March 31, 2008

CFAF "deemed" criminally inept Part 10

The following is relatively brief, since there remain few points of disagreement between CFAF and Justice Butler's lists, yet the ones that do remain are as goofy and negligently inept as any of those preceding, if not necessarily quite as reprehensible. And even in those instances, I pledge to keep my observations brief, since I've pretty much already said all that needs be said.

Furthermore, if I haven't convinced you yet of my two theses, (1) that CFAF's (and that of at least one other) entire project is a phony and disingenuous house of GOP cards erected on rotten stilts and (2) that statements from the Butler campaign further to the question of Justice Butler's recorded disposition in cases involving currently and formerly designated offenders are substantially correct (in fact, to within less than two percentage points, even if you add two cases to Butler's list of 70 that have purely to do with sentencing questions and nothing to do with either convictions or even procedural issues related to the convictions at all) then not only should I give up now, I should have given up long ago. But I started the job and I intend to finish it.

I take care to stress that last proposition in any event, just in case any potential employers and/or clients have been stopping by for a gander, in which case my little series may hopefully be the most elaborate job application and résumé ever constructed in the whole history of biological evolution on our fair and fertile planet.

Thus, as we say in this great and privileged State of the Union, Forward!

51. State v. Raye 2004AP770-CR

Justice Butler joins in its entirety another unanimous opinion reversing a drunk driving conviction. No concurring opinions are issued; in other words, Butler is in complete, unequivocal agreement with the most "conservative" members of the court.

CFAF, having disgorged nearly the entire contents of its briefcase full of trickery, assents.

At what point do we get to call CFAF and Friends, "Loophole Republicans," by the way? A long, long time ago, I reckon. Except in another ancient context, it was as a compliment. So scratch that idea.

52. State v. Wagner 2003AP1878-CR

Another terse, per curiam opinion of the court dismissing Wagner's petition for review of the court of appeals decision, which had affirmed his judgment of conviction in the circuit court for armed robbery. CFAF once again desperately seeks to remove an example of Justice Butler's ultimately "siding with law enforcement" simply because Wagner failed to make the case he had promised to make when the court originally granted review, called for written briefs, and even heard oral argument.

CFAF wants you to think that simply because the Supreme Court did not address the merits of whatever claim Wagner was making, that either his conviction was not effectively affirmed by Justice Butler and the rest of the court (which it was) or else was loosed by Justice Butler and at this moment outside lying in wait in your front yard hedge seeking to relieve you of your Karl Lagerfeld handbag at gunpoint.

Either way, CFAF can go pound sand you-know-where, and it's entirely legitimate for Justice Butler to count Wagner for the reason set forth above: The convicted defendant got nothing from any of the courts, including the one on which Butler sits, in the course of challenging his conviction. CFAF's goofball shenanigans do not even rise to the level of being a nice try. Oh, and, don't forget to check out the overwhelmingly significant -CR suffix beside the docket number.

53. State v. Moeck 2003AP000002-CR
54. State v. Anderson 2003AP3478-CR
55. State v. Reed 2003AP1781-CR
56. State v. DeLain 2003AP1253-CR
57. State v. Sykes 2003AP1234-CR

None of the currently interested parties disagree over any of the immediately preceding five cases, and a splendid family values-laden time was had by all.

Nonetheless, special attention is afforded the last of the five, arising as a contemplated action further to a certain identically-named defendant's repeated and ongoing intentional assault and battery against the Truth, the successful prosecution of which often figures prominently and occasionally causatively in the nocturnal emissions of local lefty bloggers.

58. State v. Trujillo 2003AP1463-CR
59. State v. Tucker 2003AP1276-CR

These are the two sentencing cases referenced above, in which Justice Butler wrote identical dissents. More correctly, the dissent in Tucker simply says, in essence, 'See my dissent in Trujillo.' Or is it the other way around. I don't remember. Because it doesn't matter anyway, again, as noted above.

60. State v. Stuart 2001AP1345-CR

See cases 53. through 57., inclusive. Won't you please kiss a family (values) member today (unless they're a conservative Republican, in which case, pretend you don't even know them).

Okay, that's enough for now.

Usinger's Bratwurst, meet Frank's Polish Kraut.


To part 11 ...


Display Name said...

A deserved brat and a beer for you, iT, the effort is greatly appreciated by all three of us loyal readers. If Butler ever has to run again, you've assembled a great foundation of critique to prevent CFAF-style attacks in the future.

For bratwurst lore, I recommend The Bratwurst Pages. Google-ranked #2 for "bratwurst", just behind Wikipedia, a web site built and tested here in the Gemuetlichkeit City. I wrote about it here.

illusory tenant said...

Thank you, my good and most amusing man.

Other Side said...

A mighty thanks from me as well. Your stupendous effort has convinced me to reopen Other Side (in a few days).

Thanks for that and ... You should be proud to be the champagne of hate blogs. For myself, I content myself to being the prune juice of hate blogs due to my aversion to putting up with their shit.

illusory tenant said...

lol no, thanks for that.

So great to hear the photoshopping shall continue as well.

Anonymous said...

My hat's off to you, iT. Never before have I seen such a thorough and wholly successful debunking of the malevolent, shamelessly partisan nonsense that features so prominently in state supreme court races nowadays. Magnificent work, my friend.

Prediction for tomorrow: Butler - 64%, Gableman 36%

illusory tenant said...

Thanks man.