GOP's AG Joins Cover-up of Scott Walker, Corrupt Court

Wisconsin Is Turing into Corrupt Banana Republic

Update: See also Opoien, The Capital Times.

To no one's surprise Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel (R) has said 'yes, destroy or return all seized material related to the investigation of Scott Walker campaign's illegal collusion.'

In a polemical Dec. 8, 2105 press release Schimel maintains the pretension the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Wisconsin Attorney General, the Wisconsin gerrymandered legislature and Scott Walker are all independently reaching the same conclusion that investigating Scott Walker is a "long, unfortunate chapter in Wisconsin's history."

The reformist and now repealed John Doe statute was used to expose misconduct in public office in Scott Walker's office while serving as Milwaukee County Executive.

A subsequent John Doe investigation found Walker was at the center of a criminal scheme, (Marley, Bice and Glauber, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

Schimel like other Republicans does not want more public exposure of the criminal scheme, or federal litigation of the Court's John Doe decision protecting Walker to blow back on the partisan Court and Walker's allies and donors who happen to be the same special interests.

The Wisconsin DoJ press release is reproduced below:

AG Schimel: John Doe II Should End 

Tuesday, December 8, 2105

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued yet another decision in John Doe II, the protracted and secret investigation into whether a political group exercising free political speech rights improperly coordinated with Governor Walker during the recall election. For the second time this year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court directed that the John Doe proceeding be halted based upon the Court’s conclusion that prosecutors did not have a legal basis to investigate these political groups when they commenced John Doe II. The Court found that campaign finance statutes upon which the prosecutors relied violate free political speech rights guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution. 

Thus, the Court said that the matter is closed, and the evidence seized through subpoenas and search warrants issued as part of the investigation must be returned. That has not yet occurred, and the owners of that property are understandably upset. 

The special prosecutor has indicated that he intends to appeal. The only level of appeal left is to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), but it is very unlikely SCOTUS would take the case. In the unlikely scenario that SCOTUS were to accept the case, it would more than likely uphold the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision. 

I write because I have indirectly been asked as Wisconsin Attorney General to intervene on behalf of the John Doe targets. The Wisconsin DOJ played a role in the proceedings before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, although it was not a leading role. DOJ represented the judge who was assigned to John Doe II after the initial judge recused herself. The new judge quashed subpoenas issued in the John Doe proceeding, finding that the special prosecutor's theory of the case was not supported by Wisconsin law. The special prosecutor appealed that ruling, and DOJ represented the judge in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court again ordered that the seized evidence be returned to its owners. Given that DOJ represented the judge who first found that the John Doe proceeding was invalid, DOJ certainly has no intention of standing in the way of those orders. The Supreme Court’s order should be carried out forthwith. DOJ has no authority to represent those individual property owners in their effort to enforce the Supreme Court’s order. 

This has been a long, unfortunate chapter in Wisconsin's history. The courts have unequivocally rejected the John Doe investigation, both in the manner in which it was carried out, as well as the legal arguments brought by the prosecutors. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has now ordered that the property seized be returned. For everyone involved, the special prosecutor should end the case, and the property seized from the individuals in this case should be returned immediately. 

Wisconsin Supreme Court GOP Majority—Venal Corruption Rules

Judicial Act of Corruption Protects Scott Walker and GOP Court Bloc from Scrutiny

The corrupt Republican Party bloc on the Wisconsin Supreme Court—Chief Justice Patience D.Roggensack, Justice David T. Prosser, Jr, Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler and Justice Michael J. Gableman—removed any doubt the Wisconsin Supreme Court is simply an extension of the Republican Party this week.

Wisconsin's top appellate court has become a lawless institution, unconstrained by ethics and acting to protect Wisconsin's most corrupt governor and political machine in the state's history.

The text of an unsigned [per curiam] opinion (and Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson's dissent and opinion) is linked ahead: John Doe Proceeding State of Wisconsin ex rel. Three Unnamed Petitioners, Petitioner, v. the Honorable Gregory A. Peterson, John Doe Judge, the Honorable Gregory Potter, Chief Judge and Francis D. Schmitz, as Special Prosecutor, Respondents.

Brendan Fischer has a keen analysis at PRWatch.

Writes Fischer:

On Wednesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's majority contorted itself to find a new way to protect both Scott Walker and the Court's biggest supporters--not to mention itself--following its decision in July rewriting the state's limits on money in politics and ending the 'John Doe' investigation into Walker's campaign coordinating with dark money groups.

Wednesday's ruling was supposed to be a straightforward decision on a motion to reconsider, in light of additional evidence that Walker and his allies had violated the campaign finance laws that the Court upheld in July.

The Court denied that motion, but then (in a lengthy unsigned [per curiam] opinion) went further, rewriting its July decision to fire the Republican Special Prosecutor who had led the investigation, Francis Schmitz, making it harder for him to challenge the justices' conflicts-of-interest by appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. [per curiam pp. 1-29]

In a different era, such a decision would bring bipartisan outrage. Today, the Republicans and Scott Walker's corruption is blatant, openly displayed as temporary political power has gone to the heads of the mediocrities holding it.

Writes Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson in dissent: "In terminating the authority of the Special Prosecutor, the per curiam unfairly leaves the prosecution and the State unrepresented from this date forward and deprives the Special Prosecutor, prosecutors, and law enforcement of the opportunity to preserve materials from destruction," (p. 47).

The Wisconsin law enforcement officials who routinely back Court and other political candidates during campaign season in an unsavory practice will not object to the Court's naked overreach decimating the public integrity check by Wisconsin Constitutional law enforcement officers.

Of note, to call out Roggensack-Prosser Jr.-Kingsland Ziegler-Gableman bloc as corrupt would be an ethical breach for a Wisconsin attorney, violative of (Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule) SCR 20:8.2 Judicial and legal officials.

Nothing in Wisconsin, no institution, no agency, no commission is safe from the corrupt and power-mad Republican Party of Wisconsin's corruption.

No time for lay officials to be silent.

Scott Walker's Corruption Problems Have Staying Power

Joel Bleifuss at In These Times pens a piece today serving as a reminder that no matter what Scott Walker and his four allies on the Wisconsin Supreme Court want, the Republican partisans halting a criminal investigations into criminal activity by Walker is in itself a stain on Walker's run for the presidency.

Because the probe into Walker's criminal scheme is headed for the federal court system, Wisconsin's top criminal in the governor's office cannot wish away the "provision [of the criminal code] that prohibits coordination between candidates and advocacy groups."

Both politically and legally, the John Doe probe is here to stay during Walker's time in the national spotlight.

John Doe special prosecutor Francis Schmitz asked the Wisconsin Court to stay its corrupt decision in a procedural move that is a sure sign Schmitz will pursue his case through federal district court, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.

Walker may ultimately wish he took the deal his campaign's attorney cut last year, until Walker's bosses killed the idea. (Mal Contends) (Stein, Marley and Glauber, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) (Wall Street Journal) (PRWatch)

Judicial Oblivion: Wisconsin Supreme Court Ignored Legal Precedent to End the John Doe Investigation

"In short, the Wisconsin court cited the wrong precedents and wholly ignored the right ones. It is difficult to reconcile its holding with Buckley or McConnell, as a dissenting opinion by Justice Abrahamson pointed out—and perhaps this is why the majority made no attempt to do so," notes Tara Malloy of The Campaign Legal Center.

A must-read by Malloy of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that is corrupt and no longer deserves respect.

Wisconsin Supreme Court's Legitimacy Is Gone

Readers will not find Wisconsin attorneys blasting Justices Roggensack-Prosser Jr.-Ziegler-Gableman as a bloc for rightwing special interests following the Court's decision shutting down the John Doe probe—creating a Wisconsin-GOP-only interpretation of campaign finance law and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

There's a compelling reason for silence among Wisconsin jurists, and it's not based on sentiment or position.

To call out Roggensack-Prosser Jr.-Ziegler-Gableman as corrupt would be an ethical breach for a Wisconsin attorney, violative of (Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule) SCR 20:8.2  Judicial and legal officials.

So it's up to some 20 writers or so across that the state to note, as does Lincoln Caplan in The New Yorker, that the four Republican members of the Court "substituted the misrule of politics for the rule of law."

Justice Roggensack, Prosser Jr., Ziegler and Gableman are corrupt and ruled according to whom the litigants are.

Photo ID

Back before League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Walker and Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I asked around: Did Wisconsin Act 23, the GOP-crafted photo voter ID law, have a chance at the Court in light of the Wisconsin Constitution, Article III, Section 1 reading: "Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district," an expansive guarantee to vote that has been under attack since Governor Scott Walker and the Republicans assumed control of the executive and legislative branches of Wisconsin government in 2011. (Mal Contends)

No jurist contacted said, 'yes.' The Court would lose all credibility.

Corruption

Today is different than a few years back. The Roggensack-Prosser Jr.-Ziegler-Gableman bloc is corrupt and the rule of law is gone.

There should be no public confidence in the administration of justice from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Even Wisconsin's Legislative Reference Bureau is partisan now as a reading of Wisconsin's Constitution, Article III, Section 1's new language demonstrates.

The Republican Party's ideal of representative democracy is a One-Party state with unrecognized individual rights and unrealized protections for vulnerable members of society, it's called fascism and should be so stated.

Report: Judge Shopping Confirmed by Special Interest-in-GOP-Campaigns Group

"When a conservative group filed a lawsuit over campaign finance laws earlier this month, its lawyers filled out court paperwork in a way that all but guaranteed they got a judge (Rudolph Randa) who has already ruled groups and candidates can work closely together."

The plan worked. On Tuesday, two weeks after Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates filed its suit, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa issued an order limiting how campaign finance laws could be enforced, opening the door for groups and candidates to team up in the weeks before the Nov. 4 election," reports Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Sleazy pay-as-you-go politics filed with a corrupt federal judge whom the special interests knew would rule their way, the Scott Walker way.

This is what Wisconsin is up against. Never give up.

Judge Rudolph Randa Stands Naked and Corrupt for Scott Walker

Update II: Group gamed filing federal lawsuit to be assigned to Rudolph Randa. (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)

Update: Two other points. Randa has ignored the Pursell principle and changed Wisconsin election law less than three weeks before Election Day. Secondly, through Randa's two rulings against Wisconsin campaign finance law enforcement, Randa has given Scott Walker an arguable defense if the John Doe Probe is allowed to proceed with its investigation though Scott Walker knows what he did is illegal. A federal judge declared what Scott Walker and others did is not illegal, so how can John Doe prosecutors find Walker, for example, guilty of breaking finance law when Randa has imposed ambiguity in the law that will be read against the state in a criminal prosecution.
---
An obscure rightwing group, Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates (CRG), has filed a complaint in federal court based upon a discredited view of the First Amendment to halt virtually all Wisconsin campaign finance law.

That's good enough for U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa who issued a preliminary injunction "before the GAB (Government Accountability Board) and (Milwaukee County District Attorney John T. Chisholm) had even spoken with the attorney assigned to represent them," notes Brendan Fischer at PR Watch. Nor had the GAB and Chisholm's attorney even filed a brief before Randa ruled.

The federal case is Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates v. Barland et al.

Randa wants to engineer the law to work for political allies and specifically shield Scott Walker from getting criminally charged or politically embarrassed by facts of the ongoing John Doe probe.

Randa heard CRG's complaint and issued a ruling today in this naked attempt to protect Scott Walker in what will likely raise corruption and misconduct questions before the supervising Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit after a likely reversal.

"The general election is only three weeks away. Any further delay threatens to negate the effectiveness of CRG’s requested relief," writes Randa.

"Randa issued his latest order even though those who are being sued didn't have an attorney until Monday. Because the lawyer was only recently hired, he has not submitted a brief to the judge explaining his clients' views on campaign finance laws or why they believe they are valid," notes Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Randa had already made up his mind.

This is typical Randa, using his position on the federal bench to benefit Scott Walker less than three weeks before Election Day by blocking "enforcement of a Wisconsin election law that's at the center of an investigation into Gov. Scott Walker's 2012 recall campaign and more than two dozen conservative groups." (AP)

Wisconsin law enforcement has more than reasonable doubt to believe that Scott Walker is part of a criminal collaboration scheme that Randa is declaring no longer to be criminal, using this case, Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates v. Barland et al to issue this bizarre ruling today.

"U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa on Tuesday barred state election officials and Milwaukee's top prosecutor from enforcing their interpretation of campaign finance laws limiting the ability of candidates and purportedly independent groups from collaborating," writes Patrick Marley in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "Earlier this year, Randa expressed similar skepticism toward campaign finance laws and halted an investigation into collaboration between Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and groups backing him. That ruling was thrown out three weeks ago by an appeals court that took Randa to task for his decision, in part because the panel said the case belonged in state — not federal — court."

Randa's earlier campaign finance decision was overturned in September in O'Keefe and Club for Growth, Inc v. Chisholm and Schmitz, with Judge Frank Easterbrook writing for a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that included Judges Diane Wood and William Bauer, "No opinion issued by the Supreme Court, or by any court of appeals, establishes ('clearly' or otherwise) that the First Amendment forbids regulation of coordination between campaign committees and issue-advocacy groups ... ."

Knocked down hard by the appellate court, Randa is apparently not guided by the appellate court's admonitions or its orders. Easterbrook called September ruling "imprudent," "unnecessary," and "an abuse of discretion." (Fischer, PR Watch)

Overturning Randa's decision in O'Keefe and Club for Growth, Inc., Easterbrook wrote, "Until the district court's opinion in this case, neither a state nor a federal court had held that Wisconsin's (or any other state's) regulation of coordinated fundraising and issue advocacy violates the First Amendment. ...It is not possible to treat as 'bad faith' a criminal investigation that reflects (the U.S. Supreme Court's) interpretation of the First Amendment."

This appellate opinion is inconvenient to Randa's political agenda, and could hurt Scott Walker if more evidence of what Scott Walker did goes public.

Randa just thinks up the results of cases and rules, throwing in an opinion at the end.

Critics and most jurists call this "results-oriented" jurisprudence.

Other people call it corruption.

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, corruption at its worst, also got in the act.

"In a surprising move, Wisconsin's Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen reversed his office's position on the scope of Wisconsin campaign finance law, and declined to represent the GAB and Chisholm in the lawsuit. In a letter to the GAB -- the agency tasked with interpreting and enforcing Wisconsin campaign finance law -- Assistant Deputy Attorney General Dan Lennington called the agency's interpretation of Wisconsin campaign finance law 'tenuous,'" notes Fischer.