Scott Walker Runs from Plea Deal Question, Releases Unresponsive Statement

Scott Walker again refused to engage the story alleging that his attorney is involved in plea deal talks with Wisconsin John Doe officials.

"Neither Governor Walker nor his campaign committee are parties to the federal lawsuit. This means they have no legal standing to reach a settlement or deal in their lawsuit," Walker's statement reads in full.

This statement has nothing to do with the possible plea negotiations with state investigators conducting the John Doe probe looking into possible illegal collusion between Scott Walker's campaign and rightwing groups that poured $tens of millions into the 2011-12 Recall races.

Walker is referring to Eric O'Keefe's Wisconsin Club for Growth federal action now before the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Eric O’Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc. v Francis Schmitz.

Walker refuses further comment on the plea deal story.

Rudolph Randa Hit on the Chris Hayes Show

Judge Rudolph Randa drawing flak

Update: "He never should have allowed himself to be involved in that case (Eric O’Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc. v Francis Schmitz) ," said Monroe Freedman, a Hofstra Law School professor and judicial ethics expert, of Randa. (Elbow, The Capital Times)

In a segment on the judge who ended Scott Walker's probe (for now) and tried to destroy all evidence, MSNBC's Chris Hayes referenced U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa's all-expenses-paid trips to legal seminars, "funded by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and other ideological and corporate interests," as previously reported by PRWatch. 

Randa's outrageous ruling stopping a criminal investigation is drawing new attention as $tens of millions of rightwing money has apparently rendered some of the judiciary incompetent or corrupt.

"You can't lobby a judge, but you can wine and dine them," said Nicholas Confessore, correspondent for the New York Times.

Undercutting Scott Walker's Criminal Plea Bargaining

Update: Jason Stein, Patrick Marley and Bill Glauber report, "A legal civil war broke out Wednesday among targets of a John Doe probe, as a conservative group sought Wednesday to block prosecutors from having settlement talks with Gov. Scott Walker's campaign. In a letter sent Wednesday, the Washington, D.C., attorney representing the Wisconsin Club for Growth and one of its directors questioned whether a special prosecutor in the case is negotiating with the GOP governor's campaign to seek concessions that the Club might oppose."

The AP has a source confirming discord among Scott Walker and "other parties caught up in" the John Doe investigation.

This likely means the parties who have been subpoenaed.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday in its opinion page: "We've [the Wall Street Journal] learned that Steven Biskupic, who represents Friends of Scott Walker, has been negotiating with Wisconsin special prosecutor Francis Schmitz to settle the state's investigation. The understandable concern among the direct targets of the John Doe is that Mr. Biskupic will cut a deal that would exonerate Mr. Walker while wresting concessions from some of Mr. Walker's allies."

Actually, there are not "targets" in Wisconsin John Doe probes unless criminal charges are brought. John Doe probes are not grand jury proceedings.

The Wall Street Journal editorial sounds like a stern warning to Walker not to forget as the title of the piece reads, "Scott Walker's Friends."

So, who issued the warning? David Koch for his work on behalf of recalled Wisconsin state senators and Scott Walker in 2012? Apparently not.

It's a guessing game.

Biskupic—the former U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin (2001-08)—has launched some corrupt schemes before in service to the Republican Party and fouled them up, and he certainly has some fellow Republicans concerned now.

In February, Brendan Fischer reported, "Newly-unsealed court documents and media leaks add to a growing body of evidence that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's campaign is at the center of a wide-ranging secret probe into campaign finance violations during the state's contentious 2011 and 2012 recall elections."

One possible explanation for why Republican sources are leaking to the media is their concern that Biskupic doesn't believe the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will sustain Judge Randa's decision and his May 8 finding of frivolousness, so Biskupic is simply trying to get the best deal possible for Walker.

As One Wisconsin Now opines: "If Gov. Walker was confident his campaign hadn't engaged in wrong-doing, he wouldn't be trying to cut a deal. It's not a coincidence that as the court is considering making thousands of secret documents public, Gov. Walker is suddenly negotiating. Gov. Walker has approached this unseemly affair the same way he governs and campaigns, which is to say he doesn't believe the rules apply to him."

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is composed of 14 judges, including two Republican-appointed judges—Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner who are generally regarded as geniuses utterly unconcerned with smashing the toes of litigants, if warranted.

Ten judges were appointed by Republican presidents, four by Democratic presidents.

The general perception of the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit as leaning to the right may be far-off.

And the consensus opinion of Judge Rudolph Randa as having fallen off the deep end may be spot-on.

If Biskupic is giving Walker advice like this, seeking a plea bargain, Walker might wish to listen and so should Walker's friends, unless they see themselves as beyond the law or are deluded about what the law and specific judicial doctrine are as it applies to campaign finance.

Whatever is going on in Wisconsin Republican land, its John Doe probe is a partisan witch hunt line is about as credible as Scott Walker claiming to be an open, transparent and accessible governor.

Report: Scott Walker Campaign in Plea Deal Negotiations

Update: From PRWatch: "The news of settlement talks further undermines their description of the probe as a baseless investigation. It seems hard to believe that Walker would be negotiating settlement if his high-priced lawyers thought this investigation was going nowhere."

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is reporting the following: "Gov. Scott Walker's campaign may be negotiating with prosecutors as part of a secret investigation into the 2012 recall campaigns involving him and other candidates, according to an anonymously sourced opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal."

The Wall Street Journal [paid site] editorial is condemnatory of Scott Walker's alleged legal maneuvers.

Write Jason Stein, Patrick Marley and Bill Glauber, quoting the Wall Street Jounral: "We've [the Wall Street Journal] learned that Steven Biskupic, who represents Friends of Scott Walker, has been negotiating with Wisconsin special prosecutor Francis Schmitz to settle the state's investigation. The understandable concern among the direct targets of the John Doe is that Mr. Biskupic will cut a deal that would exonerate Mr. Walker while wresting concessions from some of Mr. Walker's allies."

It's not clear since Judge Rudolph Randa halted the John Doe probe in early May in Eric O’Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc. v Francis Schmitz, how and why attorney Biskupic may be negotiating a plea deal for Scott Walker's 2012 Recall campaign.

The Wall Street Journal speculates that "Mr. Walker is facing a rough re-election fight this year, and perhaps he and his lawyers want to remove any chance of a September or October legal surprise."

Concludes the Wall Street Journal editorial: "On Tuesday a very clipped Mr. Biskupic told us that he was "'not going to comment on anything related to any John Doe in Wisconsin because doing so would be a violation of court orders.' But after he hung up with us he warned other friends of Scott Walker about our call. Sounds like Mr. Walker has to decide whose side he's on—his own, or the larger principles he claims to represent."

Stay tuned.

Judge Rudolph Randa Is Perhaps the Most Corrupt U.S. District Judge

A bombshell report broke today on Judge Rudolph Randa—whose writing contrived and heavily criticized orders halting the Wisconsin John Doe probe investigating dark money and possible illegal collusion with the Scott Walker Recall campaign—regularly attended all-expenses-paid junkets, "funded by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and other ideological and corporate interests."

Brendan Fischer broke the story at PRWatch today.

Randa has a history of nakedly corrupt judicial policymaking.

Randa presided over the infamous prosecution of Georgia Thompson in 2007 by former U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic (2001-2008).

And Randa also refused to recuse himself from a case, decided by a federal bankruptcy judge—the child molestation scandal-bankruptcy proceedings by creditors of the Milwaukee Archdiocese (Goodstein, NYT) with whom Randa was associated.

Randa reversed the decision of a federal bankruptcy judge in July 2013 after the Milwaukee Archdiocese transferred $57 Million to a cemetery fund to avoid paying the rape and sexual assault victims of Catholic priests.

Journal-Sentinel Piece on John Doe Statute as "Witch Hunt" Is Odd

Update: See After Railing Against John Doe Secrecy, WI Club for Growth Fights to Keep Docs Secret

The best work on the Scott Walker-John Doe probes without question is the reporting by the staff of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

We know about Scott Walker's stonewalling of his aides' embezzling from veterans' funds, and Scott Walker's many lies on this embezzling because of Dan Bice (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel; May 31, 2012).

We know that John Doe I grew from John Doe II (Bice, MJS; Oct. 21, 2013).

Jason Stein, Patrick Marley and Daniel Bice's piece of explanatory journalism today is not on a par as the staff's prior work, and arguably constitutes Republican propaganda—everyday operations in GOP-land, but in this election year a crashing project.

This is what happens when good journalists insert foolish talking points from the Republican Party into a news piece, towards what end is not clear.

Republicans will make up talking points and contradict themselves within hours, and not get called out in the news columns.

Today's headline reads: "Courts to decide whether John Doe a useful tool or unfair witch hunt."

It's a good bet neither of these two questions will be addressed or answered by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. And it is unlikely any Court will rule on the constitutionality of Wisconsin's John Doe statute.

Witch Hunts Need Witches

To conduct a witch hunt, one needs to understand that there are by definition no witches.

[Note: With sincere apologies to the Wiccan religious embrace of life; no disrespect is intended to these positive and life-affirming people.]

Let's consider John Doe I, there are plenty of "witches."

Prosecutors secured multiple criminal convictions against six of Scott Walker's appointees, top staff, and a campaign contributor.

There are no claims of innocence, save Kelly M. Rindfleisch who is appealing her conviction of misconduct in public office.

Would any Republican claim Rindfleisch is innocent?

We know from multiple emails released by Rindfleisch that Scott Walker and his staff ran an illegal political operation out of the Milwaukee County Executive's office, an operation that began as far back as 2002 when Bob Kiefert set up a secret Internet system—an effort coordinated by then-deputy chief of staff Tim Russell (who embezzled over $10,000 from a veterans' fund) and Kiefert was given the nod by then Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. [See also Scott Walker Knew about 'Secret' Email System at Milwaukee County; Kiefert, Green Bay Progressive; February 19, 2014).

Seizure by Police

Seizure and serving of subpoenas are intrusive and invasive, which is precisely why we have the Fourth Amendment, and the ACLU. R.J. Johnson should remember this the next time he blasts the ACLU.

In any event, the Journal-Sentinel's appreciation for civil liberties is to be applauded. However, today's piece sensationalizes police work.

If the police acted improperly in seizure of property and serving subpoenas, they should be held accountable. But how does this call into question the John Doe statute or the prosecutors conducting a witch hunt?

Attacking Prosecutors

The "national trend ... attacking prosecutors" while being a "target" mentioned may be relevant to the routine "Brady violations" in which prosecutors illegally withhold exculpatory or other evidence favorable to the defense in a criminal trial.

See‘Epidemic of Brady violations’ decried in Judge Kozinski's opinion, the many wrongful convictions, and the important opinion by Judge Richard Posner (with Wisconsin's Judge Diane Sykes dissenting) of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in which Judge Posner hits absolute immunity for prosecutors, and refuses "to bless a breathtaking injustice" of an innocent man. This innocent man was imprisoned for 17 years, and was the victim of an Illinois prosecutor "coercing a man’s false testimony that led to his conviction and sentence to death row." This repulsive prosecutor was defended by Justice Sykes' opinion.

But Wisconsin John Doe probes determine if and by whom a crime has been committed, and if a case were to forward. There are no targets, as in grand juries, until and if someone is charged.

In this specific John Doe probe, the investigation itself is being attacked, not the prosecution as there is not a prosecution.

The probe has not determined if and by whom a crime has been committed.

The district attorneys are Constitutional officers whom Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen refuses to defend by intervening in Eric O’Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc. v Francis Schmitz, et al while the case is under appeal.

This is because the Scott Walker campaign and the Wisconsin Club for Growth's R.J. Johnson and other groups apparently illegally coordinated their campaigns during the 2012 Recall elections, and these are factions to whom Van Hollen owes his allegiance.

If this is false, why are Republican spending $ millions trying to stop this investigation?

John Doe Judges

As for Wisconsin's Republican attorney general, J.B. Van Hollen is quoted as saying, he wants judges to no longer preside over filing charges by district attorneys.

Van Hollen may or may not be aware that a presiding judge is a protection against a district attorney who might violate citizens' rights.

Again, witch hunt?

Witch Hunt

By insinuating that Wisconsin's John Doe statute is a witch hunt and calling into question the operation of this John Doe probe, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel piece contrives a controversy where none exists, if facts are the foundation of this analysis.

Just because a bunch of Republicans yell "witch," this does not mean witches' casting spells are real or that Scott Walker is a straight shooter who holds 100s of no-holds-barred listening sessions with the Wisconsin people.

These things don't happen.

Wisconsin DAs Call out Judge Ruldoph Randa: Open John Doe Records

Update III: Wisconsin Public Radio has updated their story, and confirmed that the story is inaccurate with a link to Judge Randa's proposed order: "CORRECTION: "Wisconsin Public Radio reported this morning that Judge Rudolph Randa had issued a ruling in the John Doe lawsuit ordering nearly all documents in the case to be released to the public. It was a proposed order, not a final order, and has not been signed by Judge Randa.We regret the error."

Update II: Wisconsin John Doe attorneys have filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to reauthorize their authority over the John Doe investigation, and are seeking an order preventing U.S. District Judge Ruldoph Randa from taking further action on this law enforcement investigation while it proceeds, Patrick Marley reports.

Update: Wisconsin Public Radio report is inaccurate; and is retracted . Judge Ruldoph Randa ordered the release of more than 100 documents, reports Wisconsin Public Radio. Randa orders that four documents stay sealed because the Wisconsin Club for Growth says their secrecy is needed to secure their First Amendment rights. See update above.

Judge Ruldoph Randa likely is not aware how ridiculous his rulings shutting down the John Doe investigation are.

No one has been charged; no one has gone on trial; the Wisconsin John Doe statute calls for determining these two questions.

But Randa decided it is for him as a federal judge to decide a First Amendment objection during an ongoing state law enforcement investigation.

Worth noting is that no one is targeted before he or she is charged in Wisconsin John Doe probes, despite what readers are told by GOP flacks.

Rightwingers including Judge Randa have complained about the secrecy codicils allowed under Wisconsin's John Doe statute, in Randa's order to shut down a law enforcement investigation.

In Randa's opinion, Randa writes, "the first John Doe developed into a long-running investigation of all things Walker-related," (p.4) a foolish reference to the apparent orderly, bipartisan probe overseen by a presiding judge.

Randa displays his naked bias often in his opinion Eric O’Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc. v Francis Schmitz, et al (Case No.  14-C-139), filed May 5, making several references about the "secret" nature of the John Doe probe subpoenas, though secrecy in John Doe probes is typical

In the face of rightwing accusations of "police-state" (George Will) targeting of the Scott Walker campaign and rightwingers, prosecutors yesterday made a motion to open the records, per the John Doe statute.

"Subject to s. 971.23, [Discovery and Inspection] if the proceeding is secret, the record of the proceeding and the testimony taken shall not be open to inspection by anyone except the district attorney unless it is used by the prosecution at the preliminary hearing or the trial of the accused and then only to the extent that it is so used," reads the John Doe statute.

The presiding judge has the discretion to ultimately determine if the record is to be made public.

Previously, the Wisconsin Club for Growth had made a call for discovery.

Report Dan Bice and Patrick Marley:

In a surprise move, prosecutors said Wednesday they support opening hundreds of pages of documents from a John Doe probe into fundraising and spending by Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and its conservative allies during recent recall elections. ...

State Reserve Judge Gregory Peterson, who is supervising the probe, filed a one-page response saying he neither supported nor opposed the effort to unseal the documents the journalism groups are seeking.

Randa who has injected himself into the case in a heavily criticized decision and order, is now the deciding authority on if and what records will be released.

Randa's authority may be short-lived, however, as an appeal filed by the five Wisconsin district attorneys, the presiding John Doe judge, and the special prosecutor, a self-identified Republican, Francis Schmitz is still to be decided.

If Randa is to reclaim a shred of credibility, he should order full transparency of the John Doe records, per the District Attorneys' discretion in keeping with state law.

Unless Randa is prepared to declare the Wisconsin John Doe statute unconstitutional on whatever contrived grounds he can imagine [ludicrous but this is Randa], the people of Wisconsin and the litigants will be served by transparency in this case in which Randa should never have made his sweeping decision he ordered on May 5, and his finding of frivolousness by the district attorneys two days later.

Attorneys Samuel Leib, who is representing Milwaukee DA John Chisholm, said: "(Randa's) decision threatens the constitutional authority of every district attorney and the attorney general of the state of Wisconsin." (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)

Yes, the constitutional authority is endangered and one wonder why Wisconsin's governor and attorney general are not intervening on the basis of these concerns.

Sure, Scott Walker's campaign is likely implicated in illegal coordination in violation of Wisconsin campaign finance law, but Walker did take an oath to defend the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions, and so did J.B. Van Hollen.

Rudolph Randa's Reversals by Appellate Court Draw Attention

John Doe probe halted by Judge Rudolph
Randa is an investigation that grew out
of embezzlement from military veterans'
funds by Scott Walker appointees.
From left to right: Tim Russell, Scott Walker
and Brian Pierick, Four other Walker associates
were convicted in a Wisconsin John Doe probe

Updated - As Wisconsin awaits the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Judge Rudolph Randa's order to halt the law enforcement investigation known as John Doe II, attention is being focused on Randa's many other rulings reversed on appeal.

Randa's two orders last week to halt the probe of possible collusion by Scott Walker's campaign and out-of-state independent expenditure groups have attorneys mystified, though attorneys are prevented from questioning the ethics of Randa by rules of the State Bar of Wisconsin.

Randa's decision in Eric O’Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc. v Francis Schmitz, et al (Case No.  14-C-139) is contrived to reach a desired result.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) Vice Chair, Ann Ravel says Randa "has cut and pasted a lot of decisions, a lot of language from various decisions, in a way that is actually not applicable. And if it were to be carried out to its full meaning, there would be very few campaign [finance] laws that would continue to be able to be enforced"

Now, Randa's past ruling are drawing attention as a window into the ethics of Randa by journalists.

This weekend's pieces (Bice, Stein and Dietrich, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) includes this passage:

For instance, in 2007, Randa referred repeatedly to a drug dealer's Mexican heritage, saying 'you people' and 'those people,' during sentencing. The judge also discounted the defendant's claim of being a good family man, saying 'even Adolf Hitler was admired by his family. Adolf Hitler loved his dog. Yet he killed 6 million Jews.'

Randa has a reputation as an imperious judge, reminding some of the late U.S. District Judge John Shabazz in this respect whose open contempt for litigants and his own self reverence were infamous.

But Randa takes his self-regard down to the vainglorious, ordering the physical structure of the courtroom architecture altered in a bizarre move transforming the appearance of his bench into something resembling a throne.

Report Bice, Stein and Dietrich: Known for his "authoritarian" manner in court, about a decade ago, "Randa spent $1.85 million in taxpayer dollars to upgrade his courtroom, chambers and library, even adding a 400-pound, hand-carved wooden U.S. District Court seal to the wall and moving the six courtroom chandeliers so they aligned with his bench, not the windows."

But it is Randa's frequent reversals more than his manner that has jurists alarmed.

Randa presided over the infamous prosecution of Georgia Thompson in 2007 by former U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic (2001-2008), [Biskupic's wife works as a judicial assistant on Randa's staff and Biskupic now represents Scott Walker's campaign in his law firm begun with his former assistant from the U.S. Attorney's office], that in a spectacular action was reversed by a bipartisan panel on appeal immediately after oral arguments with the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit, Frank Easterbrook, ordering Thompson freed, and ordering her acquittal.

Randa insisted Thompson remain jailed during the appellate process though the conviction was condemned across the nation.

More examples abound, and it would take a large undertaking to examine all the victims under Randa's judgeship.

One case involves Randa refusing to recuse himself in the child molestation scandal-bankruptcy proceedings by creditors of the Milwaukee Archdiocese (Goodstein, NYT) with whom Randa was associated.

Randa reversed the decision of a federal bankruptcy judge in July 2013 after the Milwaukee Archdiocese transferred $57 Million to a cemetery fund to avoid paying the rape and sexual assault victims of Catholic priests.

"In his ruling, Judge Randa decided that forcing the archdiocese to tap its cemetery fund would violate the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law passed by Congress in 1993, " reports Goodstein. (emphasis mine)

That decision has not yet been appealed. 

See also ThinkProgress (Millhiser) for more information on Randa.

If anyone had any doubt that George Will is just another propagandist for the GOP, this doubt can properly dispensed with reading Will's take in which he writes, "U.S. District Judge Rudolph T. Randa, revolted by the police-state arrogance of some elected prosecutors, has stopped a partisan abuse of law enforcement that was masquerading as political hygiene."

Will as usual ignores inconvenient facts, including the fact that two district attorneys are Republicans, the special investigator is Republican, and the vote by the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board to investigate was unanimous.

"Former judges on the state Government Accountability Board voted unanimously last year to authorize the investigation of fundraising and spending by Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and his allies during the recent recall elections, according to a Tuesday court filing," report Patrick Marley and Daniel Bice (April 15, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

Moreover, John Doe probes in Wisconsin are overseen by a judge and the John Doe probe is an investigation; John Doe probes do not mete out the trial and conviction and sentence as Will would have readers believe in his deceitful prose.

Doesn't George Will research his columns?

FEC Commissioner: Judge Randa's Order a Troubling Cut-and-Paste Job

Updated - Talking Points Memo's Eric Lach has an interview up with Federal Election Commission (FEC) Vice Chair, Ann Ravel, reacting to Judge Rudolph Randa's ruling this week shutting down the John Doe probe looking into possible illegal coordination between Scott Walker's campaign and rightwing groups in the 2012 recall elections.

Ms. Ravel slams Randa's ruling, adding to the growing perception that a federal judge is working directly for the benefit of one political faction in his jurisdiction, the Republican Party.

Ravel's comments are the first by a jurist speaking to the merits of Randa's decision and order.

Here's a excerpt, the whole interview is worth reading.

Says Ravel:

"[Randa's ruling] is significant nonetheless, because it goes so far beyond what the Supreme Court has ruled in Citizens United and McCutcheon. And the language in the decision is very broad and troubling."

I think essentially what he's saying isn't the law. He has cut and pasted a lot of decisions, a lot of language from various decisions, in a way that is actually not applicable. And if it were to be carried out to its full meaning, there would be very few campaign [finance] laws that would continue to be able to be enforced." (emphasis added)

Corrupt prosecutors too often employ overly creative constructions and aggregations of elements of criminal statute and case law to arrive at a predetermined conclusion in their objective to secure criminal convictions, irrespective of justice.

In Eric O’Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc. v Francis Schmitz, et al (Case No.  14-C-139), the artist creating a legal montage is Judge Rudolph Randa, and citizens are left staring mutely at his contrivance, now doubting whether judicial impartiality and justice still exist in Wisconsin.