U.S. Supreme Court, State and Federal Judiciary Need Radical Reform

Madison, Wisconsin — If you ever have spoken with a mother of a wrongfully convicted victim, you know why you should work to free the innocent and condemn the judiciary.

Mothers are up against unyielding judges and prosecutors who operate in collusion with other politicians, against the innocent.

The judiciary branch at all levels of operation is often a black-robed bulwark against justice. All those wrongful convictions we hear about in the news?

These miscarriages of justice are presided over by judges, but it's taboo to point out that strutting judges have ruined lives, and that judges are catastrophically wrong in how they conducted themselves.

Judges, especially federal judges, are commonly absurd figures, yet unless you read Lara Bazelon (as one should), this reality of the judiciary is protected by professional taboo, cult command, corporate media and Democrats.

Richard Posner, public intellectual and former judge on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, upon his retirement, termed many federal judges, "reactionary beasts," manipulating statutes and the Constitution as they engineer desired results in federal litigation.

But even Posner shied away from a full-blooded critique for reasons unknown.

The United States Supreme Court is poised to launch a massive assault against liberty, and escalate judicial malice to a new level — the long-planned destruction of women's liberty, in accordance with the Catholic Church and other political actors.

This coming instantaneous ripping away of foundational rights is not inducing national Democratic Party voices to demand radical reform of the judiciary branch (Roe v. Wade, Politico, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization). Last year, at oral arguments in Dobbs, Democrats offered statements that they may be open to considering and looking at the issue of Court reform and not "doing nothing." Seriously, that's what Democrats had to say on the eve of the destruction of Roe, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Rules of Professional Conduct of attorneys generally protect the judges' cult, and broadly forbid attorneys from pointing out intellectually dishonest operations of judges and other attorneys.

In fact, attorneys operate under an affirmative duty to "further the public's ... confidence in the rule of law and the justice system." Democrats in Congress and the presidency follow these taboo dictates, no matter the provocation.

Even when the justice system and its actors are dishonest and destructive. Can you imagine a member of Congress or a president demanding public confidence and respect, on the pain of contempt and imprisonment? Their popularity would tank immediately, and such officials would be suspected of having taken leave of their senses.

Not so the judiciary branch.

Writes Lara Bazelon in The Strand Magazine in June 2021:

Judges are the kings and queens of the legal system, literally looking at the populace they rule over from perches high up on a mahogany dais.  Referred to as 'Your Honor,' they demand constant verbal genuflection and scurrying about in response to their commands that is the equivalent of bowing and scraping.

'God save the United States and this Honorable Court!' the U.S. Marshal solemnly intones after the gavel comes down, a roomful of people stand up, and the nine justices of the Supreme Court enter the hallowed marble fiefdom where they preside.

In federal court, you don’t go anywhere or do anything without asking for permission.  'May it please the court?' 'May I approach?' 'May I confer with my client?' 'May I ask for a brief recess so that I can go to the bathroom and throw up because even though I am deathly ill you made me show up anyway?'

Judges are the closest thing that America has to royalty. Their power is enormous: what they do changes the courses of fortunes and lives.  They can award millions, even billions, they can send people to prison for the rest of their lives—or to their deaths. Often their decisions bind future generations. Because judges have so much power and responsibility, we assume they are eminently deserving of the honor and authority conferred upon them.

As the Dobbs leak shows, the judiciary does not function in an intellectually honest, apolitical fashion objectively finding facts, doctrine and application of law like detached agents of pure epistemology, hard science enforced by tyrannical control of courtrooms and taboo rules against public criticism.

Judges act as black-robed kobolds, diminutive "goblin-like creatures with short-tempers and a mischievous spirit."

Congress needs to begin reform of the judiciary that will include mandates that every oral argument, judicial memo and correspondence be revealed to the American people in as close to real-time as possible.

Judges cannot be trusted with the honor and authority conferred upon them.

The institutional narcissism and unparalleled arrogance of the judicial branch, working for totalitarian movements, needs to come to an end.

Making a Murderer Victim Is Denied Hearing from United States Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court denies the petition of
Brandan Dassey, an innocent who will remain in prison for
life. Case is highlighted at the bottom of above Court image.

Wisconsin Republicans lead defense for wrongful convictions such as Dassey's

The United States Supreme Court will not hear the case of Brendan Dassay, who was coerced as a 16-year-old into uttering a false confession that is featured in the 2015 Making a Murderer documentaries.

The so-called confession is the sole basis for the conviction of Dassey. The interrogation was conducted by demonstrably corrupt and dishonest investigators who promised Dassey that he could go back to his high-school class if he could just clear up a question. This led to Dassey’s conviction in the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach.

Writes atty Jerome Buting in May:

So WI Department of "Justice" doesn't care about justice in Brendan's case. They want him to rot in prison because they can't admit they went after innocent 16 yr old boy to convict his uncle.#makingamurderer#cjreform https://t.co/hLxeFy3MfC

— Jerome Buting (@JButing) May 10, 2018

The Court refused to grant cert in Dassey's petition, and its refusal came with a simple list of cases denied, a quiet snuffing out of a man's life, (highlighted at bottom of image, at right).

Wisconsin law enforcement, as with the rest of the nation, attracts Republicans and criminal personality types for whom prosecuting and imprisoning innocent people is seen a means to establish careers and gratifying a need to harm people.

The United States Supreme Court denies the petition of
Brandan Dassey, an innocent who will remain in prison for
life. Case is highlighted at the bottom of above Court image.

The Dassey case is featured along with another wrongful prosecution, Steven Avery, in the Making a Murderer series.

Len Kachinsky, Dassey's attorney, threw Dassey, a cognitively challenged 16-year-old, to two criminal investigators, Mark Wiegert, (sergeant at the Calumet County Sheriff's Office), and Tom Fassbender (Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation investigator), who in 2005 weren't looking for the truth but trying to get Dassey to mutter words portrayed as admissions of guilt and supporting a lurid, contrived tale of guilt of Avery in the revenge prosecution (Ferek, Appleton Post-Crescent).

Wiegert, Fassbender and former District Attorney and sex offender Ken Kratz contrived a case against two men whom they knew to be innocent.

Republican-led state police organizations in 2008 awarded Wiegert and Fassbender actual awards for their work in railroading innocent people.

As noted here previously, in America there exists a hostile and deceitful domestic police force, a careerist, conviction-at-any-costs prosecutorial ethos, racism and taboo ethics in the criminal justice system, and a commitment of district attorneys to defend wrongful convictions irrespective of truth or any consideration of justice present conditions perfect for mass incarceration constituting a "leviathan unmatched in human history," (Glenn C. Loury, Boston Review).

We're there, people.

Consider if your daughter, brother, father or mother were wrongfully convicted. Who stands with you then?

Think it could not happen to you? It happened to Penny Brummer in 1994, a young military veteran wrongfully convicted by a Dane County jury because in part she is an out lesbian.

Ask the family of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, 1968-2009) (1923-2010), (Cary, Rollcall). The reader will have a full-blooded understanding of a Brady violation.

Ask the mother of Madison, Wisconsin's Penny Brummer: Interrogated, defamed, arrested, convicted and sentenced to what amounts to a life sentence.

Contrary to popular wisdom we live in a land of the Sovereign (the people of the state and not the law) and bad faith and deceit on the part of law enforcement are a huge part of the problem.

I'm thankful for the Richard Posners, the Sidney Powells (there is a force of nature), and the Alex Kozinski for shining lights on not a democracy, but a brutal prison state. And am always mindful of I.F. Stone's admonition: "Every government is run by liars. Nothing they say should be believed." First read this quote in 1985 on a large poster that used to occupy a prominent place of the late Erwin Knoll's (NYT) wall at the Progressive Magazine, a journal carrying out this legacy and reporting the truth to this day.

The only route for Dassey now is a pardon from a new Wisconsin governor if one is elected in November. It's a long shot.

Making of a Murderer Appellate Decision Shows American Police State at Work

Image -Kathe Kollwitz, (1867-1945). Kollwitz is a major
anti-fascist artist who lived in Germany.

Update: Judges David Hamilton, Frank Easterbrook, Michael Kanne and Diane Sykes of the Seventh Circuit are dishonest people. Hamilton in his rush to reverse the federal court decision that would have freed Brendan Dassey confused Bobby Dassey with his older brother, Brendan Dassey. JFC. Critical reading.
---
When Richard Posner announced his resignation from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in September 2017, it was clear real people would get hurt in his absence from the bench.

Posner blew the whistle on the federal judiciary, telling Adam Liptak in the New York Times that judges are not-so-judicious and often vicious: "there are others who are just, you know, reactionary beasts. They’re reactionary beasts because they want to manipulate the statutes and the Constitution in their own way," said Posner.

Posner had people like the innocent-and-convicted-anyway Brendan Dassey in mind.

Dassey was railroaded by east-central Wisconsin human garbage and convicted of crimes of which the cops knew Dassey to be innocent. The case drew outrage after it was featured in Making of a Murderer.

The conviction was reversed this year in federal court. Now, reactionary beasts on the Seventh Circuit reinstated the conviction in (16-3397), Dassey v. Dittman last week.

There is almost never accountability for the inhumane infliction against the innocent. Police and prosecutors remain immune to virtually any crime they inflict.

In Dassey v. Dittman, Judges David Hamilton, Frank Easterbrook, Michael Kanne and Diane Sykes of the Seventh Circuit are reactionary beasts, dishonestly and indifferently snuffing out an innocent, young life.

I wish Posner had been around for just a few months more.

Writes James Warren:

It's ironic — maybe tragic — that Richard Posner, generally conceded to be perhaps the most influential judge-academic of his generation and the most influential judge not on the Supreme Court, suddenly and surprisingly quit the Chicago appeals court and retired in September at a still prolific 78. If he were around, the odds are that he would have voted with the dissenters, made it 4-4 and thus affirmed the earlier reversal of Dassey's conviction.

But no. Dassey will remain in prison, it would appear, until he dies. It might prompt you to download the Netflix series. And, as you watch, be reminded of the strengths of journalism — but how even the most meticulously detailed conclusions can lead ultimately to exasperation, not satisfaction, and precious little attention. 

So, an innocent life is extinguished, Dassey is gone, unless the United States Supreme Court accepts his case when it's appealed.

Exasperation, disgust, and revulsion are features thinking people note in examining the United States criminal justice system. These are not emotions in this context, they're a formless creature of malice and indifference that is the American criminal justice system that exudes what it inflicts.

Whether the victim is Penny Brummer, or Brendan Dassey, the perpetrators are cops and prosecutors, and we are mostly by-standers.

Wisconsin Republicans Obstruct the Vote

Madison, Wisconsin — Everyone in Wisconsin, especially Republicans, know why Gov. Scott Walker and Republicans, and only Republicans, in the legislature transformed Wisconsin election law since 2011.

The corporate media and Republicans play dumb of-course.

The aim and objective of the Republican transformation of Wisconsin law is Republicans winning elections by obstructing as many non-Republican voters as possible.

But until we see headlines in the Wisconsin dailies reading: "Republicans' obstructing voters gets results," we still will have much of the political culture residing in what former Judge Richard Posner called a "fact-free cocoon."

For reference, analyses, federal court judgments note the following resources:

• Bottari, PRWatch
• United States District Judge James D. Peterson judgment of in One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324), (updates in One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen), (Mal Contends) 
• Posner, Frank v. Walker, On Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc. (October 10, 2014), (Mal Contends, Brad Blog)
• Mayer, Voter ID Study Shows Turnout Effects in 2016 Wisconsin Presidential Election, UW-Madison).
  
  

Study: Republican Photo ID Law Deterred 10,000s from Voting in Wisconsin in Presidential Election

Wisconsin Republicans remain determined to stop voters
The Blind Leading the Blind - Brueghel

Poor, Ethnic Minorities Hit Hardest by GOP Obstruction Law

Madison, Wisconsin — The Republican-backed Photo Voter ID law stopped 10,000s from voting in the 2016 presidential election in Wisconsin, concludes a study conducted by Kenneth R. Mayer, Professor of Political Science.

Wisconsin Republicans and only Republicans attempted for years to pass a photo voter ID law before a bill was passed on a party-line vote in 2011, and signed by Gov. Scott Walker, a long-time backer of this voter-obstruction initiative, proposed under cover of self-consciously false claims of voter fraud, (WTMJ-Milwuakee).

In October 2014, Richard Posner of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, (1981-2017), eviscerated Wisconsin photo voter ID law as voter obstruction in a scathing dissenting opinion that has not been credibly challenged, even as Republican jurists on this federal Appellate Court defend Wisconsin's voter obstruction law.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison study supports Posner's findings.

Wisconsin's voter ID law is one of many Republican-imposed changes to Wisconsin election law that were passed on party-line votes to block as many non-Republicans from voting as possible. Numerous Republican voter obstruction laws were found to be unconstitutional in July 2016 in One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen, (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324). In May 2016 one witness testifying for the Republicans in One Wisconsin, Waukesha County Clerk Kathleen Novack, said, there is "too much access to the voters as far as opportunities" to vote in Madison and Milwaukee, (Jake's Economic TA Funhouse), (Opoien, The Capital Times). This would be the Novack Doctrine, a guiding principle of Republican jurisprudence in voting rights law.

A reproduction of the press release for the Wisconsin voter ID study follows.
--
Voter ID Study Shows Turnout Effects in 2016 Wisconsin Presidential Election

MADISON, WISCONSIN — A survey of registered voters in Dane and Milwaukee Counties who did not vote in the 2016 presidential election found that 11.2% of eligible nonvoting registrants were deterred by the Wisconsin’s voter ID law.

This corresponds to 16,801 people in the two counties deterred from voting, and could be as high as 23,252 based on the confidence interval around the 11.2% estimate, which is between 7.8% and 15.5%. The survey further found that 6% of nonvoters were prevented from voting because they lacked ID or cited ID as the main reason they did not vote, which corresponds to 9,001 people, and could be as high as 14,101 based on the confidence interval of between 3.5% and 9.4%.

Roughly 80% of registrants who were deterred from voting by the ID law, and 77% of those prevented from voting, cast ballots in the 2012 election.

Based on these estimates, if all of the affected registrants voted the voter ID requirement reduced turnout in the two counties by 2.24 percentage points under the main measure of effect, and by 1.2 percentage points under a conservative measure. If they voted at 2012 rates, voter ID lowered turnout by 0.9 to 1.8 percentage points.

The burdens of voter ID fell disproportionately on low-income and minority populations. Among low-income registrants (household income under $25,000), 21.1% were deterred, compared to 7.2% for those over $25,000. Among high-income registrants (over $100,000 household income), 2.7% were deterred. 8.3% of white registrants were deterred, compared to 27.5% of African Americans.

The study, conducted by Principal Investigator Kenneth R. Mayer, Professor of Political Science and Affiliate Faculty of the Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs and UW Madison, with Ph.D. candidate Michael G. DeCrescenzo, was based on the statewide database of registered voters (WisVote), which records whether a registrant cast a ballot in the November presidential election. The survey was administered by the UW Survey Center, and funded by the Dane County Clerk’s Office. The data are based on a sample of 288 nonvoting registrants who were on the rolls on or before election day, November 8, 2016.

The survey asked registrants about their reasons for not voting, the types of ID they possess, interest in the election, confidence in the accuracy of the vote count, and demographics. The survey did not ask voters about who they would have voted for or their party identification.

The survey found considerable confusion about the law. Most of the people who said they did not vote because they lacked ID actually possessed a qualifying form of ID. This confusion may be the result of a lack of effective efforts educating eligible voters of the requirements of the law, and it is consistent with other studies that show many otherwise eligible voters are confused about ID laws. There were no significant differences between people who had seen information about the voter ID law and those who had not.

"This study provides better data than previous efforts to measure the effects of ID laws, which have largely been based on aggregate turnout, matching registered voters to state driver’s license and ID databases, or looking at the number of rejected provisional ballots cast by voters without an ID," said Principal Investigator Mayer. "By asking nonvoters their reasons for not voting, and about what forms of ID they actually possess, we get a better understanding of how voter ID laws affect individuals, and what types of people are most deterred by the laws. The data show that poor and minority populations are affected the most."

"The main conclusion of the study is that thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands, of otherwise eligible people were deterred from voting by the ID law," said Mayer. "The 11.2% figure is actually a lower bound since it does not include people who don’t even register because they lack an ID. And while the total number affected in Milwaukee and Dane Counties is smaller than the margin of victory in the 2016 presidential election, that is the wrong measure. An eligible voter who cannot vote because of the ID law is disenfranchised, and that in itself is a serious harm to the integrity to the electoral process."

Supporting information available at https://elections.wisc.edu/news/voter-id-study
###

Richard Posner Blows Whistle on Federal Judiciary

Readers note persuasively that career-changing federal appellate Judge Richard Poser blew the whistle on the federal judiciary as a whole as intellectually dishonest pols pursuing results in federal litigation.

Judge Richard Posner announced his resignation from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit earlier this month.

In an exit interview with Adam Liptak in the New York Times, Posner made comments implicitly and explicitly critical of federal judges, in response to Liptak's questions: 

'Judges are simply applying rules, and the rules come from somewhere else, like the Constitution, and the Constitution is sacred. And statutes, unless they’re unconstitutional, are sacred also.'

'A lot of the people who say that are sincere,' he said. 'That’s their conception of law. That’s fine.'

He said he had less sympathy for the second camp [of his critics]. 'There are others who are just, you know, reactionary beasts,' he said. 'They’re reactionary beasts because they want to manipulate the statutes and the Constitution in their own way.'

That judges at every level of the judiciary seek results over the law is obvious.

Judges because their actions matter to real people are a destructive and worrisome force, largely unexamined in American society, and actors whose duplicity is cringe-worthy.

Judge Richard Posner Quits Bench, Hits "Reactionary Beasts" as Unfaithful to Constitution

The sudden news this month that an intellectual is resigning from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit should cause alarm about the future of liberty claims in federal litigation.

Judge Richard Posner announced his resignation as the federal judiciary branch is populated by ever-more brazen rightwingers and politicians.

Notes Adam Liptak in the New York Times this morning in a column on Posner's resignation:

In emphasizing social utility over, say, principles of fairness and equality, he gained a reputation as a cold and calculating conservative.

That changed over time, and his recent opinions on voter ID laws, abortion, same-sex marriage and workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation have been decidedly liberal.

Liberal as in recognizing the Constitutional rights of American citizens that used to guide consideration of litigation in the federal courts.

New York Times is worth a read this morning on the career and influence of this public intellectual.

Despite the self-importance with which the federal judiciary, and most judges, conduct themselves, Posner casts most judges as anti-intellectual, especially rightwingers of whom he says, "There are others who are just, you know, reactionary beasts. They’re reactionary beasts because they want to manipulate the statutes and the Constitution in their own way."

Judge Posner Rips Milwaukee County Killer Cops

James Franklin Perry - Killed by Milwaukee
police in 2010. Perry is a human being, not
an "animal."

Human Decency v. 'Beyond Stupid' Milwaukee Killer Cops;
Federal Civil Rights Case on Cops Calling Black Man an "Animal" Before Watching Him Die in Custody

"Do you understand? Do you understand? ... Don't you understand?" Judge Richard Posner was offended by a fool, the 'defecating on himself is not unusual' Susan Lappen of the Milwaukee City Attorney's office, defending the 2010 death of a human being, James Franklin Perry, in the custody of indecent police.
---

Updated - How do people get to the point where they willfully inflict injury and trauma onto another, to the point of death?

One journey for this type of human garbage ends in a supportive institution, the Milwaukee cops—racist, brutal thugs. Human malignancy has a home in the Milwaukee County Sheriff's office and the city of Milwaukee Police.

If you live in Milwaukee County, you can become a cop and kill a black man with no accountability, reveling in the sick satisfaction cops take in these pursuits, (Vielmetti, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel).

Republicans and other assorted racists on the bench such as the late Rudolph Randa will back you up.

James Franklin Perry died in police custody in Milwaukee in 2010. Bet the cops enjoyed a nice laugh, though their cheer may have been cut short as Mr. Perry's control over his body ceased when he suffered the fatal epileptic attack, documented in the hospital from which he was being transferred.

The estate of James Franklin Perry is suing the city and county of Milwaukee.

The case is Estate of James Franklin Perry v. Cheryl Wenzel, (16-2353).

Reports Bruce Vielmetti:

Federal appeals judges tore into Milwaukee police handling of a prisoner who died in custody during an epileptic seizure in 2010, during oral argument on an appeal of his family's civil rights case last week.

'I must say, I don't think I've ever seen such bad police work,' said Judge Richard Posner, part of a three-judge panel at the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals hearing the case in Chicago.

It was a rough morning Thursday for the city's attorney, Susan Lappen, who was interrupted repeatedly by Posner and Judge Ann Williams during a session that lasted more than an hour, about double the time normally allotted for oral argument.

The estate of James Franklin Perry, 41, sued city, county and hospital officials in 2012. In May, U.S District Judge Rudolph Randa dismissed all the claims against city and county officials and sanctioned the plaintiff lawyers, saying they pressed their case even after it became clear the county had no liability.

Randa's typically ludicrous edict won't survive appellate scrutiny.

Decency from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

In oral arguments in James Franklin Perry last week, Judge Richard Posner in particular would have nothing of what he called Milwaukee's "ridiculous" arguments offered by Susan Lappen of the Milwaukee City Attorney's office. Lappen has a history of defending indecent conduct by Milwaukee cops.

Posner, clearly appalled by the recounting of Mr. Perry dying and writhing on the floor, called the cops "beyond stupid" in oral arguments, and excoriated the shameless Susan Lappen. Beyond human would have been more apt. Posner called police conduct "grotesque" and "pointless."

All Milwaukee cops involved will be cleared of any wrongdoing.
---
On a personal note, I admire Richard Posner's powers of logic, and commitment to rigorous empirical investigations in hearing federal litigation. I admire more Posner's decency in hearing Estate of James Franklin Perry v. Cheryl Wenzel, (16-2353). Posner is offended and angry. He should be, we should be. Bear witness.

Listen to oral arguments at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from last week.

You'll be sickened, and then inspired by Judges Richard Posner and Ann Williams, and believe it or not by Judge Daniel Anthony Manion.

Fight Against Republican Voter Obstruction Continues

Fighting Republican efforts to "to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government," (Richard Posner, Frank v. Walker).

Since 2011 Wisconsin Republicans have engineered mandatory photo voter ID and dozens of other election laws to obstruct as many non-Republican voters as possible.

This is an imperfect method of voter obstruction, but one which demonstrably is used to suppress the total number of voters likely to cast non-Republican votes.

Voting rights advocates are pursuing many actions against Republican voter obstruction laws enacted across the country by Republican-led states to achieve desired electoral outcomes for a favored political party, the Republican Party.

One action pursued by voting rights workers is in the federal court system, in which voting rights attorneys make legal claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and Section Two of the Voting Rights Act.

North Carolina

On June 21 in North Carolina, a federal judicial panel in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, heard oral argument in North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP; Emanuel Baptist Church; Covenant Presbyterian Chruch; Barbee Chapel Missionary Baptist Church, Inc.; Rosanell Eaton; Armentia Eaton; Carolyn Coleman; Jocelyn Ferguson-Kelly; Faith Jackson; Mary Perry; and Maria Teresa Unger Palmer v. Patrick Lloyd McCrory, et al (2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55712).

The voting rights plaintiffs challenge North Carolina's Republican-enacted voter suppression law, North Carolina House Bill 589 (2013), a comprehensive voter obstruction effort composed of many of the voter obstruction initiatives used in Wisconsin, Texas and other Republican-led states.

The North Carolina case is fast-tracked.

Gov. McCrory is an anti-voting rights Republican governor working to stop minority and college-aged voters from voting in an effort to consolidate Republican political control of North Carolina.

Voting rights advocates are watching North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v.
Patrick Lloyd McCrory to gauge the federal courts' inclination to uphold Fourteenth Amendment claims of liberty and Due Process against incursions by Republican-led states.

North Carolina has a sordid and violent racist history of lynchings, beatings, Jim Crow laws and other liberty-destroying practices aimed at black citizens which leave minority populations particularly vulnerable to voter obstruction efforts.

Now, Latinos and college-aged voters join blacks in being targeted for exclusion from voting by Republican voter obstruction laws in North Carolina.

Anna Baldwin, an attorney with the Voting Section, Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Dept of Justice, argued on June 21 the "cumulative" consequence of numerous North Carolina Republican voter obstruction provisions has both the intent and effect of obstruction of minority and college-aged voters in North Carolina.

Other voting rights attorneys arguing the case, (16-1468), before the federal panel include Penda Hair and Allison Riggs who spoke to the discriminatory intent and effect of North Carolina's voter obstruction law.

Three voting rights cases were ordered consolidated for trial in 2015: North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory; League of Women Voters v. North Carolina and United States of America v. North Carolina.

Earlier this year Republican U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder allowed the North Carolina obstruction laws to take effect.

The federal panel hearing the case is composed of federal judges: Diana Gribbon Motz, James A. Wynn Jr., and Henry F. Floyd.

Wisconsin cases before the federal courts are One Wisconsin Institute v. Nichol (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin (Case 15-cv-324)) and Frank v. Walker.

As with North Carolina, Wisconsin Republicans are hostile to minority and college-aged citizens who vote against Republicans.

Wisconsin Early Voting Is Record-High, Reports Say

Wisconsin's pivotal status in the Repulbican and Democratic Party presidential primaries is bringing record-turnouts in early voting, (in-person, absentee voting).

In Fitchburg, Wisconsin in Dane County, 1,000-pus people had already early-voted Thursday. Fitchburg has a population of 25,000.

Milwaukee Election Commission executive director Neil Albrecht tells WTMJ radio early voter turnout is up more than 400 percent over previous presidential primaries in 2008 and 2012.

In Appleton, the line outside the city clerk's office has been steady with voters who don't want to wait until Tuesday to cast their ballot. Clerk Cami Lynch tells WBAY-TV the number of early voters is double the number in the last presidential primary, (AP, WKOW.TV).

Up north, social media posts indicate long lines at towns and villages this week suggesting high turnout.

Today is the last day of early voting in Wisconsin because of a Republican-passed law slashing early voting periods.

Knowledge of the Republican-passed photo voter ID law's first application in a presidential-level election likely also ran up the early voting as suppressing voters in urban areas and creating long lines on Election Day are expected consequences.

Wisconsin's photo voter ID law could block as many as 300,000 registered voters from casting their preference, (Mal Contends), (Frank v. Walker, (Nos.  14-2058 and 14-2059), Judge Richard Posner dissent).

"To exacerbate matters, Wisconsin has allocated no money to educate voters about the new law, as required by the legislation, and Republicans have dismantled the non-partisan Government Accountability Board in charge of supervising elections," writes Ari Berman in The Nation.

A Legal Challenge to a Wisconsin Voter Obstruction Law

After years of effort to enact laws obstructing non-Republican voters from the polls, Scott Walker and the Republicans may believe they have succeeded on one count: Wisconsin's Photo Voter ID law that could potentially keep some 300,000 voters away from the polls next year, (Posner, Frank v. Walker, On Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc).

Legal challenges to Wisconsin Act 23 (2011) are not over, (Associated Press).

Here I suggest another: A challenge based on violations of Due Process and Equal Protection including elements not seen, that should be contemplated by voting rights advocates.

This concerns the class of "permanent absentee" voters living in Wisconsin, and the inequitable treatment by the state of those who not members of this class—i.e. every other elector who is not an permanent absentee voter, excluding Permanent Overseas Absentee voters.

Federal law (and state law and regulations) demands reasonable accommodations - and rightfully so - for permanent absentee voters who are indefinitely confined because of age, illness, infirmity or disability. Permanent absentee ballot voters need only present a photo voter ID once (and fill out a short form with no supporting medical documentation) at their local municipality clerk's office to become a member of this class, and then receive a mailed absentee ballot in perpetuity before every election.

Currently, most other voters must present one of a range of restrictive photo voter IDs in every voting circumstance, (in-person early voting; voting at the polls and so on), despite the difficulties this poses as discussed in Frank v. Walker and other challenges.

Not all voters are not treated the same under the onerous photo voter ID regime.

This poses the question whether the inequitable treatment of classes by the state towards one class in not having to present a photo ID, and another class having to present such an ID is a violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment under the United States Constitution.

What makes this question different from recent other past challenges is that this line of reasoning argues for a facial challenge of the 2011 Wisconsin Act 23.

"Each eligible elector who is required to register under s. 6.27, who is not a military elector or an overseas elector, who registers by mail, and who has not voted in an election in this state shall, if voting in person, provide an identifying document that establishes proof of residence under sub. (3) or, if voting by absentee ballot, provide a copy of an identifying document that establishes proof of residence under sub.(3).," reads 2011 Wisconsin Act 23.

Neither Act 23 nor the Wisconsin Government Accountability (GAB) website notes a Photo Voter ID, proof of identification, as a condition to vote for permanent absentee voters.

In fact, the GAB notes "proof of identification must be provided only once with the application (unless the voter re-registers with a new name or address)" for absentee voters.

2011 Wisconsin Act 23 is of course a law crafted by Republicans to keep Republicans in power.

Few would argue a remedy for a Due Process and Equal Protection violation inconvenience the infirm or disabled, emphatically for a voter fraud problem that does not exist.

"As there is no evidence that voter impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it's a problem turn it into one? If the Wisconsin legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials?" asks Judge Richard Posner in Frank v. Walker (p.26).

It is indisputable that permanent absentee voters are free to commit voter fraud under Republican and Act 23 theory, without any proof-of-identification check save an initial check by a municipal clerk.

In response to a query, the GAB reports that the "number of permanent absentee voters identified in the Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS) is 46,419."

The GAB qualifies this figure, noting, "the total number of permanent absentee voters in Wisconsin is unknown. The reason is that only 351 out of 1,853 municipalities used SVRS to manage their list of permanent absentee voters at the most recent statewide election. However, those tend to be the state’s largest municipalities."

To conclude we have a class of approximately 50,000 permanent absentee voters who have no mandated proof-of-identification check, and some 3,018,000 voters [from 2102 Presidential and General Election data] who are burdened by Act 23, including the estimated 300,000 who would see their franchise destroyed, absent a federal injunction.

A federal lawsuit is called for seeking injunctive relief invalidating this unconstitutional law.

Walker, GOP's Anti-Choice Law Ruled Unconstitutional

Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican Party legislators fooled many Wisconsin citizens with their 2013 Act 37 to stop a woman's choice to an abortion, but the federal judges in the Seventh Circuit ridiculed the anti-abortion intent and effect of the law from its inception, and ruled it unconstitutional.

Yesterday, a three-judge panel upheld U.S. District Judge's William Conley's 2013 opinion concluding the GOP-imposed law is "motivated by an improper purpose, namely to restrict the availability of abortion services in Wisconsin," (Bice, Spivak, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

The case is Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin et al v. Attorney General Brad Schimel (N0 15-1736). Orals were heard October 1, 2015.

Schimel is a Republican who performs political work in the legal arena for the Scott Walker administration.

Writes Judge Richard Posner for the three-judge panel (with rightwing Judge Daniel Manion dissenting):

There are those who would criminalize all abortions, thus terminating the constitutional right asserted in Roe and Casey and a multitude of other decisions. And there are those who would criminalize all abortions except ones that terminate a pregnancy caused by rape or are necessary to protect the life or (in some versions) the health of the pregnant woman. But what makes no sense is to abridge the constitutional right to an abortion on the basis of spurious contentions regarding women’s health—and the abridgment challenged in this case would actually endanger women’s health. It would do that by reducing the number of abortion doctors in Wisconsin, thereby increasing the waiting time for obtaining an abortion, and that increase would in turn compel some women to defer abortion to the second trimester of their pregnancy—which the studies we cited earlier find to be riskier than a first-trimester abortion. For abortions performed in the first trimester the rate of major complications is 0.05-0.06 percent (that is, between five one-hundredths of 1 percent and six one-hundredths of 1 percent. It is 1.3 percent for second-trimester abortions between 22 and 26 times higher. [p.23]

Notes Posner on Republican end-around and disingenuous legislative initiatives to halt the Constitutionally protected women's' choice to choose to have an abortion:

A great many Americans, including a number of judges, legislators, governors, and civil servants, are passionately opposed to abortion—as they are entitled to be. But persons who have a sophisticated understanding of the law and of the Supreme Court know that convincing the Court to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey is a steep uphill fight, and so some of them proceed indirectly, seeking to discourage abortions by making it more difficult for women to obtain them. They may do this in the name of protecting the health of women who have abortions, yet as in this case the specific measures they support may do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion. [pp 24.25]

Concluded Posner: "[I]t is apparent that the defendants have failed to make a dent in the district court's opinion granting the permanent injunction sought by the plaintiffs." [pp 28, 29]

Roe, (upheld in Planned Parenthood of Se. Penn. v. Casey (1992)), is a landmark case acknowledging the personal, "fundamental" right to liberty and privacy (against state action) individual women retain in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Scott Walker, GOP Deny Their Anti-choice Views in Court, Public Statements

The effect, "purpose" and "intent" of Scott Walker's TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) law is to shut down access to abortion in Wisconsin.

Judges Richard Posner and David Hamilton note these facts in a hearing yesterday at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, (hear the audio), and are dismissive of Walker, Attorney General Brad Schimel (R) (who sat in the audience) and the Republican Party of Wisconsin's pretensions to the contrary.

The case is (15-1736) Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Brad D. Schimel, heard October 1, 2015.

Wisconsin Act 37 (2013) is designed to stop abortions, a law in the words of Judge Posner that represents a "clear flaunting of Roe v. Wade."

Roe, (upheld in Planned Parenthood of Se. Penn. v. Casey (1992)), is a landmark case acknowledging the personal, "fundamental" right to liberty and privacy (against state action) individual women retain in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Walker and the extremist Republican Party—which enacted this law with unanimous GOP support and against unanimous Democratic Party opposition—know most Americans want individual women to make the choice to bear a child, and not Republican-led state governments.

So Walker and Republicans pretend to the position abortion should be left between a woman and her doctor, while enacting laws such as Wisconsin Act 37 crafted to stop abortion.

Judge Posner actually cited Walker's public statements in the hearing, noting Walker's public stances against abortion in all cases, even in cases to save the life of a mother, speaking to the intent of the law (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

Walker through his spokeswoman denied his own anti-choice view:

Spokeswoman Laurel Patrick said Posner was wrong about Walker's views.

'The appropriate role of a judge is to make decisions based on the rule of law, rather than to insert inflammatory political commentary,' she said in an email. (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

A 2013 restraining order against the Republican-enacted law remains in effect. And Roe and Casey remain the law of the land, protecting women again undue burdens such as Walker's TRAP law heard at the hearing.

Meanwhile Republicans across the nation, including all major Republican candidates for the presidency continue their stance the state and not women should make the decision on whether women bear children.

Prosecutors' Absolute Immunity Takes Another Hit in Second Circuit

"The U.S. Second Circuit has ruled that a prosecutor can be held to a standard of 'qualified immunity,' and thus can be sued, for knowingly presenting false information to a Grand Jury," notes Phil Locke in a case decided earlier this month (Wrongful Convictions) (Kaiser, Above the Law).

The case follows last year's ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Fields v. Wharrie (2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1333) which knocked absolute immunity as well.

The Second Circuit case is Morse v. Fusto.

Morse comes as a flurry of political work across the nation challenges policing in a democracy and the police-prosecutor state resulting in mass incarceration and massive fining of the citizenry to fund local communities' budgets, emphatically in minority communities.

Prosecutorial misconduct and malicious prosecutions are routine. In Wisconsin, one can just cast a glance at Iron County, for instance.

Notes Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a foreword to Sidney Powell's Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice (Brown Books Publishing Group, 2014), Brady violations by prosecutors are rampant and the nation needs "a serious conversation about whether our criminal justice system continues to live up to its vaunted reputation."

The Morse case may also interest Scott Walker and allies' attacks on Wisconsin law enforcement probes of misconduct in Walker's office while serving as Milwaukee County Executive, and Walker's scheme coordinating campaign funds and independent expenditures against the 2011-12 recall campaign.

Scott Walker Implies He'll Try to Repeal Fourteenth Amendment

Even as couples cheer the historic Supreme Court win for marriage equality (Opoien, the Capital Times), Gov. Scott Walker said he's calling for a Constitutional Amendment that would repeal the right to marry acclaimed by the Court yesterday.

"The states are the proper place for these decisions to be made, and as we have seen repeatedly over the last few days, we will need a conservative president who will appoint men and women to the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our land without injecting their own political agendas," Walker said in a statement. "As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of states to continue to define marriage." (Opoien, The Capital Times)

The statement provides more evidence that Scott Walker knows virtually nothing about the United States Constitution, an interesting state of affairs for a man who wants to be president.

The claims of equality by marriage equity advocates are so overwhelmingly supported by the Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, it is inescapable that the right to marry is now a fundamental liberty. (It was before.)

Scott Walker or anyone else cannot now wish away the fundamental liberties of marriage protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, cited by Justice Kennedy, without repealing the Fourteenth Amendment, a protector of individuals' rights against bigoted state government.

Walker's Constitutional Amendment would of course never pass.

But Walker's animus towards gays is the very irrational societal and state force from which Obergefell v. Hodges protects individuals' liberty.

Walker's proposed Constitutional Amendment, (I would love to read the language), is posturing for the bigoted vote, but Walker's proposal also reveals him as a rube on the eve of his announcement for his run for the Republican Party's nomination for the presidency

Such an Amendment would have to repeal the protections in the Fourteenth Amendment, namely the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses that as noted shield individuals from states and bigoted forces that would ban interracial unions and same-sex marriages. In fact, whole sections of the Constitution would have to be rewritten for Walker to achieve his stated objective to take away citizens' liberty and give it to the states.

"A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause," writes Kennedy.

Its no accident Justice Kennedy cited Loving v. Virginia (1967) numerous times throughout Obergefell.

In the sweeping win in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses cited by Justice Kennedy make clear that the Constitution's fundamental rights apply with equal force to same-sex couples as for different-sex couples.

This fundamental right to marry cannot be destroyed by a state because political interests in the state hate gays, anymore than racists can anymore stop black folks from marrying.

"No longer may this liberty be denied," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the historic decision. "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were." (Liptak, New York Times)

Don't look for Scott Walker's idea of a Constitutional Amendment to advance, but Walker did manage to reveal himself an ignoramus from Wisconsin.

Marriage Equality Wins at Supreme Court

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law."
—Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

Who told Gov. Scott Walker he knows enough about the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to offer an opinion on the marriage equality decision, Obergefell v. Hodges?

God?

Maybe, but Walker is emitting nonsense for the lowest of the low-low-information voters who congregate at Republican functions and vote in Republican primaries.

Walker said the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges is making a "grave mistake" (Spicuzza, Marley and Vielmetti of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) (Jessie Opoien, The Capital Times), omitting his reasoning.

One wishes a reporter could ask, 'Hey, Gov, can you more specific on the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause in Fourteenth Amendment and how they apply to Obergefell v. Hodges, this is making history?'

No big champion nor curious student of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause is Scott Walker. Fortunately, for American liberty, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is:

Justice Kennedy writing for the majority (5-4) in Obergefell notes: "III - Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'  The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs."

The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility, however, 'has not been reduced to any formula.' Rather, it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. (Case citations omitted)" (p.10) ...

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.  In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered. (p.28)

Walker should look to his betters for guidance on the Court and to Wisconsin's congressional delegation:

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan of Madison, who has been in a same-sex marriage for years, said, "Today, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed what a majority of Americans already know: all couples should have the right to marry, regardless of who they love. This a historic step forward toward fulfilling the promise of equality for all Americans."

And U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Madison, who is also gay, said, "Love is love, family is family, and discriminating against anyone's love, against anyone's family, is simply wrong. America can proudly say that discrimination doesn't just violate our values — it violates our Constitution. And now we can proudly say that marriage equality will be the law of the land." (Spicuzza, Marley and Vielmetti of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)

Happiness - from the ACLU

It would be amusing to follow Walker's reasoning regarding the "grave" mistake the Court made. Can you feel your most intimate relationship falling apart under the crushing weight of gay people marrying

Better to revisit Judge Richard Posner's (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit) opinion last September affirming U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb's June 2014 opinion and order in Wolf v. Scott Walker striking down one of Walker's many forays into foolishness. (Mal Contends)

Today's lede editorial in the New York Times inspires. See also SCOTUSBlog, The Atlantic, Slate, and the New York Times as celebrations continue across the country.

The President Speaks on the Supreme Court’s Decision on Marriage Equality (June 26, 2015)

Wisconsin Is Passive as Out-of-Control District Attorney Runs Wild

"The right to do what the law does not prohibit, without fear of harassment or punishment, is one of the hallmarks of a free society."—Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [foreword to Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice (Sidney Powell, Brown Books Publishing Group, 2014)]
 ---
Updated - A January 18 snow trek through the snow-covered forest in a northern Wisconsin county is felony bailjumping (Wisconsin Statute 946.49), according to Iron County (Wisconsin) District Attorney Martin Lipske, the precise sort of prosecutor with a history of misconduct Judge Richard Posner—judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—had in mind when Posner wrote his crucial opinion hitting absolute immunity for prosecutors in Fields v. Wharrie and Kelley, (2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 133) (No. 13-1195).

District Attorney Lipske routinely files felony bailjumping (and other ludicrous) criminal charges, and these charges are not the result of meticulous investigations and objective gathering of facts and evidence by law enforcement.

Two days after January 18, District Attorney Lipske decided, without an investigation, that he had no choice but to file a felony bailjumping charge the day before an environmental protester was to be sentenced for Lipske's latest abuse of process, one could even say a malicious prosecution.

Lipske just wanted more control over the life of the anti-mining activist, Katie Krow Kloth, and this despicable model of a jurist had no compunction that the actions of his office inflicted pain on the 27-year-old Ms. Kloth, and on her family and friends, hence this site's recent characterization of Lipske as a psychopath.

The District Attorney's office of Iron County in Hurley is run by a little man, Martin Lipske, animated by spite, vindictiveness, and caprice, and whose criminal charges typically are not proceeded by investigations of any kind, just a vague contemplation of how Lipske can use contrived charges to achieve his ends as he revels in his world of Iron County.

The gravity of this situation is easily overlooked by Wisconsin media as Iron County is an isolated and sparsely populated county in far-northern Wisconsin, and Wisconsin has myriad issues of the moment demanding attention of the media, the political system and the citizenry.

Martin Lipske is part of the problem.

Martin Lipske's prosecutions slip through the cracks, giving Lipske carte blanche to run his office on personal whims with appalling results, and the regulatory Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Investigation is a case study in administrative law "capture theory," a state of affairs more insidious when the purpose of regulation and the rule of law is the Sovereign embodied by the District Attorney—"the power and might of the government," as noted by an out-of-state jurist.

I have spoken with victims of Lipske's over the last several years, and the shattering trauma of these victims is common in Iron County for both the legally exonerated and the morally exonerated.

DA Martin Lipske Fronting for the Proposed Gogebic Taconite (GTAC) Mine

District Attorney Martin Lipske threw the book at GTAC mining protester, Katie Krow Kloth, for actions at a June 2013 mining protest that would have brought a civil citation of disorderly conduct in most any other Wisconsin county.

But not Lipske.

Kloth was recently sentenced to serve nine months in the Iron County jail, after being charged with four criminal offenses for these actions at a rally against the proposed mine.

Advocating for GTAC and subsequently for the criminally operating Bulletproof Securities, Inc, (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) Lipske defended Bulletproof at a 2013 hearing of Kloth's, a window into Lipske's mindset and corruption of the judicial process for the benefit of GTAC.

Subsequently, Lipske violated a Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule [SCR 20:3.6  Trial publicity] in his pursuit of Kloth, (Mal Contends); vis:

Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule [SCR 20:3.6  Trial publicity]: "(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter."

Bailjumping Charge

"Acting Judge Sam Filippo set [a $5,000 signature] bond recommended by Lipske under conditions that Kloth have no contact with the [alledged] victim, nor threatening behavior to GTAC or Idea Drilling employees," notes Ralph Ansami (Lakeland Times).

Now, Lipske on top of the four criminal charges, claims that Ms. Kloth allegedly entering the forbidden zone in the public managed forest land in the Penokee Hills last Sunday constitutes "bailjumping."

The "forbidden zone" reference is to the Republican-passed law, 2013 Wisconsin Act 81, effective January 2014 that the GOP designed for GTAC to test-drill and load and transport bulk samples (Wisconsin Public Radio). [Here is the link to Act 81's legislative history and record of committee proceedings.]

This is a not a criminal statute.

"All the right-winger media was abuzz about supposed so-called 'No Go Zones' that Muslim people have set up in cities in Europe where non-Muslims aren't allowed to go. Turns out, the real No-Go Zones are set up by the Corporate Persons in America where non-Corporates aren't allowed to go," noted Bobby L. Clark, a Wisconsin citizen in Iron County and member of the group, Citizens Concerned about the Proposed Penokee Mine.

The proposed mining zone language is basically a trespassing statute that outlines what constitutes a trespass for "Proposed Ferrous Mining Sites, (2m)," as has been widely noted by clean water advocates.

GTAC gets a 600-foot buffer in which to test-drill and transport bulk samples from its proposed iron ore mine.

Wisconsin "Trespass to law" is still the law used to enforce any alleged trespassing.

Trespassing is a civil infraction—and it is quite a stretch for Lipske to call a civil infraction, bailjumping.

No investigation

It would be silly to contend that Lipske conducted an investigation just after the hours of the alleged infraction and found that Ms. Kloth trespassed, and then conclude a felony bailjumping charge must be leveled.

Wisconsin's trespassing law requires some kind of notice. This means if the owner approaches people and says you are trespassing on land and can go no further, you will advance at your own risk.

If you are not actually told this, signage is also required, and the state trespassing law says you need each 40-acre parcel marked, ridiculous for Lipske to mesh these requirements with the "600-foot rule" that the special forbidden zone legislation created, with absolutely no investigation conducted, as Lipske has admitted.

The Trespass to land law reads in part:

(2)(am) A person has received notice from the owner or occupant within the meaning of sub. (1m) (b), (e) or (f) if he or she has been notified personally, either orally or in writing, or if the land is posted. Land is considered to be posted under this paragraph under either of the following procedures:

943.13(2)(am)1. 1. If a sign at least 11 inches square is placed in at least 2 conspicuous places for every 40 acres to be protected. The sign must provide an appropriate notice and the name of the person giving the notice followed by the word "owner" if the person giving the notice is the holder of legal title to the land and by the word "occupant" if the person giving the notice is not the holder of legal title but is a lawful occupant of the land. Proof that appropriate signs as provided in this subdivision were erected or in existence upon the premises to be protected prior to the event complained of shall be prima facie proof that the premises to be protected were posted as provided in this subdivision.

2. If markings at least one foot long, including in a contrasting color the phrase "private land" and the name of the owner, are made in at least 2 conspicuous places for every 40 acres to be protected.

Lipske would have had to investigate and first determine which 40-acre parcel the 600-foot rule affected, ensure that each 40-acre parcel has the required signage, as required by statute, and that Ms. Kloth then intentionally violated the Proposed Ferrous Mining Sites, (2m) and conditions of her bond.

Each 40-feet forbidden zone is not marked, Iron County residents have confirmed.

This Proposed Ferrous Mining Sites law merely creates a right of the owner to close off the land to the public.

Lipske likely will be informed that the state will not be able to sustain a trespass charge against Kloth, meaning there was no violation of her bail conditions in this respect (i.e., no law violated).

As far as the specific conditions of Kloth's bail forbidding her from entering a mining site on GTAC's premises, there is neither a mining site, as defined in state law, nor a premises owned by GTAC that was ventured into by Kloth or anyone else, and moreover no one was encountered Sunday, January 18, as one would expect in the middle of the forest in the middle of January in far-northern Iron County Wisconsin.

That the conditions of Kloth's signature bond were violated is at best silly conjecture accomplished with no investigation, and to file a felony bailjumping charge is an abuse of process intended to cause Kloth harm.

Lipske had operated in this manner for years, thus demanding, at the least, that every case he has prosecuted be examined by an outside agency.

Hyperbole? I wish.