March 29, 2008

CFAF "deemed" criminally inept: Part 6

Herewith, our next top ten. It's long but, I trust, entertaining as all hell. Or at least as entertaining as it is to me. Enjoy.

21. State v. Brown 2005AP584-CR

Easy one. Brown was returned unceremoniously to the jug after violating the terms of his extended supervision. From the circuit court to the court of appeals to a unanimous Supreme Court to CFAF, all agreed: Justice Louis Butler laid a smackdown on an eeeevil criminal. Defendant Brown, J.C., dissenting.

22. State v. Lord 2005AP1485-CR

Aww, things were going so well there for a moment and now CFAF is back to its old, disputatious self. Butler counts this in his favor, law enforcement-wise. CFAF? Well, CFAF is on crack, not to put too fine a point on it. How in the tarnation can CFAF "deems w/ Criminal" a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court granting an appeal by the STATE OF WISCONSIN of a court of appeals decision that the State of Wisconsin had WON?!

Yes, the defendant had also petitioned for review and the Supreme Court had granted it, but check it: "The State's concession that the legal principle adopted by the court of appeals is an incorrect statement of law effectively eliminates the issue upon which the petition for review was granted."

That means that, in light of the State's motion to reverse the court of appeals decision after conceding to the defendant that the court of appeals decision was inconsistent with controlling U.S. Supreme Court caselaw, the Wisconsin Supreme Court here is essentially saying, 'State? Hello? Why didn't you figure that out before we granted the defendant's petition for review? Because if you had, we never would have granted the defendant's petition in the first place.'

So if State v. Lord is "pro-criminal" in any sense at all, it's the State — the executive branch, and not even the judicial branch, let alone Justice Butler — that is the "pro-criminal" party here because it was the State that agreed with the defendant's argument that the lower court's decision was inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court. This case should not have even got to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in short.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court gave the defendant NOTHING. And now CFAF expects to count this case against Justice Butler's record in criminal cases. Somebody needs their head examined here. I won't say who. I won't even give you their initials. But I will say that part of their name is FAMILIES. And they should go home and be with theirs and stop lying about a sitting Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's reputation.

Did CFAF actually even read any of these cases? It appears that they didn't.

23. State v. Kasmarek 2004AP3285-CR

Another perfect example of CFAF's deliberate attempt to massage the numbers in order to misrepresent Justice Butler's record.

"This was a petition for review and not included by CFAF." lmfao! What in the Sam Hill does CFAF think a petition for review is? It's a request by a defendant to have the Supreme Court review a circuit court's judgment of conviction against the defendant! And in Kasmarek, as in many other cases, it's a petition for review of the court of appeals affirmation of the circuit court's judgment of conviction.

What happened in Kasmarek is this. Kasmarek was convicted in the circuit court. He then asked the court of appeals to review his conviction. The court of appeals told him to go pound sand. Then Kasmarek asked the Supreme Court to review the court of appeals decision, based on certain specific questions of law. The Supreme Court said, "Hmm, this could be interesting. Let's let Kasmarek try and make his case." Lawyers for both sides prepared their written briefs and submitted them to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court even set aside time on its schedule for oral argument, and oral argument was heard. In short, a hell of a lot of court and other resources were expended.

The Supreme Court then returned to its chambers and reviewed the entire record as it then stood. Having done so, the Supreme Court then determined: 'What the ?! This character not only didn't make a convincing argument on those certain specific questions of law we granted this review to hear, he didn't even ADDRESS them.'

Finally, in State v. Kasmarek 2004AP3285-CR the Supreme Court, in another per curiam opinion, declared, 'Hey, Dude? Don't go away mad, just go away.'


Yet CFAF, to coin a phrase "summarily dismisses" Kasmarek in order to deliberately manipulate the numbers in a deceitful ploy to try and support its initial lie that Butler "sides with criminals 60% of the time."

I'm getting near to running out of adjectives to describe CFAF's laughable project already, but here's a new one: Woeful. As in woefully inept. And, ultimately, as I have been saying all along, deliberately misleading.

An interim recap is in order at this point. CFAF lied. CFAF got called on its lie. CFAF is desperately attempting to support its lie by any means necessary. And has failed miserably. And this series of posts is demonstrating how CFAF has failed miserably at every step of the way. Also, recall, it was CFAF in the first place that made the ridiculous decision to try and place a "percentage" to Justice Butler's record.

And lately, in a truly astonishing development, a professor of law at Marquette University has taken it upon himself to try and justify Jessica McBride, who is obviously relying on precisely the same disingenuous method as is CFAF. Prof. Esenberg warns me to stop conflating CFAF and Jessica McBride. I can't help but conflate them, because McBride has reached precisely the same figure as CFAF (58%), and Jessica McBride has systematically removed from the Butler campaign's list of cases precisely the same cases that CFAF removed to get to that same figure. That is a fact.

Let me remind Prof. Esenberg that I'm under no obligation to show him CFAF's version of the Butler list, as he's demanded several times. He'll just have to trust me, as a fellow sworn member of the Wisconsin bar, that I have it right here on my desk beside my well-worn pocket copy of the United States Constitution.

And my Roget's, through which I'm searching for more synonyms for "comical."

24. State v. Campbell 2004AP803-CR

I needn't say anything further about Campbell. See this post, and do try and contain your mirth. Thank you in advance.

25. State v. Kelty 2003AP3055-CR

Kelty attempted to withdraw her guilty pleas to two counts of reckless injury, for which she was convicted by the circuit court. The circuit court denied her motion. Kelty went to the court of appeals, which reversed the circuit court. The State of Wisconsin, that is, law enforcement, desiring to reinstate Kelty's convictions, appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a UNANIMOUS opinion obviously involving not only Justice Butler but its most "conservative" members, reversed the court of appeals and reinstated both Kelty's guilty pleas and her two convictions.

Justice Butler, as is often his wont, took it upon himself to concur and write separately to thoughtfully and cogently discuss a technical point of substantive and procedural law that arose as a corollary to this case's central issue: the two convictions, which Butler voted to UPHOLD.

Kelty's initial motion to withdraw her guilty plea was filed after her conviction and indeed, after her sentencing. Prof. Esenberg has suggested that Justice Butler should only be able to use those cases that directly challenge the convictions themselves to defend himself against the scurrilous attacks of his detractors. Kelty would be one of those cases that Esenberg's suggestion would exclude.

As I have said repeatedly here and at Prof. Esenberg's own blog, the conviction is the central element of every criminal case. But in this case, Kelty was using her guilty pleas to attack the convictions. In other cases, convicted defendants use questions of, for example, admissibility of evidence at trial to attack the conviction. The conviction is the target, it is the goal. I can't think of a better case to illustrate this obvious fact of criminal law than State v. Kelty. And this is precisely why Justice Butler has used convictions as the denominator. Because they are, undeniably, the denominator.

Prof. Esenberg, on the other hand, actually defers to a partisan hack's thus far unrevealed methodology. It's absolutely astounding.

Having said all that, for its part, CFAF does not dispute Kelty.

26. State v. Young 2003AP2968-CR

Yet another clear demonstration of CFAF's lies. I had discussed this case earlier, in Part 2 of this series. It's worth repeating here, just in case anyone missed it.
Another reason why CFAF may have removed the [conviction/count] numbers [from its "analysis'] is that they knew what they meant, but they removed them so they could scam, scam, and scam some more. Because, as I mentioned in Part 1 of this series, where a case is numbered, for example, (2:1), that means there was three convictions and Butler voted to affirm two of the convictions but reverse one.

And then Butler could go on, in his typically incisive and rigorously logical way, to break down each of the four statutory elements of the conviction he wanted to reverse and argue why the conviction couldn't stand, not because the United States Constitution protects "criminals," but because it protects ALL AMERICANS and if other Americans were subjected to the rule announced by the majority, then probably even CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN FAMILY VALUES PEOPLE might be troubled..

Not only that, but of those three convictions, maybe the two Butler affirmed were the two serious ones, like maybe a dope possession and a resisting arrest, but the one he wanted to reverse was a relatively piddling obstruction charge, and maybe even that charge was so slight and questionable, it was crying out for a closer look.

And, even then, Butler might look at those four statutory elements and agree that the State proved the first two no problem, but faltered on the third, and explain in great detail why, with constant references, naturally, to the requirements of the Constitution.

You could say, Justice Butler might do that. But did he actually do that? And the answer is, yes, that's exactly what he did, in a case called State v. Young, in which Butler even poses the following question for the ages: "Would wearing a cheesehead provide a sufficient basis for a lawful stop in another state?"

And what, pray tell, did CFAF do with State v. Young? As should be painfully obvious by now, CFAF "deemed w/ Criminal." 100% of Young, "deemed w/ Criminal." That, my dear friends, is yet another example of CFAF's scammy scamming scammery. And there are more to come.

Please don't forget also that Mike Gableman, who apparently is a "candidate" to replace Justice Butler, was relying on that sort of garbage when he started — and continued — to repeat CFAF's fatuous and misleading data mining.
Enough said. Yet there is more to be said. Much more.

27. State v. Brown 2003AP2662-CR

CFAF disputes Butler's claim that Brown did not reverse the defendant's three convictions.

If one accepts that Brown contributes to Justice Butler's "pro-criminality," as CFAF so "deems," then likewise does it to Justices Prosser and Wilcox, precisely the judges that Mike Gableman would like to compare himself with, in "stark contrast" to Justice Butler. Sorry, CFAF, but you can't have it every which way but truthful.

All the court allowed was that Brown must receive a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. That's it. The Brown court, including Butler, did not grant Brown's motion. In fact the court did not even address the merits of Brown's motion. It simply addressed the standard by which the circuit court should decide whether to merely grant a hearing, at which Brown could try to make his case why his pleas should be withdrawn. On this narrow question, supported by a lengthy constitutional and precedential analysis, the Supreme Court determined that the circuit court had erred in denying Brown a hearing.

Once again, as in a number of the other cases where Butler joined the most conservative members of the court, Brown grants the defendant nothing more than a fair hearing. If he fails to make his case convincingly, and/or the State persuades the circuit court that Brown's motion has insufficient merit, then Brown is dead in the water on this question. But all those further determinations are made by courts upon which Justice Butler does not sit. And obviously, in the meantime, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, Brown's three convictions remain 100% intact.

Pro-criminal? Spare me. Pro-constitutional right to a fair hearing of grievances, a right enjoyed by every single American.

Justice Butler is absolutely correct to categorize this case as he did, and CFAF is fatuous to attempt otherwise.

28. State v. Bonds 2005AP948-CR

In an extremely close call (Bonds contains three separate opinions) the Supreme Court reverses the court of appeals, over an amendment to the original criminal complaint against Bonds executed after Bonds had been convicted. The amendment to the criminal complaint concerned Bonds's designation as a habitual offender. A very interesting case indeed, especially for criminal law wonks, although Butler did not write any of the opinions, but rather joined both the majority and the Chief Justice's concurring opinion.

For our purposes, however, there is no controversy, Butler's list places Brown as "pro-defendant" and CFAF agrees.

And I'll say it again. Of course CFAF agrees. They agree with every single case that Butler designates as such. CFAF only disputes, ignores, or otherwise misrepresents only those cases it needs to dispute to duplicitously lie in support of its original bogus claim. As I have demonstrated time and time again. And will continue to demonstrate.

29. State v. Walker 2004AP2820-CR

In yet another of the seemingly endless parade of CFAF misrepresentations, CFAF "deems w/ Criminal" a sentencing case, which doesn't even deal with Walker's conviction, save for mentioning it twice in the course of the standard reiteration of the history of Walker's entire case. Needless to say, Walker's conviction remained 100% intact, exactly as Justice Butler has claimed. And, once again, Butler joined a UNANIMOUS court in leaving that conviction intact, but simply directing the circuit court to straighten out the details of Walker's sentencing.

Yet supporters of Mike Gableman continue to insist Justice Butler is lying. Disgraceful.

30. State v. Roberson 2003AP2802-CR

Butler, for the majority, writes to affirm the court of appeals decision which itself affirms Roberson's judgment of conviction. The Chief Justice dissents, joined by Justice Bradley. Why is this significant? Because Butler's critics will tell you that Butler is the most "liberal" member of the court. But in Roberson, Butler didn't just join the court's most "conservative" members as is often the case, and as the careful reader may have noted, but the most conservative members joined Butler. In full.

A hapless CFAF agrees, a fact that itself seems almost remarkable at this point.

Thank you all for reading, and please stay tuned for the next installment in the continuing saga of laughable ineptness and outright character assassination attempted against a sitting Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, an experienced jurist of the highest intellectual quality and integrity and complete devotion to our sacrosanct constitutional principles who this great State should be proud to have serving on its highest court. And it should, without question, vote to keep him there on Tuesday.

The fact that his opponent has repeatedly and convincingly demonstrated his obvious unsuitability to replace Justice Butler is just gravy.

And please don't forget that the aforementioned and the forthcoming outrages are being perpetrated by a conservative Republican "family values" outfit and their little supporters and enablers, now caught with its baggy clown pants down and its lying ass exposed.


To part 7 ...

No comments: