For my money, Bill Lueders and John Nichols are the two best political writers living in Wisconsin.
But I was stunned to read Lueders’ piece, “In Defense of Annette Ziegler,” in which Lueders calls Nichols’ criticism of Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler’s admitted conflicts of interests “way overblown,” “unfair,” and motivated by hostility toward Ziegler’s “ideology.”
Lueders’ acknowledges “… Ziegler was wrong to preside over cases in which she had an undisclosed personal connection to one of the parties. Her poor judgment was exacerbated by her initial refusal to admit she'd done anything wrong. …”
Wrong? A more apt description of Ziegler’s judicial misconduct is appalling, and contrary to settled law and ethical rules that specifically call for judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.
Lueders knows better than most the violence that can be inflicted upon citizens by officials at all levels of law enforcement and the judiciary in civil and criminal litigation.
Judges have the power to interpret and apply the law, and the affirmative duty to maintain an ethical commitment to impartiality without which judicial rulings are an assault on the political body—that’s us.
Ziegler failed that duty, over and over, and this ought to disqualify her from sitting on the state’s highest bench, making judicial policy, whatever the recommended ruling of a judicial panel. [From the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign: Attorneys who violate rules governing their professional behavior and ethics – or who even fail to pay their annual State Bar dues on time – get stiffer punishment than the penalties being recommended for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler who had economic conflicts of interest in dozens of cases she handled as a circuit court judge, according to a Wisconsin Democracy Campaign review. ]
WMC
Lueders aims his harshest attack on Nichols’ condemnations centering on Ziegler’s hearing a case involving Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), which any serious political observer will tell you, paid for the election of Ziegler to the Court.
Writes Lueders:
When Ziegler agreed to hear a case involving Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), the big-business lobby group that spent more than $2 million to get her elected (more than her own campaign's record-breaking sum), The Cap Times was apoplectic.
… The objections being sounded by The Cap Times and others have everything to do with ideology. If a liberal justice committed the same indiscretions, WMC would be demanding her resignation and The Cap Times would be saying it was not a big deal.
Fine, let Lueders cite another judge who has heard (without notifying the litigants) over 50 cases in which her/his family has a financial stake, who lied about it repeatedly during the campaign for Supreme Court, and who after the election hears a case on which the lobbying entity that elected (or rather just paid $2 million in ads favorable to her election) her has a clear financial interest; and then let’s read the resulting criticism or cite the absence of it. Lueders cites no such judge.
Lueders concludes:
But it was the voters of Wisconsin, not WMC, who elected Annette Ziegler — and by a wide margin. If they were paying attention, they would have known about her conflicts and her “I'm with you” signals to conservatives. But they either didn't know or didn't care.
If we want a different system, we should fight for it. … In the meantime, we'll continue to get justices like Annette Ziegler. In other words, we'll get the justices we deserve.
No, the Supreme Court has the power right now to suspend or expel Ziegler whom we do not deserve.
And though Ziegler is certainly not alone in hearing cases in which litigants have contributed money in or advocated in the political system for a subsequently sitting judge, and public financing is certainly needed, the confluence of Ziegler’s misconduct, her lying about it, and her refusal to recuse herself from the WMC-related case, has diluted the confidence of the public in an impartial judiciary and ought to disqualify her from sitting on the state’s highest court.
If such an expulsion were to result in shining the light on other judicial misconduct and political corruption, so much the better.
###
Showing posts with label Annette Ziegler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Annette Ziegler. Show all posts
Dec 6, 2007
Ziegler Corruption Gets National Spotlight
James Sample, counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, is introducing the nation to the ethics of the Wisconsin judiciary.
And it's not pretty.
Sample's Can $2 Million For a Judge Buy a $350 Million Tax Refund? rips Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler's corruption and the system allowing her to continue in her position.
Sample sees the Ziegler affair as emblematic of a national trend as state judicial systems become corrupt political machines.
Writes Sample:
In short, the influence of big money in our nation's state courts is nearing the point where, well, "you're going to want to tell your great grandkids about what happened to the rule of law in America back in the day."
While the outside threats to judicial independence are serious and metastasizing, the unfortunate -- and for many, uncomfortable -- fact is that the de-legitimizing of America's courts is at least partly an inside job.
When judges fail to police themselves, and when the judiciary fails to adequately police the judges who fail to police themselves, we all lose. For the most recent case in point, we turn to a blizzard of news amidst last week's blizzards in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin serves as the latest reminder that bias and/or the appearance of bias is not limited to duck-hunting. Sometimes, as in the case of now-Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, Annette Ziegler, it involves ruling on cases involving a bank that your husband helps to run, or ruling on cases involving a company in which you own $50,0000 in stock, or, one week ago, sitting on a case involving an organization that spent $2 million -- more than the total expenditures of your entire campaign -- to help get you elected. The last of these instances led to a flurry of editorials in Wisconsin urging her to step down from the case, and even from the bench.
Justice Ziegler is merely one acute illustration of an increasingly chronic problem. Indeed, for the last few years, now-Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier was Exhibit A for the failure of the rules of self-policed judicial disqualification to keep pace with a rising tide of money in judicial elections. Alas, it appears that his judicial colleague to the north, Justice Ziegler, is on pace to give him a run for the, um, money.
In almost every state in the country, including Wisconsin, the general standard on recusal closely mirrors that of the American Bar Association -- namely that a "judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."For political candidates, money is oxygen. And in a $5 million race, $2 million buys a lot of breathing.
As detailed in the press stories, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce spent more than $2 million last spring supporting Justice Ziegler. Now, it has filed a brief and helped to finance the appeal of a case that could trigger an estimated $350 million in tax refunds to businesses. Justice Ziegler has declined to recuse herself. So let's take those words for a test drive: might it be reasonable to question Justice Ziegler's impartiality under the circumstances?
###
And it's not pretty.
Sample's Can $2 Million For a Judge Buy a $350 Million Tax Refund? rips Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler's corruption and the system allowing her to continue in her position.
Sample sees the Ziegler affair as emblematic of a national trend as state judicial systems become corrupt political machines.
Writes Sample:
In short, the influence of big money in our nation's state courts is nearing the point where, well, "you're going to want to tell your great grandkids about what happened to the rule of law in America back in the day."
While the outside threats to judicial independence are serious and metastasizing, the unfortunate -- and for many, uncomfortable -- fact is that the de-legitimizing of America's courts is at least partly an inside job.
When judges fail to police themselves, and when the judiciary fails to adequately police the judges who fail to police themselves, we all lose. For the most recent case in point, we turn to a blizzard of news amidst last week's blizzards in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin serves as the latest reminder that bias and/or the appearance of bias is not limited to duck-hunting. Sometimes, as in the case of now-Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, Annette Ziegler, it involves ruling on cases involving a bank that your husband helps to run, or ruling on cases involving a company in which you own $50,0000 in stock, or, one week ago, sitting on a case involving an organization that spent $2 million -- more than the total expenditures of your entire campaign -- to help get you elected. The last of these instances led to a flurry of editorials in Wisconsin urging her to step down from the case, and even from the bench.
Justice Ziegler is merely one acute illustration of an increasingly chronic problem. Indeed, for the last few years, now-Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier was Exhibit A for the failure of the rules of self-policed judicial disqualification to keep pace with a rising tide of money in judicial elections. Alas, it appears that his judicial colleague to the north, Justice Ziegler, is on pace to give him a run for the, um, money.
In almost every state in the country, including Wisconsin, the general standard on recusal closely mirrors that of the American Bar Association -- namely that a "judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."For political candidates, money is oxygen. And in a $5 million race, $2 million buys a lot of breathing.
As detailed in the press stories, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce spent more than $2 million last spring supporting Justice Ziegler. Now, it has filed a brief and helped to finance the appeal of a case that could trigger an estimated $350 million in tax refunds to businesses. Justice Ziegler has declined to recuse herself. So let's take those words for a test drive: might it be reasonable to question Justice Ziegler's impartiality under the circumstances?
###
Nov 30, 2007
Cap. Times Calls for Ziegler Resignation
The Capital Times became the first daily newspaper to call for the resignation of Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Annette Ziegler.
We can expect more calls for Ziegler's resignation to follow in the coming months.
Ziegler, elected in the spring of 2007, was hit with denunciations for her conduct as a Washington County judge during her successful campaign that drew little attention from Wisconsin voters.
Ziegler, in violation of Wisconsin judicial conflict of interest rules, presided over dozens of cases in which her family had a financial interest, and failed to disclose to the litigants the conflicts in each case.
Now, Ziegler, awaiting discipline for her conduct on the bench as a county judge, is taking criticism for refusing to recuse herself, as a current Supreme Court justice, from a case that is a high priority of the corporate lobbying group, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, that spent over $2 million (surpassing the amount spent by Ziegler’s campaign) to elect Ziegler to her current judgeship.
Excerpts from the editorial:
Should the Supreme Court, as widely expected, not expel Ziegler (and Ziegler’s resignation is possible, but not likely), the perceived integrity and impartiality of the judiciary will sink to the level of the most cynical of politicians.
Should Wisconsin citizens then decide that Ziegler's current term (set to expire on July 31, 2017) is too long to bear, a citizen recall requiring over 500,000 signatures in a given 60-day period is the only recourse to rid our state of this disgrace to the cause of judicial integrity.
###
We can expect more calls for Ziegler's resignation to follow in the coming months.
Ziegler, elected in the spring of 2007, was hit with denunciations for her conduct as a Washington County judge during her successful campaign that drew little attention from Wisconsin voters.
Ziegler, in violation of Wisconsin judicial conflict of interest rules, presided over dozens of cases in which her family had a financial interest, and failed to disclose to the litigants the conflicts in each case.
Now, Ziegler, awaiting discipline for her conduct on the bench as a county judge, is taking criticism for refusing to recuse herself, as a current Supreme Court justice, from a case that is a high priority of the corporate lobbying group, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, that spent over $2 million (surpassing the amount spent by Ziegler’s campaign) to elect Ziegler to her current judgeship.
Excerpts from the editorial:
Scandal-plagued Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler has refused to recuse herself from deliberations on a tax case that is a top priority of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the corporate lobbying group that spent more than $2 million to aid her election bid earlier this year.
In so doing, she has confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that she lacks not just the integrity but the judgment that must always be required of a jurist.
Ziegler does not merely refuse to embrace even the most basic standards of legal ethics. Her actions of recent days indicate that she does not even understand those standards.
It is for this reason that Ziegler must leave the Supreme Court bench. ...
As a national watchdog on judicial ethics issues, James Sample, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, has observed, "The argument could certainly be made that it would be reasonable to question her impartiality (in this case)."
But we don't have to take Sample's word for it. Ziegler has effectively admitted the conflict.
Early in November, the justice disclosed in a letter to lawyers representing the parties involved in the case that WMC had been a key supporter of her campaign. But the letter from Ziegler, whose shamelessness has extended to openly lying to the voters of Wisconsin about the facts of her ethical abuses, also informed the lawyers that she intended to participate in deliberations regarding the tax case.
That combination of an admission of a conflict and a refusal to recuse is what disqualifies Ziegler from further service on the court. And if she does not recognize that fact, then the other justices must speak up to assert a basic standard of judicial responsibility. ...
It does not matter what the court decides in this specific case. The damage runs deeper. When a justice admits to a conflict in a case and then goes ahead and participates in deliberations regarding that case, the whole matter of the high court's legitimacy as a fair arbiter of legal disputes is called into question. ...
Should the Supreme Court, as widely expected, not expel Ziegler (and Ziegler’s resignation is possible, but not likely), the perceived integrity and impartiality of the judiciary will sink to the level of the most cynical of politicians.
Should Wisconsin citizens then decide that Ziegler's current term (set to expire on July 31, 2017) is too long to bear, a citizen recall requiring over 500,000 signatures in a given 60-day period is the only recourse to rid our state of this disgrace to the cause of judicial integrity.
###
Justice Ziegler Makes Another Corrupt Decision
Reform needed now. From One Wisconsin Now:
by Cory Liebmann
Ziegler Has Not Learned Her Lesson: Exhibit A
Last week Annette Ziegler sat at a public hearing of her conflicts scandal while her attorney admitted that she "made a mistake." He implied that she actually has learned a lesson from the "mistake" and that was part of the reason that she should not receive strong disciplinary action for her repeated violations. Any idea that Justice Ziegler has learned anything at all from her conflicts scandal is shattered by her decision to participate tomorrow in a case before the State Supreme Court.
The case is the result of a tax dispute between the state and Neenah-based Menasha Corporation. According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's database, the former CEO and board member of the company gave campaign cash to Ziegler earlier this year. Further, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce has been very vocal in support of Menasha Corporation and against the State of Wisconsin. They have gone so far as to file a legal brief in the matter. How could anyone forget the major role that WMC played while Ziegler was running for the high court? They spent an unprecedented $2 million-plus to get Ziegler elected! That was almost as much as both campaigns combined, and it was enough to drown out new of her ethical problems!
WMC's agenda seems very clear to even a casual observer. They essentially are trying to buy off our judicial system from all angles. They "invested" a ton of cash into Ziegler and no doubt expect her to be on this case and to be their rubber stamp. They also "invested" major dollars into the campaign of State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, who now stands mute and has not asked Ziegler to recuse herself in tomorrow's case. It is his job to represent the State of Wisconsin in this case, yet he is not acting in the State's best interests by remaining silent. Who is he really working for? Who is he really representing?
The limitless supply of corporate cash is really showing the negative impact that it has on some elected officials. Justice Ziegler is in the middle of an ethics scandal and faces serious discipline, yet she seems willing to sit on this case in which she has very clear conflicts. She has recused herself from other cases when they involved campaign contributors so why not now when it involves entities that have given her (or spent on her behalf) so much more money? If Justice Ziegler goes through with hearing tomorrow's case, her attorney's words to the judicial panel will ring much more hollow. Is she serious about avoiding conflicts of interest? We will find out when she either sits on the case or recuses herself tomorrow.
There is not much time, but we are asking for people to sign our online petition, demanding that Justice Ziegler to the right thing and recuse herself from this case. Please sign this petition today and don't forget to pass it on to your friends!
-- Cory Liebmann -- 11/28/2007
by Cory Liebmann
Ziegler Has Not Learned Her Lesson: Exhibit A
Last week Annette Ziegler sat at a public hearing of her conflicts scandal while her attorney admitted that she "made a mistake." He implied that she actually has learned a lesson from the "mistake" and that was part of the reason that she should not receive strong disciplinary action for her repeated violations. Any idea that Justice Ziegler has learned anything at all from her conflicts scandal is shattered by her decision to participate tomorrow in a case before the State Supreme Court.
The case is the result of a tax dispute between the state and Neenah-based Menasha Corporation. According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's database, the former CEO and board member of the company gave campaign cash to Ziegler earlier this year. Further, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce has been very vocal in support of Menasha Corporation and against the State of Wisconsin. They have gone so far as to file a legal brief in the matter. How could anyone forget the major role that WMC played while Ziegler was running for the high court? They spent an unprecedented $2 million-plus to get Ziegler elected! That was almost as much as both campaigns combined, and it was enough to drown out new of her ethical problems!
WMC's agenda seems very clear to even a casual observer. They essentially are trying to buy off our judicial system from all angles. They "invested" a ton of cash into Ziegler and no doubt expect her to be on this case and to be their rubber stamp. They also "invested" major dollars into the campaign of State Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, who now stands mute and has not asked Ziegler to recuse herself in tomorrow's case. It is his job to represent the State of Wisconsin in this case, yet he is not acting in the State's best interests by remaining silent. Who is he really working for? Who is he really representing?
The limitless supply of corporate cash is really showing the negative impact that it has on some elected officials. Justice Ziegler is in the middle of an ethics scandal and faces serious discipline, yet she seems willing to sit on this case in which she has very clear conflicts. She has recused herself from other cases when they involved campaign contributors so why not now when it involves entities that have given her (or spent on her behalf) so much more money? If Justice Ziegler goes through with hearing tomorrow's case, her attorney's words to the judicial panel will ring much more hollow. Is she serious about avoiding conflicts of interest? We will find out when she either sits on the case or recuses herself tomorrow.
There is not much time, but we are asking for people to sign our online petition, demanding that Justice Ziegler to the right thing and recuse herself from this case. Please sign this petition today and don't forget to pass it on to your friends!
-- Cory Liebmann -- 11/28/2007
Nov 22, 2007
Ziegler Disgraces Bar and Wisconsin Citizens
Update: Ben Masel calculates 540,425 signatures for recall within a given 60-day period.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler should be recalled.
Ziegler ran a dishonest campaign about her conduct on the bench, the very judicial experience she cited as qualifying her for a seat on Wisconsin's highest court.
Ziegler also ran a campaign featuring illustrations of how tough-on-crime she had been during her tenure as a county judge. Ziegler believes in following the rules, we were led to believe.
Ziegler's pattern of breaking the conflict-of-interest rules again and again ought to disqualify her as an impartial and objective party judging and applying the law and regulations to other attorneys and litigants.
At Monday's judicial conduct hearing, Ziegler's attorney spoke for Ziegler because were Ziegler to make the argument that her attorney made on her behalf, Ziegler would have become the object of instant ridicule.
Hypocrisy is no disqualification for serving on the state’s highest court, but ethics are.
Ziegler's attorney said that Ziegler on at least 11 occasions presided over cases involving West Bend Savings Bank after her husband joined the bank's board of directors "inadvertently," though a basic judicial procedure is to check for conflicts and announce them to the litigants.
As the Superior Daily Telegram writes in its editorial:
How does a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice “inadvertently” violate the state’s ethics code? Shouldn’t a lawyer who advanced so far in her profession have at least a minimal grasp of appropriate judicial conduct?
Apparently not, according to the attorney representing newly elected Justice Annette Ziegler. During a Monday disciplinary hearing before three Court of Appeals judges, attorney James Troupis said his client, back when she was a circuit court judge, failed to recognize a conflict of interest when ruling on cases involving West Bend Savings Bank while her husband served on the institution’s board.
News reports don’t indicate whether Troupis kept a straight face while pleading Ziegler’s defense. Certainly, his agrument wouldn’t hold water if the tables were turned. What judge would find a defendant blameless because they “inadvertently” forgot laws against domestic abuse, embezzlement or murder? It’s astounding that a state Supreme Court justice would allow such legal blasphemy to be uttered in her name.
But this is an era in which shameless public officials shake off humiliation like ducks shed water.
Way past time for Ziegler to go; let's hope Wisconsin citizens begin a recall drive should the Wisconsin Supreme Court allow this corrupt public official to continue serving and deceiving Wisconsin citizens.
###
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler should be recalled.
Ziegler ran a dishonest campaign about her conduct on the bench, the very judicial experience she cited as qualifying her for a seat on Wisconsin's highest court.
Ziegler also ran a campaign featuring illustrations of how tough-on-crime she had been during her tenure as a county judge. Ziegler believes in following the rules, we were led to believe.
Ziegler's pattern of breaking the conflict-of-interest rules again and again ought to disqualify her as an impartial and objective party judging and applying the law and regulations to other attorneys and litigants.
At Monday's judicial conduct hearing, Ziegler's attorney spoke for Ziegler because were Ziegler to make the argument that her attorney made on her behalf, Ziegler would have become the object of instant ridicule.
Hypocrisy is no disqualification for serving on the state’s highest court, but ethics are.
Ziegler's attorney said that Ziegler on at least 11 occasions presided over cases involving West Bend Savings Bank after her husband joined the bank's board of directors "inadvertently," though a basic judicial procedure is to check for conflicts and announce them to the litigants.
As the Superior Daily Telegram writes in its editorial:
How does a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice “inadvertently” violate the state’s ethics code? Shouldn’t a lawyer who advanced so far in her profession have at least a minimal grasp of appropriate judicial conduct?
Apparently not, according to the attorney representing newly elected Justice Annette Ziegler. During a Monday disciplinary hearing before three Court of Appeals judges, attorney James Troupis said his client, back when she was a circuit court judge, failed to recognize a conflict of interest when ruling on cases involving West Bend Savings Bank while her husband served on the institution’s board.
News reports don’t indicate whether Troupis kept a straight face while pleading Ziegler’s defense. Certainly, his agrument wouldn’t hold water if the tables were turned. What judge would find a defendant blameless because they “inadvertently” forgot laws against domestic abuse, embezzlement or murder? It’s astounding that a state Supreme Court justice would allow such legal blasphemy to be uttered in her name.
But this is an era in which shameless public officials shake off humiliation like ducks shed water.
Way past time for Ziegler to go; let's hope Wisconsin citizens begin a recall drive should the Wisconsin Supreme Court allow this corrupt public official to continue serving and deceiving Wisconsin citizens.
###
Nov 19, 2007
Ziegler’s Corruption Ought to Disqualify Her
Update III: SCR 60.03 A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
A. SCR 60.03(1) states: "A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."
That's cited from a decision (March 22, 2004) of the Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee (OPINION 03-1) deciding that "a judge (is) required, after a contested election, to recuse himself or herself from contested matters involving a former campaign manager," for "a reasonable period of time."
Surely, Ziegler's conflicts, her pattern of conflicts, are much more serious and cause much more damage in not avoiding the "impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," promoting the public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Update II: Hearing ended.
Update: Cory Liebmann live-blogging the Judicial Conduct Panel hearing.
Dee J. Hall, reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal, must have looked long and far to find a source willing to knock down criticism of Justice Annette Ziegler’s presiding over numerous cases in which Ziegler had a clear financial interest, violative of Wisconsin conflict of interest rules.
Hall has been skillfully covering the case for the State Journal, and in Sunday’s piece she found an authoritative source who well represents the character of Ziegler’s dismissive attitude toward the public interest: Herbert Kritzer, a former UW Law School professor now teaching at William Mitchell School of Law in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
Kritzer’s quote is incredible: “I would describe the misconduct as significant in the sense that it raises some questions about Justice Ziegler’s judgment. … But I wouldn’t call it serious, in the sense that I think it extremely unlikely that it had any actual impact on any decisions then-Judge Ziegler made.”
The Judicial Conduct Panel now investigating Ziegler will hold a hearing today (Monday, November 19) and the Wisconsin Supreme Court will ultimately decide the fate of Ziegler, disciplining one of its own members for the first time in state history.
As the State Journal’s Hall points out, “The disciplinary options available to the court include reprimand, censure, suspension, and expulsion.”
But what has Wisconsin jurists appalled is Ziegler and Kritzer’s blasé mindset toward the conflict-of-interest rules (State Code of Judicial Conduct and its enforcers) that guide Wisconsin judges.
The rules exist to assure the public and all parties involved in litigation that Wisconsin judges hearing cases will be impartial, neutral, and fair in all facets of a given legal case, meaning that a judge is to be regarded as an utterly objective entity who will base decisions upon the law and nothing else.
“You won’t hear many attorneys saying this out loud (on the record), but this professor (Kritzer) is nuts. It doesn’t matter how she (Ziegler) ruled. She had a conflict of interest and failed to disclose it. That’s unforgivable,” one jurist commented. “For a law professor to say that (presiding over cases in which one has a conflict of interests) is not serious is ridiculous. It’s always serious, and it always matters that even if circumstances exist that would only lead to a perception of a conflict of interest, perception is vitally important so people know their judges are not corrupt.”
Public interest groups agree.
One such group, One Wisconsin Now maintains a website detailing the “(Judicial Conduct) panel’s requests with links to the documents and information sought … .”
Reads the website: “Newly elected Justice Annette Ziegler has the dubious distinction of being the first sitting Justice on Wisconsin’s State Supreme Court to find herself in the middle of an ethics investigation. She is also likely to be the first Justice to force her own colleagues on the high court to discipline her for her ethical lapses. She is accused of violating SCR Chapter 60, Code of Conduct pursuant to Section 757.81(4)(a) of the (Wisconsin) Statutes.”
Wisconsin citizens elected Ziegler after these conflicts of interests and Ziegler's lies about them on the campaign trail were widely disclosed.
But it’s up to jurists, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to see that Ziegler, surely a demonstrably corrupt judge to any objective observer, is not allowed to continue serving on the state’s highest court.
Many Wisconsin attorneys expect the Court—declining in the academic quality of its opinions and ascending in it partisanship—to issue a slap on the wrist.
###
A. SCR 60.03(1) states: "A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."
That's cited from a decision (March 22, 2004) of the Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee (OPINION 03-1) deciding that "a judge (is) required, after a contested election, to recuse himself or herself from contested matters involving a former campaign manager," for "a reasonable period of time."
Surely, Ziegler's conflicts, her pattern of conflicts, are much more serious and cause much more damage in not avoiding the "impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," promoting the public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Update II: Hearing ended.
Update: Cory Liebmann live-blogging the Judicial Conduct Panel hearing.
Dee J. Hall, reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal, must have looked long and far to find a source willing to knock down criticism of Justice Annette Ziegler’s presiding over numerous cases in which Ziegler had a clear financial interest, violative of Wisconsin conflict of interest rules.
Hall has been skillfully covering the case for the State Journal, and in Sunday’s piece she found an authoritative source who well represents the character of Ziegler’s dismissive attitude toward the public interest: Herbert Kritzer, a former UW Law School professor now teaching at William Mitchell School of Law in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
Kritzer’s quote is incredible: “I would describe the misconduct as significant in the sense that it raises some questions about Justice Ziegler’s judgment. … But I wouldn’t call it serious, in the sense that I think it extremely unlikely that it had any actual impact on any decisions then-Judge Ziegler made.”
The Judicial Conduct Panel now investigating Ziegler will hold a hearing today (Monday, November 19) and the Wisconsin Supreme Court will ultimately decide the fate of Ziegler, disciplining one of its own members for the first time in state history.
As the State Journal’s Hall points out, “The disciplinary options available to the court include reprimand, censure, suspension, and expulsion.”
But what has Wisconsin jurists appalled is Ziegler and Kritzer’s blasé mindset toward the conflict-of-interest rules (State Code of Judicial Conduct and its enforcers) that guide Wisconsin judges.
The rules exist to assure the public and all parties involved in litigation that Wisconsin judges hearing cases will be impartial, neutral, and fair in all facets of a given legal case, meaning that a judge is to be regarded as an utterly objective entity who will base decisions upon the law and nothing else.
“You won’t hear many attorneys saying this out loud (on the record), but this professor (Kritzer) is nuts. It doesn’t matter how she (Ziegler) ruled. She had a conflict of interest and failed to disclose it. That’s unforgivable,” one jurist commented. “For a law professor to say that (presiding over cases in which one has a conflict of interests) is not serious is ridiculous. It’s always serious, and it always matters that even if circumstances exist that would only lead to a perception of a conflict of interest, perception is vitally important so people know their judges are not corrupt.”
Public interest groups agree.
One such group, One Wisconsin Now maintains a website detailing the “(Judicial Conduct) panel’s requests with links to the documents and information sought … .”
Reads the website: “Newly elected Justice Annette Ziegler has the dubious distinction of being the first sitting Justice on Wisconsin’s State Supreme Court to find herself in the middle of an ethics investigation. She is also likely to be the first Justice to force her own colleagues on the high court to discipline her for her ethical lapses. She is accused of violating SCR Chapter 60, Code of Conduct pursuant to Section 757.81(4)(a) of the (Wisconsin) Statutes.”
Wisconsin citizens elected Ziegler after these conflicts of interests and Ziegler's lies about them on the campaign trail were widely disclosed.
But it’s up to jurists, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to see that Ziegler, surely a demonstrably corrupt judge to any objective observer, is not allowed to continue serving on the state’s highest court.
Many Wisconsin attorneys expect the Court—declining in the academic quality of its opinions and ascending in it partisanship—to issue a slap on the wrist.
###
Nov 14, 2007
Corrupt Justice Ziegler Exposed
One Wisconsin Now launches a new site exposing blatantly corrupt Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, Annette Ziegler
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)