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.

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.

Update: Judge Rudolph Randa Declares District Attorneys' Argument Frivolous

Update V: The Steven Biskupic-Rudolph Randa conflict-of-interest story is knocked down. "Steven Biskupic, a former U.S. attorney who is representing a party in the secretive John Doe probe, indicated Thursday in an email to the State Journal that there was no conflict of interest for Judge Rudolph Randa, whose judicial assistant is Cary Biskupic, Steven Biskupic's wife. (DeFour, Wisconsin State Journal)

Update IV: From Greg Neumann (WKOW, Madison): "@Burke4WI says she does not think Judge Randa should have the final say on the John Doe investigation into GOP recall campaigns and groups." Better than nothing.

Update III: Mary Burke, Scott Walker's presumptive Democratic Party opponent, has nothing to say about this naked display of corruption in the judiciary. Nothing.

Update II: Here's Brendan Fischer's take from PRWatch: "Judge Randa's May 6 decision halting the investigation is extraordinary. It involves a federal court injecting its own interpretation of state law into a high-profile criminal probe of political operatives of the party that appointed him to the bench, while state court proceedings are ongoing. It deploys a strained reading of U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the facts of the case, portraying the investigation -- led by a bipartisan group of District Attorneys and a Special Prosecutor who voted for Walker, and approved unanimously by the bipartisan group of retired judges on Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board -- as politically-motivated retaliation against Republicans. ....

Update: Naked corruption by Judge Rudolph Randa (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin)

Randa just dove into the depths of corruption, and certified the law enforcement attorneys' arguments "frivolous," a necessary step for his halting the John Doe probe into Scott Walker's possible campaign and illegal coordination, among other fact-finding done by the criminal probe.

For a finding of frivolousness, a judge must certify arguments to be utterly meritless, and most likely made in bad faith.

Here's a lay definition of frivolous: A legal move in a lawsuit clearly intended merely to harass, delay or embarrass the opposition. Frivolous acts can include ... an appeal which contains not a single arguable basis (by any stretch of the imagination) for the appeal. (Law.com)

I would be surprised if Randa's decision lasts a day. In any event the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Judicial Misconduct Compliant Form is here.

Randa's decision will almost certainly be appealed, and overturned
---
Judge Rudolph Randa's "decision and order," mandating the destruction of evidence gathered in the Wisconsin criminal investigation known as John Doe II reads like a political op-ed column from the Wall Street Journal, in service to the Republican party of Wisconsin, as much as a precisely crafted judicial opinion.

Randa's bizarre order (PDF link from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) was stayed within hours by a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (May 7 order).

The appellate panel's language is measured of course, but reading between the lines, it is the legal equivalent of excoriation, and a complete reversal of Randa's decision.

On Monday, May 5, the Wisconsin district attorneys and other John Doe authorities filed an Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and Memorandum in Support of Motion.

Randa ignored the filing, and rushed out his decision and order the next day, May 6.

Wisconsin jurists cannot state on the record that Randa's actions are corrupt, reckless, and in disregard to settled legal procedure, but what Randa did was precisely for a corrupt purpose in support of the GOP and in opposition to the rule of law.

Chief Judge Diane P. Wood, William J. Bauer, and Frank H. Easterbrook write in their May 7 order:

Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F.2d 1335 (7th cir. 1989), once a litigant files a notice of appeal, a district court (like Randa's) may not take further action in the suit unless it certifies that the appeal is frivolous. The district court failed to follow that rule when, despite the notice of appeal by several defendants, it entered a preliminary injunction. This court accordingly stays the injunction, and all further proceedings in the court, until [Judge Randa] has ruled definitively on the question posed by Apostol. (emphasis added)

Why didn't Randa know this?

And why did Randa rush out his decision and order, a maneuver that lasted mere hours before being reversed in the appellate panel's order?

Randa's decision is replete with editorializing, minimizing the crimes of Scott Walker appointees and aides who embezzled from military veterans funds and committed misconduct in public office as "minor offenses."

Randa even refers to Walker's Act 10 Bill as "reforms," ["...Wisconsin Club for Growth (WCFG) argued that the reforms of the Budget Repair Bill were fair ..."] (p. 3) and presents as fact that "left-leaning organizations" (p. 3) are in political opposition.

Randa goes on and on, attributing the political motives of Eric O'Keefe (of the Wisconsin Club for Growth) and R. J. Johnson (a respected Wisconsin GOP politico) as benign and in the public interest.

Writes Randa: "The initial focus of the first (John Doe) proceeding was the embezzlement of $11,242.24 that Milwaukee County had collected for the local Order of the Purple Heart while Walker was serving as Milwaukee County Executive.  From there, the first John Doe developed into a long-running investigation of all things Walker-related." (p. 4)

"All things Walker-related?" Does this really strike anyone as anything but editorializing, and biased against and hostile to the John Doe investigation?

Randa's background of the case including his editorializing is not addressed on the appellate panel's order; it is not blasted by Wisconsin jurists (who ethically cannot criticize the ethics of a fellow jurist), so if falls to lay citizens and journalists to tease out what happened.

In none of the reporting from Wisconsin media outlets have we seen the facts of Randa's inappropriate and inaccurate editorializing reported on and condemned.

What happened this week is that a corrupt federal judge, a former member of the rightwing Federalist Society, fronted and shilled for the Republicans and other right wingers, and only the integrity of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit saved the rule of law in Wisconsin.

Nowhere does Randa even cite the Wisconsin John Doe statute that serves the Wisconsin people as a law enforcement tool.

One can read a scholarly and unbiased judicial opinion and find the arguments of both sides of the litigants' presented, analyzed, and refuted or sustained. Not so Randa's.

Randa's opinion makes a laughingstock of his tenure on the bench, already tarnished by the ludicrous Georgia Thompson prosecution and his unethical ruling on the Milwaukee Archdiocese bankruptcy proceedings settling the mass child rape and molestation cases.

In this case, Walker's attorney, Steven Biskupic, is married to Cary Biskupic who is a Judicial Assistant for Randa. No appearance of impartiality there, in Randa's view who should have recused himself from this case.

One thing Randa did get right is this: "According to the prosecutors, R.J. Johnson controlled WCFG and used it as a 'hub' to coordinate fundraising and issue advocacy involving FOSW (Friends of Scott Walker) and other 501(c)(4) organizations such as Citizens for a Strong America, Wisconsin Right to Life, and United Sportsmen of Wisconsin." (p. 8)

There is certainly reasonable suspicion for a John Doe probe, as the five Republican and Democratic district attorneys agree.

Randa did a service in demonstrating that Wisconsin Republicans (including Randa) today feel they are above the law.

Walker hopes that the criminal investigation will "move on," but not for Walker's benefit Walker says, but for the people of the state.

Right. I wonder if Scott Walker has any comment about Randa's characterization of stealing from veterans as a "minor offense" since Walker appointed the embezzlers who had no veterans' advocacy experience and no non-profit experience.

Walker also says the John Doe investigations are distractions. Yes, criminal investigations usually are distractions from those who have engaged in criminal activities.

It is incumbent on those Wisconsin citizens in the legal profession to borrow the courage of appellate attorney and author, Sidney Powell—who blows the whistle on massive corruption in the U.S. DoJ and federal judiciary in her new book, Licensed to Lie ...—and call for impartiality in the judiciary and the rule of law in Wisconsin.

Emergency Appeal Filed Against Order Halting John Doe Probe of Scott Walker, Rightwingers

"Less than a day after a federal judge halted a probe into conservative groups and the campaign of Gov. Scott Walker, prosecutors filed an emergency appeal Wednesday of the unprecedented decision," reports the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

Mike Maistelman, an election-law attorney, agreed that the case could very well end up before the nation's highest court.

'This is significant,' said Maistelman, who has represented primarily Democrats in the past. 'For the federal judicial branch to halt an investigation conducted by a constitutionally elected official is huge.'

John Doe probes are law enforcement tools to determine if and by whom crimes have been committed in Wisconsin under Wisconsin statute.

Writes attorney Marcus J. Berghahn:

The John Doe proceeding is an institution sanctioned by long usage since Wisconsin’s territorial days. The provisions of Wis. Stat. section 968.26 currently define the scope of a John Doe proceeding in Wisconsin, which is intended as an independent, investigatory tool to ascertain whether a crime has been committed and if so, by whom.

The goal is to allow the judge to determine whether it appears probable from the testimony given that a crime has been committed, and whether to file a complaint.

What Judge Rudolph Randa (of the rightwing Federalist Society) has done is to stop a law enforcement investigation, and order that evidence of possible criminal activity be destroyed.

Randa has a history of bizarre rulings including refusing to recuse himself in child molestation scandal-bankruptcy proceedings by Creditors of the Milwaukee Archdiocese (Goodstein. NYT).

Randa also presided over the trial of an innocent Georgia Thompson, ordering her imprisoned on appeal, until a panel on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered her freed in a spectacular opinion in 2007 after oral arguments, ordering her acquittal.

Randa is described as a loose canon by several attorneys speaking on background.

Look for Dismissal of Club for Growth Complaint Against Law Enforcement Probe into GOP Groups

Scott Walker posed at Operation Freedom
event. Walker's personal aides stole
from this fund meant for veterans. [Note to
Scott Walker: You really want this shot on
a TV spot when you run again for office?]

Update: Wisconsin politico Xoff makes another point for likely dismissal or withdrawal: "So the Club for Growth is now suing in federal court to try to stop a John Doe investigation into whether it and other conservative groups illegally coordinated their activity with Scott Walker's campaign. They could get more than they bargained for if the now-secret Doe material is used in court to defend the Milwaukee DA's office. Interesting that there are five county DAs involved but they are only suing John Chisholm's office. Also interesting that two of the five DAs are Republicans, so it makes the claim that this is some partisan witch hunt a little hard to believe. These are bully tactics by right-wingers who think they have enough money to do whatever they want. Hope they're wrong."

Hey, Eric O'Keefe and Club for Growth, don't get so upset at us because Scott Walker appointed crooks who embezzled from veterans, and then tried to stonewall the investigation into Operation Freedom, money purportedly to be used to honor veterans and their families; not to be promptly embezzled by Scott Walker's longtime aide, Tim Russell.

Reading the complaint filed in federal court against the Wisconsin John Doe judge, prosecutors and investigators one can see that the complaint's specific items amount to little more than whining that the Club for Growth and Republicans are roundly disliked in Wisconsin, so they should be immune from the law enforcement tool known as the John Doe probe.

The heavily redacted complaint reads that District Attorney John Chisholm is a Democrat; Dean Nickel is a Democrat; and so on is a Democrat [no mention is made of the two Republican District Attorneys also conducting the probe) and Scott Walker is intensely unpopular, therefore investigating under Wisconsin's John Doe statute, Wisconsin statute 968.26, is an unconstitutional infringement of the Club for Growth and Eric O'Keefe's First and Fourteenth Amendment freedoms.

The arguments are a joke.

The complaint also asserts that the investigation into Scott Walker's Operation Freedom that found more instances of criminality that led to other criminal convictions and the probe's broadening "exponentially," [the Club for Growth really should look up that word as it does not apply here and federal court is not the forum for hyperbole], even "breathtakingly broad."

That's pretty broad, but it should be noted the John Doe probe gathered evidence and testimony that led to six people being criminally convicted with no claims of innocence on their part.

No argument is made that the John Doe statute has been procedurally implemented in an unsound manner, other the unsupported political assertion that the "Milwaukee County Attorney's [sic] Office Is Biased Against Walker and the Budget Repair Bill (of 2011)."

The complaint is more a long op-ed screed than a complaint in federal court.

Look for the complaint to get tossed even by the like of Federalist Society hack, Rudoph Randa.

And by the way, if evidence and testimony point to possible criminality and lead to new directions as probes do, under the supervision of the presiding judge the law enforcement entity in the John Doe probe can expand the scope of the investigation.

Look at the plain language of the John Doe statute:

968.26  John Doe proceeding.

968.26(1)(1) If a district attorney requests a judge to convene a proceeding to determine whether a crime has been committed in the court's jurisdiction, the judge shall convene a proceeding described under sub. (3) and shall subpoena and examine any witnesses the district attorney identifies. ...

Club for Growth Wants to Kill John Doe Probe in Complaint before Federalist Society Judge

From left to right: Felon Tim Russell, Scott Walker
and Felon Brian Pierick, Four other Walker associates
were convicted in a Wisconsin John Doe probe (2010-13).

Update III: Prediction that the Randa rules against the criminal class of Republicans now holding sway in Wisconsin was confirmed April 8, 2014. (Marley. MJS)

Update II: Today, it was reported that due to Randa's ruling a proposed settlement to rape and molestation victims announced today, "would be by far the smallest sexual abuse settlement in any Catholic Church bankruptcy of this size filed to date." Nice job, Rudolph Randa, you protected sexual predators and screwed their vicitms.

Update: Reader notes Federalist Society Judge Rudolph T. Randa made news by fronting for the Milwaukee child-molesting set in ruling for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in a bankruptcy case in July 2013, insulating $50 million in the process, and failed to disclose his connection to the archdiocese. See also Judge Randa Is Asked by Creditors of Archdiocese to Leave Case (Goodstein. NYT).

When is a law and its implementation by law enforcement unconstitutional?

When it's used to determine if and when crimes have been committed by Republicans, who now-a-days see themselves as above and beyond the reach of Wisconsin statutes, aka the law.

So contends Wisconsin Club for Growth (WCG) and WCG's Eric O'Keefe who evidently do not like Wisconsin's John Doe statute, Wisconsin statute 968.26, and call for its implementation and perhaps its existence to be stuck down as unconstitutional in a complaint filed in federal court this week.

WCG is hoping Senior U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa will agree.

Randa is a judicial rightwinger who as recently as February 21, 2013 was listed as an advisor to the rightest Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Studies.

The Federalist Society advocates a roll back of civil rights, reproductive choice, and civil liberties under the rubric of what they claim is a valid approach of textual originalism to constitutional interpretation. (See Richard Posner for a scathing review of this "gotcha jurisprudence.")

Randa is the judge who sent an innocent Georgia Thompson to prison, a ludicrous affair later overturned in an extraordinary decision in oral arguments before a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Randa is listed along with other activist rightwingers as Federalist Society Members, including the following:  Ken Starr, Theodore Olson, Edwin Meese, Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Alex Kozinski, Ann Coulter, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Randy Barnett, Samuel Alito, Troy Eid, Hugo Teufel III, Charles Fried, Richard Allen Epstein, Priscilla Owen, Spencer Abraham, Edith Brown Clement, Rudolph T. Randa, William H. Pryor, Jr., Diane S. Sykes, David M. McIntosh, Maura D. Corrigan, C. Boyden Gray, John Sitilides, David Schizer, Jeff Ballabon, Roger Pilon, Nilda Pedrosa, Charlie Korsmo, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Stephen Bainbridge, Michael I. Krauss, Holly Coors, Don Wagner, Steven G. Calabresi.

The Wisconsin John Doe statute is a law enforcement tool used to determine the existence of criminality when for example conflicts of interests, stonewalling (as in John Doe One that found multiple felonies and misdemeanors in Scott Walker tenure of Milwaukee County Executive), practical difficulties and concern for the good name of innocent citizens mandate launching a John Doe probe after approval by a judge, administered by district attorneys, their agents and a supervising judge.

But the Wisconsin Club for Growth and other Wisconsin rightwingers object again today.

They continuously blasted the first John Doe probe that netted six criminal convictions of Scott Walker appointees, top staff members, and associates. No retractions from the rightwing exist about their smears of John Doe jurists and no claims of innocence exist on record from any of Walker's allies.

Now, WCG and O'Keefe have filed a complaint in federal court contending First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by John Doe investigators and prosecutors, including the presiding judge.

The complaint offers a bizarre history of Scott Walker's tenure and essentially a political editorial that WCG does not like progressives. The complaint also references the federal Citizens United decision as part of its argument that the probe is unconstitutional.

As noted by Jason Stein and Patrick Marley of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the named "defendants in Monday's suit are Reserve Judge Gregory A. Peterson, who is overseeing the investigation; special prosecutor Francis Schmitz; Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm; Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf; Assistant District Attorney David Robles; and investigator Dean Nickel."

Attorney Marcus J. Berghahn offers an instructive research memo on Wisconsin's John Doe statute in which he writes in part:

 Unlike normal criminal proceedings, which can be initiated if there is probable cause to believe a person has violated the law, John Doe proceedings help law enforcement develop the evidence necessary to establish the very existence of probable cause.

If a district attorney requests a judge to convene a proceeding to determine whether a crime has been committed in the court's jurisdiction, the judge shall convene a proceeding," says Wisconsin's John Doe statute. ...

(T)he proceedings are also designed to protect innocent citizens from the fallout of frivolous prosecutions. [See State ex rel. Reimann v. Cir. Ct., 214 Wis. 2d 605, 621, 571 N.W.2d 385, 390 (1997)]

As the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated in 1889: 'When [the John Doe] statute was first enacted the common-law practice was for the magistrate to issue the warrant on a complaint of mere suspicion, and he was protected in doing so. This was found to be a very unsafe practice. Many arrests were made on groundless suspicion, when the accused were innocent of the crime and there was no testimony whatever against them. This statute was made to protect citizens from arrest and imprisonment on frivolous and groundless suspicion." [State ex rel. Long v. Keyes, 75 Wis. 288, 294-95, 44 N.W. 13, 15 (1889).]

The complaint, if not dismissed, will offer a test on whether Randa wants to go out as a jurist committed to the rule of law or a rightwing hack posing as an impartial judge.

My own reading here is that the complaint is a distraction and stalling tactic meant to buy time for Scott Walker's reelection bid in November.

On February 19, many papers and e-mails concerning the criminal conviction of former Walker aide, Kelly Rindfleisch (aka Multiple Kelly), will become public.

Rindfleisch is another Walker aide convicted in the last John Doe probe, but the resulting political embarrassment of criminality in Walker's office will not be decreased by stalling the current John Doe probe, though the mounds of information coming from Scott Walker's former office will offer a nice introduction to the country of who Scott Walker is.

As for the current John Doe, since when do federal judges get to declare law enforcement investigations unconstitutional just because the subject matter involves possible criminality by Republicans?

I would not bet on a favorable ruling on this complaint for the criminal class of Republicans now holding sway in Wisconsin.

Too much of a stink would result, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is not exactly staffed by dummies, Diane Sykes notwithstanding.