Just because the Wisconsin Supreme Court has four corrupt Republican justices, this ought not deter Constitutional law enforcement officers from doing their duty.
Never has a public integrity investigation been so needed in Wisconsin. No cause to use the John Doe statute.
Though the Court ordered John Doe documents showing Scott Walker criminality destroyed, 100s of pages of John Doe documents remain in the public domain.
See Marley, Bice and Glauber, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
All that is missing is the political will and the moral courage.
Showing posts with label Justice Michael Gableman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice Michael Gableman. Show all posts
Jul 16, 2015
GOP Court Halts Law Enforcement Probe of Scott Walker and Criminal Scheme
Republican justices stepped up aggressively for Scott Walker today, and stomped on the rule of law
Update: Alice Ollstein notes the four GOP justices ordered that those working on the case "permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation." (ThinkProgress)
See also Wisconsin Supreme Court Ends Walker Investigation, Eviscerating State’s Campaign Finance Limits and Raising Questions about Judicial Impartiality (Brennen Center for Justice) and Corrupt Wisconsin Supreme Court kills John Doe Investigation. As well the Capital Times John Doe ruling dangerous for democracy and the Center for Media and Democracy's analysis.
---
How about those not working on the case? This information belongs in the public record. One can hope for a leak in the tradition of Ellsberg to hold up Walker's illegal actions to a public light.
---
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is a corrupt institution on which state Republicans and Scott Walker rely to give a judicial imprimatur to unconstitutional and lawless action.
Today, as expected the Supreme Court halted a law enforcement probe of Scott Walker and rightwingers through numerous consolidated cases (Beck, Wisconsin State Journal).
The latest and long-predicted decision by the Court halts the bipartisan John Doe probe investigating what court documents have shown to be a criminal scheme by Scott Walker and an array of rightwing groups to illegally coordinate fundraising (Marley, Bice and Bill Glauber, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel).
"The expected decision in the case, ... before the state's highest court, [took] a blowtorch to what remains of Wisconsin's post-Watergate campaign finance rules," writes Mary Bottari in PRWatch in a piece run the day before today's decisions were announced.
Wisconsin Republicans are nothing if not consistent in protecting each other, no matter that an entire branch of government—the judiciary branch—has lost credibility as an impartial institution and now reaches "pre-determined conclusion(s) not based on the facts and the law," as noted by former Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson in Ozanne v. Jeff Fitzgerald, Scott Fitzgerald, Ellis and Suder (2011) that gutted Wisconsin's Open Meetings law. (Mal Contends)
There are other law enforcement bodies that can still investigate Walker's clear criminal behavior, and the John Doe judge can release court documents at his discretion under the John Doe statute. Perhaps Scott Walker will call for the release of the probe's records if Scott Walker has nothing to hide
No surprises, just corruption
In recent years, the four GOP justices have voted against rule-of-law justices to enact Court rules favorable to the Republican Party and to outright promote corruption.
In July 2010, the four GOP justices enacted a rule reading in part, "a judge shall not be required to recuse himself or herself in a proceeding based solely on any endorsement or the judge’s campaign committee’s receipt of a lawful campaign contribution, including a campaign contribution from an individual or entity involved in the proceeding." (p.2)
Republican special interest groups petitioned the Court to change the recusal rule.
"In 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's four-justice conservative majority voted to adopt new rules stating that the fact of a campaign contribution alone would not require recusal -- but the rules were literally written by none other than (Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce) WMC, as well as the Wisconsin Realtors Association, which gave over $1 million to Wisconsin Club for Growth in its 2010-2011 fiscal year. In other words, WMC wrote the rules requiring that the justices WMC has elected not recuse in a case involving WMC's election activities." (PRWatch)
Each of the four Republican justices on the Court—Justice David Prosser, Justice Michael Gableman, Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Patience Roggensack—were elected with money by the same groups now appearing before the Court.
"Wisconsin Club for Growth (WiCFG) and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) played a key role in electing the four justices in the majority, in most cases spending more than the candidates themselves."
A bipartisan group of prosecutors allege that the Walker campaign illegally coordinated fundraising and expenditures with WiCFG and WMC (and perhaps other groups) during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections. Representatives of the Walker campaign, WiCFG, and WMC could face criminal liability if prosecutors find that they conspired to evade campaign finance disclosure requirements and contribution limits." (PRWatch)
Republican justices stepped up aggressively for Scott Walker today, and stomped on the rule of law.
Update: Alice Ollstein notes the four GOP justices ordered that those working on the case "permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation." (ThinkProgress)
See also Wisconsin Supreme Court Ends Walker Investigation, Eviscerating State’s Campaign Finance Limits and Raising Questions about Judicial Impartiality (Brennen Center for Justice) and Corrupt Wisconsin Supreme Court kills John Doe Investigation. As well the Capital Times John Doe ruling dangerous for democracy and the Center for Media and Democracy's analysis.
---
How about those not working on the case? This information belongs in the public record. One can hope for a leak in the tradition of Ellsberg to hold up Walker's illegal actions to a public light.
---
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is a corrupt institution on which state Republicans and Scott Walker rely to give a judicial imprimatur to unconstitutional and lawless action.
Today, as expected the Supreme Court halted a law enforcement probe of Scott Walker and rightwingers through numerous consolidated cases (Beck, Wisconsin State Journal).
The latest and long-predicted decision by the Court halts the bipartisan John Doe probe investigating what court documents have shown to be a criminal scheme by Scott Walker and an array of rightwing groups to illegally coordinate fundraising (Marley, Bice and Bill Glauber, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel).
"The expected decision in the case, ... before the state's highest court, [took] a blowtorch to what remains of Wisconsin's post-Watergate campaign finance rules," writes Mary Bottari in PRWatch in a piece run the day before today's decisions were announced.
Wisconsin Republicans are nothing if not consistent in protecting each other, no matter that an entire branch of government—the judiciary branch—has lost credibility as an impartial institution and now reaches "pre-determined conclusion(s) not based on the facts and the law," as noted by former Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson in Ozanne v. Jeff Fitzgerald, Scott Fitzgerald, Ellis and Suder (2011) that gutted Wisconsin's Open Meetings law. (Mal Contends)
There are other law enforcement bodies that can still investigate Walker's clear criminal behavior, and the John Doe judge can release court documents at his discretion under the John Doe statute. Perhaps Scott Walker will call for the release of the probe's records if Scott Walker has nothing to hide
No surprises, just corruption
In recent years, the four GOP justices have voted against rule-of-law justices to enact Court rules favorable to the Republican Party and to outright promote corruption.
In July 2010, the four GOP justices enacted a rule reading in part, "a judge shall not be required to recuse himself or herself in a proceeding based solely on any endorsement or the judge’s campaign committee’s receipt of a lawful campaign contribution, including a campaign contribution from an individual or entity involved in the proceeding." (p.2)
Republican special interest groups petitioned the Court to change the recusal rule.
"In 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's four-justice conservative majority voted to adopt new rules stating that the fact of a campaign contribution alone would not require recusal -- but the rules were literally written by none other than (Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce) WMC, as well as the Wisconsin Realtors Association, which gave over $1 million to Wisconsin Club for Growth in its 2010-2011 fiscal year. In other words, WMC wrote the rules requiring that the justices WMC has elected not recuse in a case involving WMC's election activities." (PRWatch)
Each of the four Republican justices on the Court—Justice David Prosser, Justice Michael Gableman, Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Patience Roggensack—were elected with money by the same groups now appearing before the Court.
"Wisconsin Club for Growth (WiCFG) and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) played a key role in electing the four justices in the majority, in most cases spending more than the candidates themselves."
A bipartisan group of prosecutors allege that the Walker campaign illegally coordinated fundraising and expenditures with WiCFG and WMC (and perhaps other groups) during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections. Representatives of the Walker campaign, WiCFG, and WMC could face criminal liability if prosecutors find that they conspired to evade campaign finance disclosure requirements and contribution limits." (PRWatch)
Republican justices stepped up aggressively for Scott Walker today, and stomped on the rule of law.
Apr 9, 2015
Scott Walker Still at Center of Criminal Probe, Effort to Demote Shirley Abrahamson
Abrahamson and plaintiffs "seek a declaration that the amendment approved to article VII, section 4(2) of the Wisconsin Constitution is prospective only, so that the method it prescribes for the selection of a chief justice may not be implemented until Chief Justice Abrahamson’s current term of office ends, in accordance with the governing law that existed when she was reelected to that post in 2009 for a ten-year term. Alternatively, should the amendments by its terms not be construed to apply prospectively in this fashion, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the retroactive application of the amendments so as to apply immediately and thereby shorten the term of office to which Chief Justice Abrahamson was reelected would violate the Constitution of the United States ... ." (Wisconsin State Journal reproduction of complaint)
The Wisconsin Constitutional Amendment that would demote Abrahamson was passed on party-line votes by Republicans in two consecutive legislative sessions, and was heavily funded by the GOP-aligned Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce in the low turn-out Spring election on April 7.
In Wisconsin, legislative Republicans do not enact Constitutional Amendment proposals without the consent of Scott Walker.
Meanwhile Scott Walker stands accused of being in the center of a criminal scheme and Wisconsin Republicans on and off the Court are attempting to protect Walker as three consolidated John Doe cases are now before the Court.
The role of the Chief Justice includes procedural and administrative duties but should one of the four GOP justices assume the chief justice position, she would have the power to affect the scheduling and releasing of cases before the Court.
Pro-Corruption GOP
In recent years, the four GOP justices have voted against the three rule-of-law justices to enact Court rules favorable to the Republican Party and promote corruption.
In July 2010, the four GOP justices enacted a rule reading in part, "a judge shall not be required to recuse himself or herself in a proceeding based solely on any endorsement or the judge’s campaign committee’s receipt of a lawful campaign contribution, including a campaign contribution from an individual or entity involved in the proceeding." (p.2)
Republican special interest groups petitioned the Court to change the recusal rule.
"In 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's four-justice conservative majority voted to adopt new rules stating that the fact of a campaign contribution alone would not require recusal -- but the rules were literally written by none other than (Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce) WMC, as well as the Wisconsin Realtors Association, which gave over $1 million to Wisconsin Club for Growth in its 2010-2011 fiscal year. In other words, WMC wrote the rules requiring that the justices WMC has elected not recuse in a case involving WMC's election activities." (PRWatch)
Each of the four Republican justices on the Court—Justice David Prosser, Justice Michael Gableman, Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Patience Roggensack—were elected with money by the same groups now appearing before the Court.
"Wisconsin Club for Growth (WiCFG) and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) played a key role in electing the four justices in the majority, in most cases spending more than the candidates themselves."
A bipartisan group of prosecutors allege that the Walker campaign illegally coordinated fundraising and expenditures with WiCFG and WMC (and perhaps other groups) during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections. Representatives of the Walker campaign, WiCFG, and WMC could face criminal liability if prosecutors find that they conspired to evade campaign finance disclosure requirements and contribution limits." (PRWatch)
Whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court retains a shred of credibility will depend on how aggressively the four Republicans protect Scott Walker from the criminal probe:
"The justices are expected to be in the news again in the coming weeks as they consider whether an investigation can proceed into claims of improper coordination in 2011 and 2012 between conservative groups and the campaign of Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican and a probable presidential candidate. (Smith, New York Times)
Jul 15, 2012
GOP wants rigged game
Obstruct the vote; and draw legislative districts to elect Republicans.
Farm the details out to a law firm who provides free legal services to a Supreme Court justice, Michael Gableman, who will decide on cases arising from the GOP's machinations.
Farm the details out to a law firm who provides free legal services to a Supreme Court justice, Michael Gableman, who will decide on cases arising from the GOP's machinations.
Mar 21, 2012
GOP Justice Gableman's Piece in Rightwing Journal Is Political Shot
Update: Gableman's GOP ally, David 'Chokehold' Prosser, waives confidentiality in case of physical confrontation with fellow justice
Michael Gableman, who cast the deciding vote in two cases in favor of parties represented by the law firm that provided him free legal services, is well-versed in the rhetoric of the political right which funded his election.
The GOP journal, Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc. (WPRI), is running a piece by Gableman adapted from a talk Gableman gave at the annual WPRI dinner in November 2011.
Gableman asserts his duty to "faithfully apply the law," And he points to several cases written by the GOP majority as examples, the most recent of which is Ozanne v. Fitzgerald (more commonly referred to as the Budget Repair Bill case).
The so-called Budget Repair Bill was opposed by every legislative Democrat, supported by every legislative Republican, not legally signed into law by Scott Walker; and then given the judicial thumbs-up by every GOP justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a decision that eviscerated Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law.
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's dissent in Ozanne blasted the partisan ruling: The majority " ... reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority's ultimate decision."
As Abrahamson wrote:
Michael Gableman, who cast the deciding vote in two cases in favor of parties represented by the law firm that provided him free legal services, is well-versed in the rhetoric of the political right which funded his election.
The GOP journal, Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Inc. (WPRI), is running a piece by Gableman adapted from a talk Gableman gave at the annual WPRI dinner in November 2011.
Gableman asserts his duty to "faithfully apply the law," And he points to several cases written by the GOP majority as examples, the most recent of which is Ozanne v. Fitzgerald (more commonly referred to as the Budget Repair Bill case).
The so-called Budget Repair Bill was opposed by every legislative Democrat, supported by every legislative Republican, not legally signed into law by Scott Walker; and then given the judicial thumbs-up by every GOP justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a decision that eviscerated Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law.
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson's dissent in Ozanne blasted the partisan ruling: The majority " ... reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority's ultimate decision."
As Abrahamson wrote:
[T]he Attorney General asserts that the legislature need not abide by the Open Meetings Law; that the legislature can choose when and if it will follow the Open Meetings Law; and that courts cannot enforce the Open Meetings Law against the legislature and any of its committees. ...This did not sit well with GOP justices, and Gableman's publishing his remarks to the GOP organization in the GOP journal is a political response against the Rule of Law by today's Republican Party that is so anti-intellectual and corrupt Joe McCarthy might blush.
¶96 The order and Justice Prosser's concurrence are based on errors of fact and law. They inappropriately use this court's original jurisdiction, make their own findings of fact, mischaracterize the parties' arguments, misinterpret statutes, minimize (if not eliminate) Wisconsin constitutional guarantees, and misstate case law, appearing to silently overrule case law dating back to at least 1891. This case law recognizes a court's power to review legislative actions in enacting laws when constitutional directives are at issue.
¶127 .... Unreasoned judgments breed contempt for the law. The majority, by sacrificing honest reasoning, leads us down a pernicious path. The order today departs from fundamental principles. It fails to abide by the court's Constitutional authority and its own rules and procedures and harms the rights of the people from whom our authority derives.
Mar 25, 2011
JoAnne Kloppenburg Runs Facts-and-Law Campaign
I took some flak here for criticizing both Louis Butler Jr. and Justice Michael Gableman, 2008 candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Butler—now a blocked nominee for federal judgeship with no outraged GOP cries of "up-or-down-floor vote"—and Justice Gableman both disgraced the judicial office they sought to hold, I asserted.
'Don’t worry about the result; just tell me what the law is.’Since 2008, we have seen two candidates for Wisconsin's high court who dared to edify the electorate in the function of the state's top appellate judicial body—stressing the imperative to be impartial, and avoiding political demagoguery.
Such a directive ought to be the mission, objective and goal of every justice of the state’s top appellate court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court. ...
If one were to ask candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2008 their commitment to the above principle, one can expect a declaration of absolute fidelity, right? ... [Y]ou would not deduce the presence of this judicial ethos from the campaigns of the two leading candidates for the [Supreme Court], Louis Butler and Judge Michael Gableman. (February 5, 2008)
These two jurists honor the bench: Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, now a candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Abrahamson ran a facts-and-law campaign and won reelection decisively in 2009.
This election, we also have one candidate running a facts-and-law campaign: Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg.
Kloppenburg opponent, Justice David Prosser, on the other hand, goes out of his way to declare his bias towards specific communities of interest and certain classes of litigants, as well as fidelity to his political party, a committment Prosser unconvincingly goes on to deny when called on this corrupt stance in office.
From Kloppenburg:
In two weeks, Wisconsin voters will elect a Supreme Court Justice.Independence, impartiality and committment to facts and the law.
You and I share the belief that Justices must be independent, impartial and committed to deciding each case on the facts and the law.
That is the kind of Justice I will be.
That's refreshing. And in the face of an often lawless Scott Walker administration, committment to facts and the law is imperative to preserve the state of Wisconsin as a functioning democratic entity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)