Appellate Panel Knocks Down Judge Randa Hard in Scott Walker, John Doe Case

John Doe Probe Is Open as Rudolph Randa Is Rebuked

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa's ruling halting a state John Doe investigation last May is reversed by a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit today in O'Keefe and Club for Growth, Inc v. Chisholm and Schmitz. (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel document)

The ruling rejected Randa's innovative theory of the First Amendment under which Randa asserts coordination between campaigns and independent issue groups is legal, no matter how states regulate such activity that has resulted in numerous criminal convictions in recent years.

The John Doe probe is open, as it was in January.

The John Doe probe was halted between May and September 24 by Judge Rudolph Randa's corrupt order and opinion in May that few objective observers contacted believed would stand, and would be reversed in months.

"Results-oriented" is the euphemism for corrupt is public legal statements by jurists making public observations.

Writes Judge Easterbrook for the panel:

...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.

  Starting with Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 46–47, 78 (1976), the Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that, although the First Amendment protects truly independent expenditures for political speech, the government is entitled to regulate coordination between candidates’ campaigns and purportedly independent groups. See also, e.g., FEC v. Colorado Re-­‐‑ publican Federal Campaign Committee, 533 U.S. 431, 447 (2001); McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 202–03, 219–23 (2003), over-­‐‑ ruled in part on other grounds by Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). This is so because Buckley held that the Constitution allows limits on how much one person can contribute to a politician’s campaign. If campaigns tell potential contributors to divert money to nominally independent groups that have agreed to do the campaigns’ bidding, these contribution limits become porous, and the requirement that politicians’ campaign committees disclose the donors and amounts becomes useless.

Although press reports that an overseeing Judge Gregory Peterson had effectively shut down the probe by quashing subpoenas in January, acquired evidence made public (and likely evidence and testimony not yet made public) point to Scott Walker being implicated in a criminal scheme, the point of the John Doe probe determining if and by whom crimes may have been committed.

Documents made public in June, months after Judge Gregory had squashed subpoenas, made clear that Wisconsin Constitutional law enforcement officials, district attorneys, and investigators believed Scott Walker appeared to be a the center of a "criminal scheme." (Marley, Bice and Bill Glauber, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)

The scope of the criminal scheme under investigation "is expansive," (Republican Special) Prosecutor Francis Schmitz wrote. "It includes criminal violations of multiple elections laws, including violations of Filing a False Campaign Report or Statement and Conspiracy to File a False Campaign Report or Statement."

John Doe Oral Arguments Online at Seventh Circuit Site

Oral arguments of the Eric O'Keefe v. Francis Schmitz  and Eric O'Keefe v. John Chisholm cases are available online at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit site.

The three-judge panel hearing the cases is composed of: Judges Frank H. Easterbrook,  Diane P. Wood and William J. Bauer.

Appellate Panel Hearing John Doe Probe Appeal Are Judges Easterbrook, Wood and Bauer

The same three federal appellate judges who heard the appeals halting the Wisconsin John Doe probe in an incredible three days in May 2014 will hear oral arguments this afternoon.

The three-judge panel is composed of: Judges Frank H. Easterbrook,  Diane P. Wood and William J. Bauer.

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will hear oral arguments slated to begin at 2:30 on several cases related to the John Doe probe including whether documents will be released, and whether U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa erred when Randa halted the probe on May 6 this year in his corrupt ruling that halted a law enforcement investigation in which Scott Walker has been identified as a central figure in a massive "criminal scheme." (Marley, Bice and Glauber, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel; (June 19, 2014)

The cases to be heard at oral arguments are: 14-1822, 14-1888, 14- 1899,14-2006, 14-2012, 14-2023;
O’Keefe v. Chisholm; and 14-2585; O’Keefe v. Schmitz.

Randa's ruling also ordered the destruction of evidence collected by the law enforcement probe, an order that was quickly stayed by the federal appellate court on May 7, one day after Randa's ruling.

In response to May 7 appellate court ruling, Randa then issued a finding that the John Doe prosecutors' appeal is "frivolous," another incredible ruling (on May 8) that was necessary to halt the John Doe probe as stated in the May 7 opinion of the federal panel that noted unless there was a finding a frivolity of the John Doe officials' appeal, Randa had no authority to stop the probe. (Marley, Bice and Stein, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel; May 8, 2014))

This finding of frivolity means that the John Doe appeal is utterly unreasonable and the prosecutors' appeal contains no rational basis for argument.

Appellate Panel Composition Hearing Scott Walker John Doe Case to be Made Public Tuesday Morning

A clerk answering the phone in Chicago says the composition of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's panel hearing oral arguments in the Wisconsin John Doe cases will be made public at 8:30 A.M.

This means citizens wondering which appellate judges will help decide the future of campaign finance, the rule of law, and whether Scott Walker is above the law won't know who the judges are until tomorrow morning.

Tuesday afternoon, September 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will hear oral arguments slated to begin at 2:30 on several cases related to the John Doe probe including whether documents will be released, and whether U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa erred when Randa halted the probe on May 6 this year in his spectacularly corrupt ruling.

The late notice of the composition of the panel, the clerk said, is due to routine security concerns.

As for Randa, make no mistake his decision halting the John Doe probe is not misguided or overzealous as some have said, Randa's decision is corrupt and calls into question his fitness to continue serving as federal judge.

Perils of Shutting Down Law Enforcement Probe May Await Scott Walker

Update: Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel slams Judge Rudoph Randa's decisions and order on John Doe II in a blistering editorial. "Jeremy Levinson, a Democratic campaign finance attorney in Milwaukee, told the Journal Sentinel that Randa is ignoring years of settled law and opened the door to undisclosed involvement (of huge money injections);" and that the Randa imperils the "constitutional authority of every district attorney and the attorney general of the state of Wisconsin."

Our state would become a lawless entity, where big-moneyed interests are free to break the law with no power of the people or law enforcement to stop them from destroying the state of Wisconsin as a representative democracy, if Randa's order were to stand.
---
The aggressive legal strategy of Scott Walker and the GOP Money heavies fighting off the law enforcement investigation known as John Doe II may result in unintended consequences.

The dynamic dates back to the old days when it was taken for granted by criminal enterprises that you never kill an investigative reporter because the result is more light is shone on what the journalist was covering.

Dominique Paul Noth posits the same principle applying to the John Doe II investigation of Scott Walker's campaign, and all the massive money funneled into the 2012 Wisconsin Recall elections and possible illegal coordination and breaking of campaign corruption laws.

Writes Noth: "It could very well be that the high-priced lawyers for the Wisconsin  Club for Growth were just sucked in to major tactical error by the US 7th District Court of Appeals, which encouraged an oops ruling reversal  by US District Judge Rudolph T. Randa that now allows a broader investigation to proceed."

Noth points out this is speculation, and jurists mostly cannot speak on the record, but are more than chatty in trusted legal circles. And the type of light Noth alludes to is new legal investigation that could be launched by procedure and reasonable suspicion of criminality in Wisconsin.

There is another truism is politics that applies to Scott Walker and his financial backers: When politicians tell you it's not about the money, it's about the money.