Scott Walker Signs 'Emergency' Rules to Stop Singing and 'Hazards'

Local Broadcast Madison Television Maintains Blackout of Footage of Police Citing Citizens for Singing or Holding a Piece of Paper 

Update: See One Day Longer, 25 Months Stronger: the Solidarity Sing Along Draws Hope from the Next Generation.

Scott Walker continues his quest to stop Wisconsin citizens' open display of disagreement with Scott Walker's policies on the state capitol building grounds.

In a new development, Walker has signed "emergency" rules that "say that any person who refuses to remove or correct 'any hazardous situation' at the request of any department [Department of Administration] employee will be subject to citation, and lists hazards such as 'displays, decorations, signs, banners or the like.'" (Spicuzza. Wisconsin State Journal)

Next week, "a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union against the Walker administration over the citations is scheduled to have a hearing in federal court," notes the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. (Stein)

The Walker administration has remained silent in the face of requests to disclose who initiated the new crackdown, and the new emergency rules against protesters and why.

Rep. Chris Taylor (D-Madison) held a press conference yesterday in which Taylor said, "I was denied any correspondence I've requested between the Department of Administration and the Capitol Police. These are public documents that we have a right to see, that we have a right to know about and this administration is refusing to provide that information."

Legal observers see the Walker crackdown against those opposing his policies as unconstitutional.

Several times in the past two years, Walker and his Department of Administration Secretary Huebsch were ordered by judges to open the capitol that Walker ordered closed.

Walker and the capitol police have since Walker (in his words) "dropped the bomb" on Wisconsin in his surprise attack on the right of workers to unionize, at times turned the state capitol into what State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) said in 2011 was an "armed fortress."

The Capitol Police chief appointed by the Walker administration, Dave Erwin, has walked out of a meeting with state legislators in the past after being asked for the specifics of his policy and how he intends to protect the rights of Wisconsin citizens.

From September 2012 in which Erwin continued his harassment of Wisconsin citizens speaking and singing against Scott Walker:

Highlanders Should Win in Liability Case

"Sued for living on a hill," said attorney Patricia (Patti) J. Epstein this afternoon in oral argument before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Suppose you live in a house uphill from another house downhill.

Subsequently, the City installs curbs, gutters and a sub-division around the downhill house.

Then the downhill house (the plaintiff) sues the uphill house's current and previous owner (and the City, Dodgeville) (the defendants) claiming damages sustained from water flow (a damaging nuisance) though the uphill homeowner did nothing to alter their property.

Summary judgement for the defendants, right? Correct. That's the ruling in the circuit court in August 2006.

This case, Glen D. Hocking v. City of Dodgeville, et al was argued before Wisconsin Supreme Court today to clarify a question of liability in such situations.

By the way, if you have not visited the WisconsinEye site, you ought to, it's amazing. True democracy; the video of the oral arguments is already on the web.

Look for a victory for the defendants here.

One knows that skeptical-sounding questions asked of the plaintiff do not necessarily imply hostility but it sure sounded that way. Justices Roggensack, Bradley, Abrahamson and Gableman all seemed hostile to the plaintiff's arguments that the uphill homeowner is negligent. Justice Crooks was absent, having recused himself.

Plaintiff Hocking did nothing resembling a self-help action out of concern for water flowing downhill to his home, such as installing berms and so on, and the uphill homeowner (defendant) did nothing to alter their property to cause water flow. But that doesn't matter, the plaintiff says, defendants have a duty anyway to stop the water flow.

So if the uphill owner has a duty to know about and abate the nuisance that he did not create (by a standard of reasonable diligence), the standard ought to apply and hold for the downhill owner, right? [Some attorneys feel that case law could conceivably support an absurd result that an uphill owner is in fact liable for water flowing downhill, which is why the case is being heard by the Supreme Court.]

Likely, but anyway the defendant didn't do anything wrong, was not negligent, did nothing unreasonable, did nothing intentionally harmful and so is not liable. That's my lay opinion.

And this is a case all Supreme Court justices might just agree on and it will be a victory for the protection of innocent homeowners, and specifically the highlanders living on hills.