Tea Party Republicans otherwise profess their undying fealty, to affirmatively reiterate that motivating principle.

It's nice that the Tea Partyers have reminded us there is a Constitution.

Now if they would actually take the time to read the damn thing, we might be getting somewhere. Here in Wisconsin, the alleged Tea Party Senator Ron Johnson can't read it and nor, for that matter, can these seven Federalist Society attorneys, led by none other than Governor Scott Walker's choice to head up his judicial appointment committee.

Yet few seem even to care about those jarring dissonances.

More broadly speaking — and being the deepest of ironies — the Tea Party Republicans yapping and clapping at these candidate debates are precisely indicative of the irrational mentality that the Framers distrusted to make political decisions, and why the latter limited their political participation to electing only the House of Representatives, itself limited to two-year terms to keep its damages to a minimum.

In that oft-forgotten sense, the Tea Party Republicans have nothing to do with the Constitution at all, being exactly the mob upon which the Framers' jaundiced eyes were fixed. So when the Tea Party Republicans complain about so-called liberal politicians presuming to know what's best for them while at the same time pledging their devotion to an alleged originalist constitutionalism, tell them they cannot have it both ways.

That oughta flip their ersatz tricornes.

Wisconsin Supreme Court on civility and public trust

This Thursday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will convene in public for a conference devoted to, among other things, Civility and Public Trust and Confidence. The court has been in the news lately because some of its members don't get along too well. Some observers have wondered why.

Here's a clue. This is Mike Gableman, who lied during his political campaign in 2008, and who still has a civil complaint alleging ethics violations pending against him, speaking to a rubber chicken event in Racine County last March. Much of Gableman's harangue is devoted to praising controversial Justice David Prosser, who Gableman claims is "slow to anger" and only gets mad "when there is some unjustness."

Around 7:20, Gableman gets to insulting his fellow justices:

A judge or a justice should not misuse their position, their office, their temporary office of the court, to supplant or replace the law with their personal, political, or social views. I saw that happening in Madison four years ago when I decided way up in Burnett County that it wasn't me who was failing to understand what Shirley Abrahamson, Ann Walsh Bradley, Pat Crooks and Loophole Louie [sic — it's Louis, rhymes with Lewis; as you can see and hear, Gableman is unrepentant of his judicial ethics violations] Butler were doing to the law [laughter]. It was they who were failing in their sacred vow to follow the law as written and not substitute their own political, social, and personal views for what they think the law ought to be. Thank you [applause].

Notice how Gableman says "Thank you" before the applause starts.

This is not Gableman the political campaigner, this is Gableman the justice of the Supreme Court — where he claims to preside "by the grace of God" — although the roles are indistinguishable in Gableman's case.

So there there you have Gableman accusing his colleagues of "failing" in their professional obligations, and yet some people are still wondering why there is personal tension among certain factions within the court.

And ironic accusations they are, considering Gableman's own behavior.

Gableman returns to praising Prosser, who defended Gableman's ethical violations and indeed told the people of Wisconsin to "get over it" during a debate with JoAnne Kloppenburg, who challenged Prosser for his seat on the court and came within half a percentage point of winning it:

Former [Wisconsin] governors Tommy Thompson and Patrick Lucey, two who you probably cannot find with more divergent political views, are the co-chairmen of his campaign.

Which is funny because just a couple of days later:

Lucey "resigned as honorary co-chair of Justice David Prosser's re-election campaign and endorsed his opponent, State Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg. Lucey said in a statement that he has followed Prosser's campaign "with increasing dismay and now alarm," adding that "Prosser has lost that most crucial of characteristics for a Supreme Court Justice — as for any judge — even-handed impartiality." Lucey also cited Prosser's "disturbing distemper and lack of civility that does not bode well for the High Court in the face of demands that are sure to be placed on it in these times of great political and legal volatility."

That's right, Prosser's own campaign chairman abandoned ship.*

More recently Gableman came up with a tale that Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, whose neck Prosser admitted putting his hands around during a disagreement in her office on June 13, 2011, had "struck" him on the back of the head either in 2008 or 2009 (Gableman told Dane County police detectives it was 2008, then changed the year to 2009 after Wisconsin State Journal reporter Dee Hall noticed that there were no meetings of the court on the date Gableman had alleged in 2008).

Following Gableman's testimony to the Dane County police detectives, he apparently forewarned his other "conservative" colleagues on the court that he had so testified. Justices Prosser and Annette Ziegler both told the detectives they had no other knowledge of the alleged incident, despite Gableman's assurances that all seven justices were present. Three other justices have affirmatively denied such an event took place. The remaining justice, Patience Roggensack, has declined to comment.

This space has wondered — as there was a criminal investigation undertaken into the alleged physical altercation between Justices Bradley and Prosser — why there hasn't been a separate investigation into Gableman's allegations. Or whether the Dane County Sheriff's Office would take notice that Mike Gableman may have been misleading them.

Still wondering.

* Somewhat reminiscent of then-Dodge County district attorney and now-Circuit Court Judge Steven G. Bauer's abandoning of Gableman.

Wisconsin: "These people despise each other."

Mordecai Lee, a Democrat who represented Milwaukee and now teaches governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, said the sheer volume of Democratic amendments rejected by the Republican-controlled Assembly is evidence "that these people despise each other." — reports PolitiFactWisc.

While possibly true, it's not exactly the most logically rigorous inference. There are any number of reasons why amendments might be rejected. In fact I seem to recall such empirically unwarranted conclusions being discouraged when I was getting my political science degree at UWM.*

But I never heard of Prof. Lee until I started reading the newspaper.

* Speaking of which.

Ron Johnson's muse, Dick Morris

Dick Morris can't read — Steve Benen

You remember Dick Morris, the erstwhile podiatrist and present Faux News "pundit" who called on Ron Johnson to run for the Senate. Rather, Morris called on "some rich guy from Wisconsin" to run for the Senate, which is pretty much how Ron Johnson has distinguished himself so far.

Coincidentally, Ron Johnson can't read either.

Rep. Paul Ryan's private security force

Is the police:

Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan [R-Galt's Gulch] got the last word in on the senior citizen who disrupted him as the man was pulled from the event by baggy-blazered detectives. "I hope he took his blood pressure medication today," cracked Ryan.

Classy.

Completely confirmed: Steve Job not dead

Only journalism is.

Required reading for the 9/11 anniversary

Sayyid Qutb: The Philosopher of Islamic Terror

Here we go again

JoAnne Kloppenburg for District IV Court of Appeals.

eta: In case you're wondering what I meant by here we go again.

Stay tuned for Charlie Sykes to get his miserable Wizard Of Oz jollies.

To Count Chocula, Hair Club For Grothman

An open letter.

Here's the original, which is just as comical, with the added benefit of being sad.

Republican bloodlust vengeance applause lines

Ugh.

The U.S. Constitution clearly authorizes capital punishment — 'no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law' — but it's just as clearly not a deterrent because death penalty States have consistently higher rates of homicide than non-death penalty States.* Capital punishment is, in the popular mind, pure Old Testament vengeance.**

And the Republican applause underscores that. They are not applauding State executions per se, they are applauding the fact that Texas by far leads the league in executions. And they want more state executions.

At least Rick Perry seems to understand the rather profound nature of capital punishment, which is more than can be said of his rabid fans.

Governor Perry's idiocy is manifested elsewhere.

* Like Wisconsin, which ended the practice more than 160 years ago.

** Despite the Republican mob's profession of New Testament ideals.

Fitzwalkerstan politics as usual

State employee fired for telling the truth

Yet Rich in Retail is still gainfully employed? Outrageous.

Intriguing Wisconsin legal theory of the day

"We need to ease our litigation burden in this State." — Scott Walker

Attorney Lester Pines said he was concerned about the DMV policy on not telling voters they could get IDs for free. "Potentially there is a legal problem in that it shows the State is interested as a matter of policy in charging for these [IDs], and that would be a poll tax," Pines said. "The agency's policy is to put revenue above protecting the right to vote."

Leave it to Walker to fire one of the smartest lawyers in Wisconsin.

"[W]hen a citizen votes in a judicial election, he or she exercises a right guaranteed under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." — Wis. S. Ct. Justice Patience Roggensack

Justice Roggensack's claim cannot be repeated often enough.

(Partly because she may eventually be forced to back away from it.)

"Gableman admitted that he lied in a campaign ad."

I wonder where the Shepherd Express got that particular claim from.  

Earlier: Recall Gableman, argues the Shepherd Express

Wisconsin SC Justice David Prosser: Evil genius?

Wisconsin Public Radio reports:

Prosser recused himself from this case under public pressure because it was scheduled to be argued by Jim Troupis, Prosser's friend and an attorney in his successful recount earlier this year. Troupis was not in court for arguments. That could leave the court with a 3-3 split, which would allow the rule to go forward.

But see:

IT IS ORDERED that to preserve the status quo, the respondents are enjoined from enforcing the amendments to Wis. Admin. Code § GAB 1.28 published on July 31, 2010, pending further order of this court. — Wis. S. Ct., August 13, 2010

That is, enforcement of the rule, which requires disclosures from individuals making "express advocacy" on behalf of specific political candidates, is prohibited by the court's August 13, 2010 injunction. And, if the Prosser-less court is unable to reach a majority disposition, then no "further order" can be made reversing the order of injunction.

Moreover, because Wisconsin Prosperity Network v. Myse is an original action, filed directly with the Supreme Court, there is no lower court decision to stand, in the event of a high court deadlock. Therefore, contrary to Wisconsin Public Radio's claim — and the claims of other press reports — such a division would not allow the rule to go forward, but rather serve to keep the court's August 13, 2010 injunction in force.

So not only would 2011 be the year of "supervisory/original jurisdiction," it would also be the year of the "temporary/permanent injunction."

Yet another remarkable wrinkle of this case is the fact that Justice Prosser was part of the majority that ordered the injunction in August, 2010, ceased participating in the case in August, 2011, and finally, on September 2, 2011, formally disqualified himself from the case (the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial board took credit for Prosser's disqualification this month, even though this here blog had pointed to Prosser's conflicting relationships with James Troupis way back in April).

That is, Justice Prosser's non-availability for formation of a majority disposition may prevent the Supreme Court from undoing that which Justice Prosser himself hath wrought. And, finally, it may be recalled that a majority of the court — complete with a concurring opinion authored by Prosser and joined by his close political ally Mike Gableman — exercised the extraordinary power of injunction prior to deciding whether it even had jurisdiction over the case in the first instance.

And by way of doing so, literally rewrote the Wisconsin constitution.*

Unprecedented, or, less charitably, making-it-up-as-they-go-along.

* How anybody considers this "conservative jurisprudence" is beyond me.

Wisconsin: Harder to vote than be a rapist

The following is an exchange between James Freimuth, an assistant attorney general with the Wisconsin Department of Justice, and Shirley Abrahamson, the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. They are discussing what counts as "[t]he address at which the person is or will be residing" for purposes of the State sex offender registry in the case of State v. Willliam Dinkins, Sr. Dinkins was convicted of first degree sexual assault of a child in 1999 and then convicted in 2008 of failure to provide sex offender information upon his release from prison.

The Department of Justice argues that a park bench is a residence:

AAG: Black's Law Dictionary defines residence in part as, quote, 'the place where one actually lives, as distinguished from a domicile. Residence usually just means bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place,' unquote. Also the word address ...

CJ: Those are the definitions you want? For 'reside'?

AAG: Uh, right. I think, well ...

CJ: Temporary. Actually lives.

AAG: Correct.

CJ: So, park bench okay?

AAG: Yes.

CJ: Grate outside the State Capitol okay?

AAG: Yes. Any location that's reportable to the Department of Corrections.

For comparison, see Wis. Stat. § 6.34(3)(a) for the documentation required to prove residency for the purposes of voting in Wisconsin. So there you have it. According to J.B. Van Hollen's Department of Justice, it's easier to register as a sex offender than it is to vote in an election.

And, with the State's new photo ID law, Governor Scott Walker and the Republicans who control the legislative branch just made it even harder.

Harder to exercise what is, according to the conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Patience Roggensack, a fundamental right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

eta: "[Y]ou should refrain from offering the free version to customers who do not ask for it." Wouldn't want to make it any easier to vote.

Story.

There are no excuses for Deepak Chopra

This is pretty comical.

It's true, I did say Deepak Chopra's got a bug up his Root Chakra, but I wasn't making excuses for him. Because there are none. And what's missing from the Storyful account is Deepak Chopra telling me, "It felt so good" (which he's since deleted), and my advising him, out of concern for even the Cosmos's tiniest creatures: "[It's] not so good for the bug."

Deepak Chopra is full of harebrained baloney.

Alleged law professor Althouse skewered again

Along with our friend Prof. Rick into the bargain this time:

I had always assumed the strength of lawyers was their ability to marshal logic, facts and analysis.[*] Esenberg and Althouse were unable to marshal even one of the three.

By the way, this space addressed Esenberg's nonsense months ago.

* Not to mention professors of the law. It's horrifying.

Dinkins was convicted after a park bench trial

One of the cases that Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser will get to hear today is State v. William Dinkins, Sr., which concerns the elements of reporting convicted sex offenders are required to comply with upon their release from prison, pursuant to the Wisconsin sex offender registry. Among those requirements: "The address at which the person is or will be residing." (Wis. Stat. § 301.45(2)(a)5.)

Despite his and his parole agent's repeated efforts to find someplace to live, Dinkins was unable to provide the "address" required by the statute and Dinkins was convicted of "knowingly" violating the reporting requirement. On appeal, Dinkins's conviction was thrown out, partly because the word "residing" is not defined in the statutes and the court of appeals determined that, "the term 'residing' in the address reporting requirement plainly does not encompass a park bench — or a heating grate, bush, highway underpass, or other similar on-the-street location, for that matter." The Department of Justice contested that ruling, claiming that accepting Dinkins's argument would enable other sex offenders to evade the address reporting requirement simply by not bothering to try and find a place to live, or "reside," as the statute says.

Which arguably would be a "knowing" evasion.

This case is not about other sex offenders, however.

It's about Dinkins, who contends:

Well-settled principles of statutory construction support Dinkins’ argument that a person in his unique position cannot be convicted of violating this statute by failing to report the address at which he will be residing without evidence that he knew, at the time he was required to make that report, where that residence would be. That is, [Dinkins's] knowledge of the location of his future residence is a necessary element of this crime. . . .

It would be absurd to convict a person of a Class H felony, which carries a maximum punishment of six years in prison, for failing to provide information which he doesn’t have or which may not even exist.

Seems straightforward enough to me. Sometimes the laws are poorly drafted and as this space suggested earlier, the solution is for the legislature to fix them, not bring them to this Supreme Court, which is dominated by alleged "conservatives" more inclined to make stuff up.

Which, obviously, the WISDOJ is depending upon this morning.

"The Walkers are upgrading the mansion."

Happy Labor Day, Wisconsin.

The Journal-Sentinel endorsed a liar for governor

According to its own self.

To date, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's "PolitiFact" division has looked at 32 separate statements of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and found only eight of them "True" or "Mostly True." Twenty-one are "False" or "Mostly False." The remainder, three, were "Half True." As of yet, no remorse has been detected from the paper's board of editorialists.

Bagmen, egomaniacs, and kooks

Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult:

Among the Republican base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some "other," who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. Fags. Feminazis. The list may change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a scapegoat to hate and fear. It is not clear to me how many GOP officeholders believe this reactionary and paranoid claptrap. I would bet that most do not. But they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base with a nod and a wink. . . .

I left because I was appalled at the headlong rush of Republicans, like Gadarene swine, to embrace policies that are deeply damaging to this country's future; and contemptuous of the feckless, craven incompetence of Democrats in their half-hearted attempts to stop them. And, in truth, I left as an act of rational self-interest. Having gutted private-sector pensions and health benefits as a result of their embrace of outsourcing, union busting and "shareholder value," the GOP now thinks it is only fair that public-sector workers give up their pensions and benefits, too. Hence the intensification of the GOP's decades-long campaign of scorn against government workers. Under the circumstances, it is simply safer to be a current retiree rather than a prospective one. . . .

Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable "hard news" segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the "respectable" media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false evenhandedness.

Read the whole thing.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel story is eerily familiar

This here, very top of the (electronic) fold at the moment.

Thought I read about that somewhere, one entire week ago.

Can't get no respect.

Come to think of it, you read about publication here first too.

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

In light of our friend Mike Gableman's repeated claims that Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley had "hit" or "struck" him on the head on September 18, 2009, let's revisit a portion of Justice David Prosser's testimony to Dane County Sheriff's Office detectives on July 8, 2011. At 1:30:28, one of the detectives begins asking Prosser whether he was aware of any earlier instances of Justice Bradley "doing something to somebody else in the past," having "had physical contact with somebody." At 1:31:25, the detective gets down to brass tacks:

Detective: Had you witnessed Justice Bradley ever charge at anybody like this in the past?

Prosser: I have never seen her charge anybody once.

Detective: Okay. Is there a reason, uh, are you aware that anything like that's happened? Before [June 13, 2011]?

Prosser: Yes.

Detective: You're aware of an incident specific with Justice Bradley ...

Prosser: Yes.

Detective: ... that she has charged other people. Anything that you've witnessed?

Prosser: Yes.

Detective: Okay. Did that just contradict what you just earlier said? Because I thought you just said you never witnessed anything. Is that correct or am I a little off on that?

Other detective: You're aware of it?

Prosser: [Sighs] I ... [chuckles]. Okay, I'm aware of a story involving another justice. I didn't see that.

Detective: Okay.

Now, recall that Mike Gableman told the detectives on July 5, 2011, that Justice Bradley had "hit" him on the back of the head on September 18, 2008 and that he, Gableman, had never told anyone about this alleged incident prior to his July 5, 2011 interview with Dane County detectives.

On August 31, 2011, reporter Dee Hall of the Wisconsin State Journal discovered that the court had not convened any meetings on September 18, 2008. On September 1, 2011, Gableman released a statement claiming that it was September 18, 2009 that Justice Bradley "struck" him on the back of the head and that all seven justices were present.

Justice Bradley, Chief Justice Abrahamson, and Justice Crooks all affirmatively denied that any such head-striking incident ever took place. On July 18, 2011, Justice Ziegler told the detectives that Gableman had "recently" told her about the alleged head-striking incident but that she had no details of the alleged incident, nor could she be specific about when Gableman told her about the alleged incident.

(Justice Ziegler did not mention the alleged head-striking incident at her first meeting with detectives, which took place on June 30, 2011.)

The obvious question presents itself: Was Justice Prosser referring to the same head-striking incident that Gableman has alleged? If so, for one thing, Justice Prosser says he wasn't there, despite Gableman's statement that all seven justices were present on September 18, 2009.

And if so, for another thing, why did Gableman tell Justice Prosser, and furthermore tell Justice Ziegler, following his meeting with detectives on July 5, 2011, after never having spoken about the incident between September 18, 2009 and July 5, 2011, as Gableman had claimed?

And what about the one remaining justice, Justice Roggensack, who Gableman alleges was also present on September 18, 2009? Did Gableman likewise inform her? Roggensack has not commented so far.

Wisely, in my humble estimation.

In short, did Gableman round up his "conservative" pals on the court to make them aware of the little incendiary device he'd dropped to the detectives on July 5, 2011, to make sure everybody had their stories straight in case the topic arose? Seems like a reasonable question to me.

Aina? Inquiring minds want to know.

Facts hard to come by in Supreme Court kerfuffle

A couple of readers have commented as to Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser's height, further to his colleague Mike Gableman's description of Prosser relative to Justice Ann Walsh Bradley: "Gableman believes Justice Bradley is a little bit taller than Justice Prosser."

To wit:

I can say with confidence there is absolutely no way Prosser is 5'9", regardless of how he describes himself. Probably 5'6".

And:

The truth is that Prosser is nowhere near 5'9". I'm 5'8", and he's a lot shorter than I am.

According to Prosser himself:

Detective: How tall are you, sir?
Prosser: Five-nine.
Detective: You're five-nine.
Prosser: Yeah.

For the record (the question is at 1:02:23).*

Don't most people know how tall they are?

* That's an .mp3, so you can download it and put it on your iPod.

Who will be the next Wisconsin special prosecutor

On July 5, Mike Gableman, who is a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, told investigators with the Dane County Sheriff's Office that a colleague, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, hit him on the back of the head.

More recently Gableman upgraded the circumstances of the alleged battery to "struck" — "Justice Bradley struck me," Gableman declared in a press release yesterday. Initially Gableman affirmed to detectives that Bradley did so on September 18, 2008, his birthday, and weeks after his installation on the court. After it was determined that it was impossible for such an event to have taken place, Gableman moved the battery forward one year, to 2009, claiming now to be "uncertain" of the date.

Three justices, including Bradley, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, and Justice Patrick Crooks, have essentially accused Gableman of lying. They all say the incident never happened. A fifth justice, Annette Ziegler, says she didn't know anything about the incident until Gableman told her his tale. The remaining two justices, Prosser and Roggensack, have been understandably mum. If they affirm Gableman's story, then by extension they become parties to the lie that Mike Gableman stands accused of.

Gableman says all seven justices were present on September 18, 2009.

When Justice Bradley accused Justice Prosser of having her in a "choke hold" — and Prosser did confess to having both hands around her neck — the matter spurred a criminal investigation, although the appointed special prosecutor declined to pursue charges. In the meantime, a separate investigation by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission is ongoing.

This blog has certainly never been a fan of Mike Gableman, ever since he began misrepresenting the law back in December, 2007, in furtherance of his nakedly partisan political ambitions. In fact this blog has found Gableman's behavior to be reprehensible. But if there needed to be a criminal investigation into Justice Bradley's allegations, then there needs to be a similar investigation into Gableman's. And obviously the Judicial Commission, which monitors judicial ethics, must likewise investigate.

Because somebody is lying. The Supreme Court is tasked with the enforcement of the legal profession's code of ethical conduct. Its members should be setting the example, and not undermining it.

Republicans not accused of having good taste

Classy:

The Republican Party in Arizona's Pima County, which is represented by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), is in the midst of a fundraising raffle, $10 per entry. The prize: the same model of gun that delivered a near-fatal blast to the Democratic lawmaker's skull outside a Tucson grocery store in January.

— Raw Story

Mike Gableman is lying, say justices

And for no purposeful reason whatsoever, it would appear:

"Whether it is Justice Gableman's original version or his new version, his described event simply did not happen," Bradley said. "I did not strike him on the head in 2008, 2009, or ever. Abrahamson [CJ] and Crooks, in a separate statement, also repeated that "no incident as described by Justice Gableman, and no similar incident, ever occurred in our presence."

Wisconsin State Journal — Dee Hall.

More from Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Justice Ziegler knew nothing of the alleged incident. Gableman's other allies, Justices Prosser and Roggensack, have been silent so far. What are they going to say? Mike Gableman claims they were all present.

Are they going to corroborate Gableman's tale? Seems unlikely now.

And Gableman lied to get on the court in the first place.

Gableman story changes today

The story he told to police detectives.

On July 5 (pg. 64 of 70):

Justice Gableman said at this time his mind also went back to September 18, 2008, a date that he recalled because it was his birthday. Justice Gableman said he had been on the court for approximately one month at the time ...

Now on September 1:

I was uncertain as to whether Justice Bradley struck me on September 18, 2008, or September 18, 2009. I knew it was September 18 because that happens to be my birthday. Court records indicate that the seven Justices did, in fact, meet in closed conference on September 18, 2009.

Uncertain how long he'd been on the court.

Gableman also told the police:

Justice Gableman said he has not told anyone about that incident and has not talked about that incident with anyone, including Justice Bradley, after it happened.

Then Justice Ziegler tells the police (page 69 of 70):

She then said, recently Justice Gableman told her about Justice Bradley hitting him on the back of the head, but she said she did not have any details of that and did not know when it happened. Justice Ziegler said she could not be specific on when Justice Gableman told her that happened.

Gableman's interview was on July 5, and Ziegler's was on July 18, so presumably Gableman told her about the September 18, 2009 (née 2008) incident after July 5. But Ziegler hadn't known anything about it.

Even though Justice Zeigler would have been present.*

* And as the ever-vigilant gnarlytrombone points out:

"Not only present, but a witness: 'Justice Gableman said that he believed Justice Bradley was not joking because nobody was laughing at the time.' [page 64 of 70] i.e., they had to have seen it happen to choose not to laugh. Because it was serious. But not memorable."