Wisconsin: Ozanne v. Fitzgerald — A preview

Must. Destroy. Union. Dirty hippies blargh. — Shorter WISGOP

Action resumes this morning in the courtroom of Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi. The key elements of plaintiff Dane County District Attorney Ismail Ozanne's latest brief reduced to three tweets:

Dane County DA Ozanne concurs, Fitz pulled nothing but a Kinko's job, and he also wants the Kinko's job declared null and void. Ozanne further argues the LRB is bound by the TRO in addition to the SoS on account of the LRB's statutory proximity to the SoS.* And of course Ozanne argues the AG's attempt to moot the case is groundless and absurd (in so many words).

This new wrinkle to the case shouldn't be terribly difficult for Judge Sumi to dispose of. It's not even a close question. Think of it this way: If I can figure out in ten minutes what's since been affirmed by everybody from Ed Fallone to the Legislative Reference Bureau, it can't be rocket surgery. I cite Fallone** and the LRB as authorities because: Fallone's area of expertise is constitutional law, and the LRB has the nonpartisan, dispassionate, objective cred as few others do.

Rotating

The AG's argument is mostly bluster and about the furthest thing you'd expect from a self-advertised judicial conservative. It's bordering on the painful to follow its logic (such as it is) and is incoherent compared to the parsimonious Kinko's Amendment theory.

It's enough to send William of Ockham to rotating violently in his crypt, which is inadvisable because there are sharp objects in there.

It truly is astonishing that Fitz Van Walker would go to these lengths and is perhaps the best indicator yet that Walker and Fitzgerald are terrified to run this bill past another vote in the legislature.

Hockey sock

The bill likely wouldn't succeed this time around because they've since pissed off nearly everybody in the State, placed their own colleagues in serious danger of recall, and perhaps most importantly, imperiled their conservative majority on the Supreme Court. They're on the verge of nullifying the 2008 election of Michael Gableman — which alone justifies a vote for Kloppenburg — the one that cost Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce one king hell hockey sock full of dough.

And now warding off the FitzWalker taint from the incumbent conservative Justice David Prosser is going to cost WMC & Friends the other sock. But FitzWalker keeps pushing. It's pure madness.

Harrumph

As for the merits, two crucial points: 1) The Department of Justice admitted as much as three minutes less than two hours notice was given in advance of the Fitzgeralds' twilight ramble and 2) The DoJ conceded that the constitutional and statutory requirements of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law override the legislature's immunity from judicial branch scrutiny of its internal procedural minutiae:

"Correct. . . . Absolutely correct."

Oh dearie, dearie me.

* This is an especially compelling argument because it puts to keen use a slightly modified version of AG Van Hollen's claim that the LRB's and the Secretary of State's "publications" are identical. If it is the case they are identical, then the LRB is likewise bound by Judge Sumi's restraining order. Slightly modified in the sense that although Van Hollen's claim is false, if Van Hollen wishes to assert its truth, then he must by the same reasoning concede that the TRO enjoins the LRB, which AG JBVH must deny. But JBVH can't have it both ways.

Nevertheless, Ozanne can demonstrate that the LRB was subject to the TRO without availing himself of any of Van Hollen's assertions.

** I also cite Fallone because Fallone said: "I do not see my analysis as differing in any significant way from the analysis previously set forth in this blog," meaning this blog, the one you're reading now.

No love for an old alumnus at the MULS webpage though! Harrumph.

Is a Justice Prosser recusal in the offing?

Or, Now I am the turd?

Update: Some informed observers proved correct (.pdf; 9 pgs.)

According to some informed observers, Dane County District Attorney Ismail Ozanne's lawsuit against a claque of Republican State legislators (et al) is headed for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. That remains to be seen, as the District IV Court of Appeals has yet to even grant the defendants permission* to appeal Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi's March 18 order preventing the Secretary of State from publishing WalkerFitz's questionably minted union-busting law.

Ozanne filed his second response to Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's petition for leave to appeal yesterday afternoon. In it, a 1983 decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, State ex rel. La Follette v. Stitt, figures prominently, as it has since the outset of this litigation.

The defendants claim Stitt effectively disposes of Ozanne's case, as the decision stands for the proposition that the legislature's internal operating procedures are off-limits to judicial branch scrutiny.

Ozanne, on the other hand, argues that the brothers Fitzgerald's twilight shenanigans are not mere internal operating procedure and that broader constitutional and statutory commands prevent the legislature from violating Wisconsin open meetings law, a violation that the defendants all but admitted before Judge Sumi.**

Perhaps even more intriguing than those fundamental separation of powers controversies is this notation below Stitt's title block:

Amicus Curiae brief was filed by David Prosser, Jr., Appleton.

David Prosser, Jr. is today Justice David Prosser, Jr., who has himself recently prophesied a 100% chance that aspects of the GOP's so-called budget repair bill will reach his court. I have not read Prosser's friend of the court brief, but it may be that he telegraphed a future disposition in DA Ozanne's current case way back in 1983.

Justice Prosser is up for reelection on April 5. His term ends July 31.

* By some appearances it already has, as the District IV panel's interrogatories to DA Ozanne address the case's merits, and not simply the question of whether AG Van Hollen has met his burden of showing why his request for permission to appeal should be granted.

** Indeed, defendants' counsel conceded at the same hearing that the Fitzes were acting well beyond their prescribed legislative authority.

The above exchange between Judge Sumi and the assistant attorney general addresses the dilemma at the very heart of this dispute.

Suspicion falls on Real Walker, not Fake Koch

Beautiful, beautiful.

Remember that goofball blog post by the right-wing law professor in New York suggesting fake Koch committed a Wisconsin felony?

An alternative view, from Dane County DA Ismael Ozanne:

Ozanne said he would be interested in knowing more about what conversations the governor had with others about planting instigators in the mass of peaceful demonstrators outside the Capitol. "At this time I do not find any criminal liability," Ozanne said, although he added that he was concerned about the statements Walker made to "Koch."

And unlike Prof. Jacobson, DA Ozanne possesses real authority.

Walker later made the press rounds, insisting the point was that the agents provocateur ultimately weren't planted. Reporters accepted that and moved on. However the more troubling point is that he considered it at all, giving no indication he shut the idea down immediately, which is what should be expected from a governor.

Furthermore Walker said the reason troublemakers weren't planted among the peaceful protesters was not because it was an outrageous and unlawful scheme, but that it would harm his political position.

Presumably those considerations are why the DA remains interested.

A couple of questions for Justice Pat Roggensack

Why hasn't anybody asked Justice Pat Roggensack these questions? They seem obvious to me, and I don't even live in Wisconsin any more.

1) Justice Roggensack, you wrote in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

"[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."

The First Amendment — as you know — originally applied only to Congress. Since then the United States Supreme Court has held, by selective incorporation, that certain elements of the Bill of Rights apply to State governments, but the right to vote has never been incorporated through the First Amendment.

So according to what constitutional theory or legal reasoning did you reach the conclusion that the right to vote in State judicial elections is guaranteed by the First Amendment?*

2) Many observers attribute the authorship of the per curiam order in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald to you, Justice Roggensack. In that order the court devised what it called "supervisory/original jurisdiction."

a) How could the court invoke its original jurisdiction when in fact it was the third court to review the particulars of the case?

b) As for the court's supervisory (more accurately, its superintending) jurisdiction, less than one month after its order in Ozanne, you joined a majority opinion of the court which declared:

"A supervisory writ is an extraordinary remedy to prevent a court from refusing to perform, or from violating, its plain duty."

This seems like a clear directive, and provides the criteria that a court must find are satisfied before granting this "extraordinary remedy."

But there is neither any discussion — nor even a mention — in the court's Ozanne v. Fitzgerald order of Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi's having refused to perform her plain duty, nor is there any discussion or mention of Judge Sumi's having violated her plain duty.

So how do you square your July 14, 2011 directive with Ozanne?

It seems the citizens are lacking an important chain in your reasoning.

* There is no constitutional right to vote for federal judges.

The strange case of Kilkenny v. Sumi

Oy vey, the things you find on WisOpinion sometimes.*

Top conservative blogger Cindy Kilkenny of Brookfield, Waukesha Co., Wisconsin reckons she's pulled one over on Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi. "Sumi continues to make up the law as she goes along," announces Kilkenny. This is not gonna end well for CK.

The "fairly conservative" blogger Kilkenny objects to a passage in Judge Sumi's ruling yesterday in Kathleen Falk v. Fitzwalkerstan,** which is a separate action from the ongoing Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, the latter being much discussed at this here space and elsewhere. For it was in Ozanne that Judge Sumi issued her celebrated (and [fairly] conservatively reasoned) temporary restraining order against the Fitz Van Walker consortium's twilight union-smashing shenanigans.

Judge Sumi (bestest judge name evar) wrote on April 14:

[§§] 19.97(2) and (3), Wis. Stats., grant the circuit court express authority to void action taken in violation of the open meetings law and to issue injunctive relief.

Bold Kilkenny's (in at least two equally clear senses of the word bold).

The "authority to void action" comes from § 19.97(3), whereas the "authority ... to issue injunctive relief" comes from § 19.97(2). (Note well the "and" in "and to issue injunctive relief." Kilkenny even bolded it for you.) While Judge Sumi has issued (temporary) injunctive relief in accordance with § 19.97(2), she is some ways away from "void[ing] action taken in violation of the open meetings law," as the latter remedy is the one requested at the heart of Ozanne v. Fitzgerald and Judge Sumi has yet to adjudicate the merits of Ozanne's lawsuit and therefore obviously no judgment has been entered in adjudication.

Thus there is no judgment in the following sense:

However, any judgment declaring such action void shall not be entered unless the court finds, under the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in the enforcement of this subchapter outweighs any public interest which there may be in sustaining the validity of the action taken.

That's from § 19.97(3). Judge Sumi hasn't made any such judgment, so Kilkenny's assertions are both premature and totally irrelevant. I have no idea whether Cindy Kilkenny would be interested in retracting her bold "Sumi continues to make up the law as she goes along" announcement, but it certainly is false and borders on the comic.***

In fact I might rank it right up there with Gawker's legal advice to Sarah Palin. To paraphrase Judge Sumi, the defendants could have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble if they just revoted the bill.

Likewise, top WaukCo. conservative blogger Cindy Kilkenny could have just asked me. I've already been "fairly" accommodating.

* Or, the sights you see when you have no gun, as my dear departed granny (who never fired a gun in her long life) was fond of saying.

** But seriously folks, Dane County v. State of Wisconsin.

*** And it's probably too late anyways, since it's been immortalized at and by the WisOpinion.com aggregator.

eta: Cindy Kilkenny responds. But obviously I have never, ever once said or suggested any of those things. If I didn't think anybody but a "liberal elitist" would understand, then why would I try to explain it?

Take issue with the explanations, not some dreamed-up chimeras.

What motivated this post in the first place is the incredibly ill-informed — and vicious, as Bill Lueders enumerated — commentary about Judge Sumi's deliberations. Attempting to correct the public record has nothing to do with "liberal elitism" and I've tried to limn the transgressions even when committed by "conservative elitists."

(The latter example being legalist arrogance of the lowest order. Your correspondent can't even aspire to that degree of superciliousness.)

The press certainly won't do it, so somebody has to. Indeed, from where I sit, the press actively encourages the ill-informedness.

Right-wing condescension in Wisconsin, Day Two

CAPITOL KAOS, Agent Rick reporting for Faux News duty

I finally had a chance to listen to Joy Cardin's March 30 interview with Marquette professors of law Ed Fallone and Rick Esenberg, discussing the events unfolding in Judge Maryann Sumi's courtroom in Madison. The link is here, and it's about 35 minutes. Prof. Fallone has got it together, and you'll hear little more from him than you've already read on this here blog over the past week, starting last Friday.

Esenberg, on the other hand, is priceless, so desperately does he want it to be 1943, when the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a dicey procedure* in a political branch might not be enjoined.

But much has changed since then, most importantly the enactment of the Open Meetings Law, which set in place a number of directives to the courts that make Prof. Esenberg's 1943 case considerably less significant than he makes it out to be. But Prof. Esenberg is having none of it, and literally sneers at anyone who thinks differently.

But first, Esenberg has apparently forgotten about the chicanery perpetrated by the Republican Senate leader Scott Fitzgerald, who Esenberg helped advise that a six-months-pregnant woman might be "carried ... feet first" over that legislative chamber's threshold:

The mess that we find ourselves in now is because, I believe, that the circuit court failed to give adequate attention to whether or not this was a morass into which she should have plunged in the first place.

It's laugh-out-loud stuff, and the gist of Esenberg's complaint is that Judge Sumi hasn't explained to Esenberg every step of her reasoning up to this point: Rick is "extremely disappointed" that Judge Sumi hasn't acknowledged Rick's concerns, which is absolute nonsense because the one case upon which Rick hangs his hat is referenced throughout documents filed with the court, including, significantly, the District IV Court of Appeals certification of Ozanne v. Fitz to the Supreme Court. Rick suggests Sumi is simply ignoring it. Poor guy.

And unfortunately for Prof. Rick, it isn't the only case.

Another thing that bothers Rick is that Dane County District Attorney Ismail Ozanne didn't sue the Legislative Reference Bureau along with the secretary of state. But if your objective is to enjoin publication, which is a legal term of art and is what is required by the constitution and the statutory framework, then why would you sue the Kinko's kiosk?** This concern catapults Prof. Esenberg into full sneer-mode:

The one thing I think should have happened here is that a lawyer who read the law, and I'm talking about the statutes and, y'know, not a publication that is sent to schoolchildren to explain to gradeschoolers how, y'know, a law goes into effect, but actually read the law ...

And if you think "sneering" is an exaggeration, go to 32:45 of the interview. Evidently invoking "schoolchildren" is a rhetorical specialty of Rick's, because he pulled the same stunt on me when I pointed out that Michael Gableman's ethics case was still pending after the Supreme Court delivered its opinions — or "writings," as they have become known — in the matter. Rick told me I needed to consult something other than "horn book" civil procedure, which is like accusing someone of only having read the CliffsNotes version of The Brothers Karamazov or, as Rick would put it: "[G]o read Sartre."

But then, lo and behold, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice N. Patrick Crooks, who has been a trial judge and an appellate judge for 30-plus years, appeared before a special committee of the legislature to point out that, yes, the complaint against Gableman is still pending because — just as this space had explained earlier — Gableman failed to win his motion for summary judgment, which is the question an appeals court panel had convened to hear in September of 2009.

So, yes, I had certainly consulted something other than a horn book: I consulted something called the law prior to making the claim, as did Justice Crooks prior to affirming it, as has, obviously, Judge Maryann Sumi. She's not conducting this hearing — and they call them hearings for a reason — for the special benefit of Marquette's Rick Esenberg.

Rick has a right to his argument — which is wrong, as it turns out — but he has no cause to sneer and especially no business sneering at a presiding trial judge simply because she hasn't acknowledged Prof. Rick's existence. The hubris, as they say, is strong with this one.

But the truly depressing thing is, the local nut-right simply accepts Prof. Esenberg's words as Gospel, and his sentiment find its way into the appalling personal attacks against Judge Sumi among the basest dregs of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's comments threads.

Meanwhile what Judge Maryann Sumi is doing is an exemplary job and she's clearly — crystal clearly — been doing her homework.

* There is procedure and there is substance, a fundamental distinction in all law, and a very important distinction in this case. It's why the Justices of the SCOTUS were moved to devise the intuitively redundant expression, "procedural due process."

** No disrespect to the LRB, but it's the best metaphor I can think of to describe a core question of the case. Amusingly, Esenberg accuses the LRB of injecting politics into the proceeding when in fact the LRB is the least political party, named or unnamed, to the proceeding.

Republicans angry Ozanne follows Republican law

Item: Dane County district attorney won't charge Facebook poster

Hey, if you don't like it, then stop electing Republican judges:

Some factors that courts and juries should consider when applying this test include, but are not limited to . . . whether [the threat] was communicated directly to its victim. — Jon P. Wilcox

Justice Wilcox was elected with the kind assistance of Mark "Banned From Politics" Block. His successor is WMC Justice Annette Ziegler.

Now here the threat was communicated directly to its victim.

When the governor was notified, he cranked out a form letter.

And they're pissed off at Ozanne? Get real.

Fitzgerald unrepentant

A big man has no time really to do anything but just sit and be big.

— F. Scott Fitzgerald (no relation)

Cue Entry of the Gladiators:

"We passed the law correctly, legally the first time," Scott Fitzgerald said. "Passing the law correctly and legally a second or third time wouldn't change anything. It certainly wouldn't stop another activist judge and room full of lawyers (from trying) to start this merry-go-round all over again."

Well it's marginally a downgrade from "supremely" and "perfectly."

So that's something.

"They could do (the legislation) over," said Dane County District Attorney Ismail Ozanne, plaintiff in the case. "It's been stated on the record that they could do the vote again."

By my conservative estimate, Senator Scott Fitzgerald, who is in charge of the Senate (or his brother Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald, who is in charge of the Assembly), could have given seventeen 24-hour notices by now. And more importantly saved a Senate clerk from running — literally, that was today's testimony — back and forth between their offices in order to attempt producing A notice of their "hastily called" March 9 meeting. These guys are so organizized, Jeff Fitzgerald wasn't even in his office to affix his signature to the notice when the crucial moment approached. Rachel Veum, the Senate's Records and Forms Management Specialist, testified today that she had to jog — ran, she also said — around the Capitol in her clogs in search of the two elusive Republican power brothers, while building security personnel pointed and laughed and quipped, "Here she comes again!"

Among many of the revelations brought to the fore by the Ozanne v. Fitzgerald hearings are those pertaining to Scott Fitzgerald's style of management, which has elsewhere been depicted as inappropriately coercive as well. With employers like that in the business, my own reaction is inclined toward: "Thank God for collective bargaining."*

* Which comprises the very rights and privileges for workers the Brothers Fitzgerald and Gov. Scott Walker, aided by a "room full of lawyers" provided by Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's office, are attempting to strip from State employees. Is it any bloody wonder.

FitzMeeting held within 120 minutes +/- three

That's even a pretty wide tolerance for rebar

"We are supremely confident that we followed the law perfectly," said Andrew Welhouse, spox for Scott Fitzgerald.

This is possibly the highlight* of today's Dane County circuit court hearing in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald. Plaintiff Ozanne is the Dane County district attorney. The defendants are the top Republican leaders in the Wisconsin legislature. At issue is the time elapsed between the notification of and commencement of a conference committee meeting; that is, a meeting between both legislative houses (each of which is run by a Republican called Fitzgerald, which sounds like a happy coincidence until you realize they are brothers). Anyway:

Judge Sumi: Before you move on, can you tell me how the two-hour notice requirement was met. Or, what evidence would I hear if I were to hear evidence on this.

AAG Lazar: Well, and that's, that is a big question. {Affirmative - ed.] I think the question has been looked at. We haven't fully developed it. We do know the timetable was that at some point around four o'clock — and we have been told that, I don't know that it could be pinpointed — between four, maybe 4:06, 4:03, 4:04, there was a notice published on, or posted, on a bulletin board. There's going to be some testimony as well about an e-mail that's irrelevant. The relevancy is the notice that was posted on the bulletin board.

The testimony is going to come out that I don't think anyone can establish with any definitive answer exactly when that happened. It was around four and we will note that the conference committee met and went into session I believe at 6:03. So we think that there was compliance with the two-hour requirement. We think that they, the plaintiffs in this case, bear the burden of proof of establishing that there was not, and I don't believe that they will get there, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judge Sumi then politely points out that the burden is not on the plaintiffs but rather on the defendant Republican legislative leaders to prove they're entitled to an exemption from the public meetings law, a point which AAG Lazar in effect concedes. It was a rough moment for the AAG, in particular those moments 4:06 and 4:04. But she did well with what she had and you can't blame her. The blame lies with those Republican leaders who, had they the definitive evidence to present, would have presented it in court this morning.

Instead I imagine the foregoing was more definitive in the sense of its considerable role in the judge's reverberating decision to prevent the publication of Scott Walker's hastily retooled "budget repair bill."

Thus has Sen. Fitzgerald arrived at the corner of Hubris and Karma.

Gov. Walker, for his own part, strains to pretend obliviousness.

Recall (pun intended), he and they expect all this to just blow over.

* A highlight of another sort occurs while the PA system is acting up, and during AAG Means's presentation, a computer reboots and a crescendo of synthesized strings begins to rise, giving the court pause. "This happens every time I speak, your honor," cracks Means.

Scott Walker and the separation of WISGOP powers

Advertisement: Please visit the CAPITOL KAOS archives

[Wis. Stat. Sec.] 165.25(1) [The department of justice shall] appear for the state and prosecute or defend all actions and proceedings, civil or criminal, in the court of appeals and the supreme court, in which the state is interested or a party, and attend to and prosecute or defend all civil cases sent or remanded to any circuit court in which the state is a party.

165.25(1m) If requested by the governor or either house of the legislature, appear for and represent the state, any state department, agency, official, employee or agent, whether required to appear as a party or witness in any civil or criminal matter, and prosecute or defend in any court or before any officer, any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the state or the people of this state may be interested.

Here's another interesting and thus far overlooked tidbit from last Monday's marathon session of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, wherein Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John concedes directly to the Chief Justice that the Department of Justice is appearing not on behalf of Secretary of Capitol Building Maintenance Mike Huebsch, but on the explicit direction of the governor, Scott Walker. And what Walker is complaining about is, ironically, a separation of powers violation.

During St. John's oral presentation, the Chief Justice is engaging the lawyer on some procedural posturings. Recall that while the hearings were underway in Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's court in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, Judge Sumi issued a temporary restraining order. A TRO is not a "final judgment" and the difference between a TRO and a final judgment is determinative of how Scott Fitzgerald and the other defendants may attack a judge's disposition, be it final or temporary.

In Wisconsin there exists a right to appeal final judgments, but if the defendant Republican legislators here wish to attack the TRO, they must be granted permission to do so by the court of appeals. Thus did the Department of Justice file a motion for permission to appeal a non-final order (the TRO) on March 21 with the District IV Court of Appeals.

The court of appeals declined to entertain that motion, but rather certified ("passed on," or "kicked upstairs," in the vernacular) the DOJ's petition to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court announced nothing further with regard to that petition until June 3, when it issued an order consolidating it with the DOJ's petition for a supervisory writ, as in the interim between scheduling oral arguments on whether to entertain the supervisory writ, Judge Sumi did indeed issue a final judgment.

So the Chief Justice is wondering about from whence comes the DOJ's authority to bring the petition for a supervisory writ (a writ is a court order, and in this case the DOJ is seeking an order vacating Judge Sumi's disposition based on the Supreme Court's supervisory authority over the circuit courts). The petition for a supervisory writ was filed in the name of Mike Huebsch, but what the record transcribed below reveals is that the order came directly from Governor Walker himself, something Mr. St. John appears to be distinctly uncomfortable with admitting.

The exchange between the Chief Justice and the deputy AG, related to the foregoing issues of who gets to do what and when begins at 00:43:10 of Wisconsin Eye's video of the oral arguments and the CJ gets to the Walker's Point at 00:45:10. The ellipses are pauses, not edits.

CJA: Under what authority does the State bring this proceeding?

KSJ: The State brings this proceeding under [Wis. Stat. Sec. 165.25(1)(m) — see above].

CJA: 165 ... yes.

KSJ: 165.25, sub. 1m.

CJA: Point 25, one ...

KSJ: 1m.

CJA: What does that say, counsel?

KSJ: That provides, that says that the attorney general and I ... quote the statute [KSJ retrieves Volume 3 of the Wisconsin Statutes and Annotations] ...

CJA: 165 ... 25 ...

KSJ: It needs to be read in conjunction with sub. 1, but 1m provides that if requested by the governor or either house of the legislature ...

CJA: Okay.

KSJ: ... may ...

CJA: Did the governor make any request?

KSJ: Yes.

CJA: Is that on record?

KSJ: It's not part of the record for petition [for a supervisory writ]. The State appears in many actions at the request of the governor or on the legislature and wouldn't file that with the court. We'd be happy to do so if that were required.

CJA: Therefore, and represent the State. Okay, the court will take that under advisement. Is that what you're relying on, 'If requested by the governor, appear for and represent the State'?

KSJ: Mm hmm. In any matter in which the State or the people of this State may be interested. There's been a determination made ...

CJA: Oh wait, what about the sentence, "whether required to appear as a party or witness"? That clause.

KSJ: Mm hmm. In any ...

CJA: Well ...

KSJ: And prosecute or defend ...

CJA: Are you required to appear here as a party? Here?

KSJ: Uh, there's no requirement ...

CJA: Okay. So you're going on to, "and prosecute in any court," right?

KSJ: That's correct.

CJA: "In which the State or the people may be interested."

KSJ: That's correct.

CJA: Okay. This is one of the things that is ... and on page four of your Ozanne you rely on 165.25, but there you say only that the AG decides whether what's the best interest of the State so now you're relying on the governor, is that it?

KSJ: There is authority in this case from the governor, there is also authority in this court's precedent that says that the attorney general may appear before this court with or without the governor's approval to advance an interest of the State.

He goes on. But he's already admitted to the Chief Justice, who is more interested in the express language of the State statutes, that in this case what he's relying on is a request from the governor, Scott Walker.

So you have Republican Scott Walker, the chief executive branch officer, petitioning the Republican-controlled Supreme Court,* the top entity within the judicial branch, to in effect discipline a lower court because it ruled against his Republican pals and allies in the legislative branch. And what Walker is complaining about ultimately is a violation of the doctrine of constitutional separation of powers. That is one not-too-subtle irony.

Deputy AG St. John's pursed "mm hmms" indicate he was none too comfortable with the Chief Justice's line of inquiry. Witnesses at trial who answer "mm hmm" rather than "yes" are often admonished by the court for not speaking up clearly and affirmatively. I wonder why St. John was so reticent at providing this information, that the Department of Justice is acting on the direct order of Governor Scott Walker.

Because the named petitioner clearly has no idea what's going on.

Since Monday a slew of additional documents were filed with the State Supreme Court, but this space doesn't know whether Walker's directive to the DOJ is among them. It may well be quite an edifying read.

* Let's dispense with the "nonpartisan" façade for a moment. Everybody knows how many millions of dollars (and thousands of logically fallacious and unethical teevee ads) Republican-affiliated outfits have produced and spent to ensure and protect the current make-up of the court.

Wisconsin Supreme Court schedules goat rodeo

SCOWI oral argument preview: Mike Gableman is "tireless, indefatigable and brilliant." — Justice David Prosser 04/18/11

In re: 2011AP000765-W and 2011AP000613-LV

This morning's line-up:

State ex rel Mike Huebsch: 50 minutes (Maria Lazar [?])
Dane County Circuit Court: 15 minutes (Dean Strang)
Dane County District Atty: 15 minutes (Ismail Ozanne)
State Rep. Peter Barca (D): 10 minutes (Bob Jambois*)
State Sen. Mark Miller (D): 10 minutes (Lester Pines)
Sec. of State Doug La Follette: 10 minutes (Roger Sage)
Huebsch rebuttal: 10 minutes [Misc. DOJ]

The festivities commence at 9:45 a.m., Central Standard Time.

Now maybe the Wisconsin Department of Justice will explain how and why Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law is unconstitutional, complete with citations to relevant 17th century English parliamentary common law.

Livetweeting (hopefully).

* Jambois should feature among the highlights.

eta 01: Deputy AG Kevin St. John appeared for State ex rel Huebsch and Dean Strang's law firm colleague Marie Stanton appeared for the Dane County Circuit Court (Judge Sumi). Those are all the attorneys the court heard from by 12:10 p.m. before adjourning for lunch until 1:30, so that's only two lawyers down and five to go. Gonna be a looong day.

Hard to say where things are going to shake out at this point but — and, real superficial observation here — the court's so-called conservatives appear to be more inclined to sympathize with the DOJ's demand for what is essentially judicial activism and legislating from the bench.

eta 02: "17th century English parliamentary common law." Think I was joking eh? St. John actually invoked it, without being prompted. It's supposed to override the laws of Wisconsin. This is how the DOJ argues.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Rappin' with Dad29, foil-hatted conspiracist

In which local wing-nut Dad29 ("old, nasty") joins the conspiracists.

Take it away, Dad29:

A month or so ago it was clear that [Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann] Sumi's kangaroo-ing was designed to delay a decision. That delay would result in [Supreme Court of Wisconsin] review of the case after Prosser was out, i.e., after August 1st. Of course, Kloppenburg had to win. Oh, well.

The backup plan is now in play. Kloppy requests a recount, which will take a long time.[*] As of 8/1, SCOWI becomes a 3-3 tie (at least in theory, but [Chief Justice Shirley] Abrahamson has counted her chickens very carefully). Ergo, a Madison Appeals court ruling will stand. Kloppy's just roadkill here. It's the vacancy on SCOWI that counts.

It was difficult to resist, on a lazy Sunday:

What Madison appeals court ruling?

shut up the tin foil crowd [Quoting Dad's mentor Esenberg.]

Hear that Dad?

Dad29:

What Madison appeals court ruling?

We note that SCOWI has not accepted any of the AG's or Administration's petitions on the matter at hand yet. You expect that SCOWI will take the case directly, illyt? On what basis?

Your humble scribe:

We note that SCOWI has not accepted any of the AG's or Administration's petitions on the matter at hand yet.

Right, but there is no appeals court "ruling." There was the [Department of Justice]'s District IV appeal, which the latter kicked upstairs, and the DoJ's ability to effectively represent its plaintiff secretary of state appears to be irretrievably broken. So that thing is dead in the water (maybe Cathy Stepp could fish it out). And there is [Secretary of Administration] Mike Huebsch's petition for a supervisory writ, also filed by the DoJ, a terribly unconvincing document, I'm sorry to tell you.

You expect that SCOWI will take the case directly, illyt? On what basis?

I don't expect them to, unless they want to rule the Open Meetings Law unconstitutional, at least insofar as it applies to the express prohibition on the sufficiency of the Fitzes' 1hr and 57m meeting notice (why wasn't Jeff Fitz in his office, by the way, when the witching hour was imminent? That's probably the biggest FUBAR in this entire escapade). But I would like to see the court declare the OML unconstitutional, for sheer entertainment at least. Imagine all of those restraintful, conservative jurisprudes "unmooring" themselves from the plain text and relying instead on Cromwell-era common law. What fun.

Incidentally, Daddy-O, you and your wing-right pals really need to stop criticizing Judge Sumi with your goofball ad hominem japes, as they embarrass nobody but you all (but of course you can keep it up for the pure entertainment value as well). What it tells people who have read the law (beyond Prof. Rick's "publication that is sent to schoolchildren," that is) is that you've got nothing *but* ad hominem fallacies. I've yet to see a convincing substantive criticism of Sumi's dispositions and I think it's highly likely the Supreme Court can't come up with one either.

By the way, Dad, have you had a gander at Judge Sumi's record on appeal? Here, let me show you it.

Dad29, back for more:

I've yet to see a convincing substantive criticism of Sumi's dispositions and I think it's highly likely the Supreme Court can't come up with one either.

I have, from Prof. Rick, who actually practiced law for quite some time — successfully.

As to Sumi: she gets the respect that she earns. No one has put forth a convincing argument that declaring a law un-Constitutional BEFORE IT IS LAW is anything other than kangaroo-ism, plain.

Your humble scribe:

I have, from Prof. Rick ...

Well, good for you guys. You might find it interesting that Prof. Rick's watershed, controlling precedent, Goodland v. Zimmerman [Anno Domini 1943], barely makes an appearance in the Huebsch petition for a supervisory writ. Instead, the petition focuses primarily on La Follette v. Stitt.

You want to know why? Because the facts and law at issue in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald precisely describe that situation which Stitt repeatedly insists it does not cover. Go read Stitt (it's online), and see how quickly you lose count of the 'excepts' and the 'unlesses.' In other words, Stitt is unavailing, and JBVH knows it, as is Lynch v. Conta and as is MJS v. Wis. DoA, but we (and District IV) knew that already.

Grandes problemos, Daddy-O. You'll see (maybe). By the way this business is all constitutional law and statutory construction, which you don't need 20 years experience taking depositions to evaluate. And there's plenty of other pretty sharp cookies among the Marquette law faculty who haven't practiced a whole hell of a lot of law.

No one has put forth a convincing argument that declaring a law un-Constitutional BEFORE IT IS LAW is anything other than kangaroo-ism, plain.

Except Judge Sumi hasn't done that. What do you think the briefing schedule is for? Besides, the convincing argument is sitting up right there among the black letter constitutional and statutory provisions. Have a look-see, Pops.

More Père le vingt-neuf:

But then, no one with half a gourd would have believed someone could issue a TRO [temporary injunction] against a law which is not actually a law, either.

And some law:

Wis. Stat. § Dad(29): [N]o one with half a gourd would have believed someone could issue a TRO against a law which is not actually a law, either.

Wis. Stat. § 19.97(2): [T]he district attorney may commence an action ... to obtain such other legal or equitable relief, including but not limited to mandamus, injunction or declaratory judgment ...

Why, it's unthinkable!

You're funny Dad.

Finis.

* It won't take a long time. Outside of MKE Co., it's a can of corn. Once the precincts get set up, the recounting will go very quickly.

It's not like they're counting one big bag of 1.5M ballots. They're counting several hundred much smaller quantities and tallying 'em up

Scott Walker: Thoroughgoing legal positivist

"Rights come from the constitution."

— Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, to Congress

The next sound that you will hear is of Tea Party / natural rights heads asploding just like Rep. Dan Burton's pumpkin / watermelon.

(Also a tasty tidbit to bear in mind wrt Ozanne v. Fitzgerald.)

Judge Sumi gets mail

Bill Lueders collects it. And it's really, really, appallingly ignorant.

The fact of the matter is, Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi is on firm legal ground, and is following very conservative principles of statutory and constitutional construction. Failing a higher court's ruling according to the most circuitously reasoned of procedural arcana, there seems to me no way that Judge Sumi's temporary restraining order in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald can be vacated without finding the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law is itself unconstitutional.

How Patrick McIlheran lies for the WISGOP

Perfect example right here:

One Dane County judge rules that collective bargaining reform is unacceptable ...

This is your Journal Communications, Inc. brand of journalism.

But as one Dane County judge very clearly explained, both the federal Constitution and the Wisconsin constitution confer the judicial power equally to both higher and lower courts.* And as one Dane County judge very clearly explained, her ruling was directed at "the March 9, 2011 action of the Legislature's Joint Committee of Conference" and not whether the Walker administration's policy was acceptable or not.

Journal Communications, Inc.'s Patrick McIlheran is flat-out lying.

On the other hand, the Wisconsin Department of Justice, which is "representing the Republicans," makes repeated explicit defenses of Republican political policy in its latest filing with the Supreme Court pursuant to its attempt to have that court legislate from the bench.

The DOJ, on behalf of Scott Walker's infamous building maintenance supervisor Mike Huebsch, has gone so far as to suggest that the one Dane County judge, Maryann Sumi, violated the State code of judicial ethics by responding to the DOJ's petition for a supervisory writ (it's not an appeal, as has been widely reported). Now that is remarkable.

The Supreme Court, which does indeed have superintending authority over the (lower) circuit courts, on May 4 ordered Judge Sumi to file a response to the Huebsch/DOJ petition. Yes, ordered. The DOJ suggests that Judge Sumi should have exercised her option not to respond. The Wisconsin Rules of Appellate Procedure, at Wis. Stat. § 809.51(2), allow that a respondent to a petition for supervisory writ "may file a letter stating that he or she does not intend to file a response."

In other words, a respondent is not exempt or excepted from the Supreme Court's order but may disobey an order of the Supreme Court. Respondents to petitions for a supervisory writ are not limited to "court[s] and the presiding judge[s]," but the petition may be filed against "other person[s] or bod[ies]." And clearly Judge Sumi is in a different position vis-à-vis the Supreme Court than other persons or bodies not courts and presiding judges. Yet the Wisconsin Department of Justice suggests she should have disobeyed the Supreme Court's order.

Obviously Judge Sumi did not disobey an order of the Supreme Court.

And for not disobeying the Supreme Court's order, the Department of Justice is now veiledly threatening to file a motion for recusal against Judge Sumi, despite the fact that the ultimate determination for Judge Sumi's disqualification from the case of Ozanne v. Fitzgerald resides with Judge Sumi, once again, according to the black letter State law.

So at this point the Department of Justice is merely throwing stuff against the wall to find out if any of it will stick, in the course of its "representation of the Republicans." Thus whose impartiality is under question here is pretty obvious. And it sure ain't Judge Sumi's.

All of which demonstrates at least three things: (1) the ideological zealotry of Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John, (2) Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen's acquiescence to Mr. St. John getting on this breakaway, and (3) the WISGOP Republicans' abject terror at attempting to have their union-busting bill passed by a non-illegal procedure.

McIlheran's bald lie is put forth in service of advertising his appearance tomorrow morning on another Journal Communications, Inc. buffoon's teevee show, Charlie Sykes's Sunday Insight [sic], which runs on Journal Communications, Inc.'s teevee station, TMJ-4. And of course Sykes is also an employee of Journal Communications, Inc.'s radio station, WTMJ.

There you have it, Journal Communications, Inc.'s corpo-blanketing of Milwaukee media with conservative Republican talking points. Because I wouldn't expect a discussion of the Rules of Appellate Procedure among Charlie Sykes and his guests tomorrow, who also include one of the most absurd conservative Republican political hacks in Wisconsin, Brian Fraley.

Roughly as absurd as the political hacks at Journal Communications, Inc.

* Matter of fact the same principle was invoked here in defense of J.B. Van Hollen, which days of defending JBVH at this space are long gone.

Prof. Rick's quote of the day: "Ethos"

Amazing Feets [work]
Shark jumps Bronze Fonz while Bronze Fonz jumping shark

"[T]he left has taken one more step from the rule of law, civility and an ethos of mutual respect." — the professor of the law who called Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi, Dane County District Attorney Ismail Ozanne, et al, "schoolchildren" and "gradeschoolers."

Well played, sir, well played.

Prof. Rick is another fine product of Journal Communications, Inc.
Oh, look, and Fox News. Surprise!

N.B. The above Fox News column is a blinding glimpse of the bleedin' obvious, so it's not a surprise that Fox News readers would require it.

Special Prossercutor requested

Via the indispensable Wheeler Report.

Ozanne: "Process matters." To some of us, at least, it does.

A corporation, but not a Gableman, is a person

CAPITOL KAOS

A person may request the supreme court to take jurisdiction of an original action by filing a petition which may be supported by a memorandum. — Wis. Stat. § 809.70

Bet you didn't know that person could be Mike Gableman.

Until yesterday, to be sure, when neither did anybody else.

A person may request the court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction or its original jurisdiction to issue a prerogative writ over a court and the presiding judge, or other person or body, by filing a petition and supporting memorandum. — § 809.51

That is, § 809.70 or § 809.71. Either one or the other. Not and. I refer the reader to the small catalog of propositional operators contained in any introductory text on logic, beginning from Aristotle's (c. 360 BCE).

Now Huebsch (by his counsel the Department of Justice) is a person:

PETITION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT PURSUANT TO WIS. STAT.
§ 809.71 — State ex rel. Michael D. Huebsch, 04.07.2011

Yet the following appeared at 4:45 p.m. on June 14, in an unsigned order of the court but reputedly the handiwork of Mike Gableman:

On June 6, 2011, this court ... heard argument addressing whether the court should accept either the certification or the petition for supervisory/original jurisdiction or both; the court also heard argument on the merits of the pending matters.

The certification was a separate case, and was dismissed. The forward slash conjoining 'supervisory' to 'original' is a fabrication from whole cloth. So-called conservative jurisprudence by typographical insertion.

In the Wisconsin statutes, the distinction between the court's supervisory and original jurisdictions is codified by their separate numberings:
§ 809.70 and § 809.71. The Department of Justice chose the latter.

It would not have occurred to the Department of Justice to petition the court to take jurisdiction of an original action because Ozanne v. Fitzgerald could not, obviously, be an original action for the purposes of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Hence the supervisory petition.

¶7 This court has granted the petition for an original action ...

No such petition existed, until the Gableman court manufactured it.

WMC's Mike Gableman, who a three-appellate-judge panel found in 2009 to have violated two separate provisions of the Wisconsin code of judicial ethics (Gableman was a judge on an "inferior court" — as Kevin St. John would have it — at the time) campaigned on a political platform of "strict constructionism" and the faithful adherence to legal texts.

Evidently those were lies as well.

And this is not the first time that Gableman has conjured a creative interpretation of the Supreme Court's jurisdictional authorities. The present instance is not of judicial activism, but of judicial arrogance.

Ironically, Gableman's cohort Justice Prosser purports to justify the court's exercising original jurisdiction by mysterious reference to the State constitution, according to an apparently broad reading of that document, or precisely that manner of reading denied to the people of Wisconsin, who sought only a reasonable — indeed, a practically de minimis — access to the legislative activities of their representatives.

The Republican legislative leaders betrayed even that.

Of course the largest irony of all is that the Gableman court attempts to validate its fiat on separation of powers grounds, but yesterday's decree indicates nothing except an amalgamation of partisan, political powers.

This space will return at the end of the month, fully recharged.

Shorter Huebsch v. Sumi

If you don't have time to watch yesterday's entire marathon Wisconsin Supreme Court oral arguments, just watch these three lawyers.

Wisconsin Eye Part 2 of 3:

01:07:44 — Robert Jambois, counsel for Rep. Peter Barca
01:33:12 — Lester Pines, counsel for Sen. Mark Miller
02:05:18 — Roger Sage, counsel for Sec. of State Doug La Follette

Mr. Sage's presentation might be said to be optional, as he is addressing the question of whether 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 was published in the constitutional sense, and you already know all about that. In fact many of the issues raised by Messrs. Jambois and Pines would already be familiar to regular readers of this here blog. And while the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is reporting that the justices "expressed skepticism" toward the reasoning contained in Judge Sumi's temporary and final rulings, which is true to some extent, you won't hear much skepticism from the bench during either the Jambois or the Pines presentations.

And while the Journal-Sentinel reports* that "the most aggressive questioning came from Justice Michael Gableman," it came during the presentation of Dane County DA Ismail Ozanne (00:01:18) who, with all due respect, is probably less used to addressing the structural constitutional questions at issue in these two consolidated cases.

Last night apparently there were some rumors circulating that the court was preparing to vacate Judge Sumi's ruling, which would have the effect of codifying 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.** If that were to come to pass, I suspect the law might again be enjoined immediately, on the same factual grounds its publication was enjoined in the first place. And the said codification would have the effect of rendering Gableman's objections moot almost in their totality, insofar as those objections were grounded in the beloved 1943 case Goodland v. Zimmerman, which teaches that a court may not interfere with the legislative process until a bill becomes law (that is, in Wisconsin, once its publication is made).

Gableman's apparent objections appear to presume that the trial court, where Judge Sumi presides, is a rule-making authority rather than a circuit court making a narrow decision based only on the facts presented in evidence to that particular court.*** In other words, the concerns expressed by Gableman and appearing in the lead paragraphs of the Journal-Sentinel report are representative of a slippery slope fallacy.

Generally courts do not make rulings grounded in logical fallacies.

But you never know, with this one.

In any event, the guy you have to watch is Justice Patrick Crooks, who raised concerns similar to those of my friend Bill Tyroler, who suggests that the authority conferred on the district attorney by the Open Meetings Law to challenge the constitutionality of the legislative process is itself an unconstitutional delegation of power by the legislature to the executive branch, under which auspices the district attorney operates.

As this space has been observing practically since the outset of this controversy, it seems to me the only way the court can vacate Judge Sumi's very conservative, very restrained reasoning is to find the provisions of the Open Meetings Law upon which Judge Sumi relied to be themselves violative of judge-made — or at least judge-inferred — constitutional law doctrine. Why the Wisconsin Department of Justice is pursuing the objective of restricting public access to the operation of State government is either a mystery or completely typical and expected of the Republican Scott Walker administration and its disciples and allies.

* And once again, it is simply not correct to say that Judge Sumi was "allowed" to file a legal brief further to building maintenance supervisor Mike Huebsch's petition to the Supreme Court for a supervisory writ directed at Judge Sumi. Judge Sumi was ordered by the Supreme Court to file the brief. And now she is being criticized for not disobeying that order. This is how absurd the Wisconsin Department of Justice, under the direction of Deputy Attorney General Kevin St. John, has become.

** a.k.a. "legislating from the bench."

*** Among the more amusing moments during yesterday's proceedings was when Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson directed Deputy AG St. John to cease and desist from referring to the circuit court as an "inferior court." The circuit court's function is different; it is not "inferior." And indeed the expression "inferior court" is plucked from federal law — which has no bearing on the cases at bar — where it appears in the federal Constitution. In fact, as this space has pointed out previously, despite the U.S. Constitution's reference to "inferior courts" which may be created from time to time by the Congress, the Article III judicial power inheres equally among the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeal, and the United States District Courts (the parallel entities to the State circuit courts). Shirley is the best.

St. John, like many a right-wing ideologue, is a devotee of ad hominem.

Brief No. 1 in Ozanne v. Fitzgerald

Via the indispensable Wheeler Report (.pdf; 30 pgs.).

Following a quick skim I'm here to tell you that it's safe to say its authors got beyond "a publication that is sent to schoolchildren."

Wis. AG JBVH's response is due by 05/18.