Gov Scott Walker's Secret Weapon Has Always Been Appeals to Racist, Anti-Semitic, Homophobic Human Garbage

Scott Walker in his essence is a simple bigot, never a
disqualification in Republican politics. From the
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, (Stein).

Madison, Wisconsin — Among major candidates for governor, from whom would you expect to find top staff circulating explicitly homophobic, racist, antisemitic emails?

Few in Wisconsin have to think — it's Scott Walker, (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, One Wisconsin Now, DemoCurmudgeon).

Scott Walker's staff doesn't kill Jews, gays and blacks.

What they do is make jokes about Jews, gays and blacks and circulate the jokes among themselves.

Remember who Scott Walker is.

Walker is a bigoted, ignorant liar, and to this point has never paid a price because white evangelicals and other assorted bigots here love hate.

MSNBC's Chris Hayes hit on the revelation of Walker's emails four years ago.

Hayes points out "the shear jaw dropping offensiveness" of a few of those emails.

Hayes: "What kind of work environment exactly would it be all okay to get this in your inbox and then forward it to an unspecified amount of coworkers and subordinates...but think about the kind of work environment in which a chief of staff sends this kind of email to his subordinates. An email that is explicitly homophobic, racist, antisemitic and offensive in every way possible? ... These are the thoughts people who are in charge of things like, oh I don't know, running the states welfare system." 

This is who Scott Walker and new Republican Party are.

If anyone is wondering if Republican officeholders criticized Scott Walker's former chief of staff and other Walker aides for this crap, forget it.

No GOP officeholder in Wisconsin ever publicly criticizes Scot Walker and his staff.

Person of Interest Hits Wrongfully Convicted for Serving in U.S. Military

Update: Shortly after this post appeared Glenda Johnson took down her comments in a Facebook response (Dec. 15; 7:01 p.m.) to a WKOW-TV (Madison) report. Ms. Johnson's over-heated response indicates a person who really wants this case closed for good, and she remains a suspect whose home the victim was heading before her body was found some two weeks later.
 ---
The day after a press conference this week announcing a $10,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of the person responsible for the 1994 killing of Sarah Gonstead in Madison, a person of interest in a private investigator's probe has come forward and stated she is "100% positive the right person is behind bars."

Glenda Johnson said she bases her certainty in part on the fact that Penny Brummer, the wrongfully convicted, served her country in the United States Armed Forces.

Writes Johnson in a Facebook response (Dec. 15; 7:01 p.m.) to a WKOW-TV (Madison) report by WKOW journalist, Matt Cash: "She [Penny] had her share of issues when she lived in California. She was in the military... A MP. Plus.... I am 100% positive the right person is behind bars ... ."

Penny Brummer did enlist in the Air Force right out of high school in 1987, and after basic training was transferred to Castle Air Force Base in California assigned to base security. She was honorably discharged in 1993, (Berry, p.14).

The full Facebook post by Ms. Johnson reads: "Well lets just say this... The facts on the [WKOW] page/link are wrong. They never made it back to the east side of Madison... Timeline doesn't add up. Last place they were seen together was 1.5 miles from where her body was found... Penny was a very controlling person.. She had her share of issues when she lived in California. She was in the military... A MP. Plus.... I am 100% positive the right person is behind bars. How many times do kids... Even adults lie to their parents. It's a ploy for money because the police have closed this case.... And Penny's mom says ... Penny wouldn't do it."

A reply to Johnson by a co-author of a detailed book on the homicide, by Sheila Berry, reads in full: "Glenda Johnson We have the police reports and the transcripts of everything -- initial appearance, preliminary, motions, trial and sentencing. It is clear from police reports that YOU raised the hue and cry that Sarah never made it to your house, before anyone knew she was missing. Did the police get that wrong? How about that 3 hour gap after you left work -- so upset -- but didn't go home? That's the same time frame when an independent witness saw someone dumping a bright pink "bundle" that turned out to be Sarah's body. As Shakspeare said, methinks the lady doth protest too much."

Why Glenda Johnson—who lived in the home to which Ms. Gonstead was last reported to have been intent on visiting—is so vested to see Penny Brummer behind bars and affirm the integrity of a clearly faulty police investigation is interesting, certainly pertinent to the 1994 criminal investigation.

The police quickly developed their theory and declined investigating leads disconfirming or not supporting their theory, (tunnel vision in the vernacular of criminal justice), and barely questioned Ms. Johnson. The Dane County District Attorney's office went along for the ride.

Sarah Gonstead was last seen on March 24, 1994. Her body was recovered on April 9, 1994 in Pine Bluff, an unincorporated community west of Madison. "In less than a week authorities had zeroed in on 24-year-old Penny Brummer. The last person to admit to seeing Gonstead alive after their night of binge drinking [together]," (Pabich, WMTV (Madison).

Notes author and attorney Sheila Berry on her website:

Witness David Zoromski, who reported seeing a suspicious man standing by the open passenger door of a parked pickup truck exactly where Sarah's body was later found, was told by a Dane County Sheriff's Deputy, 'What you saw is all very interesting, but we have a suspect and it doesn't fit.' The man seen by Mr. Zoromski matched the description of the person Penny said she saw Sarah talking to near the Taco Bell at East Washington Avenue and North Oak Street in Madison, after she dropped her off that night. Police identified him and knew he was a convicted felon with a long history of violence toward women -- but they never followed up on this lead.

The blood alcohol level in Sarah's liver suggests a time of death several hours after Penny was back at her Spring Green home, watching TV. 

The dearth of evidence and many facts do not fit, and do not support a conviction, and Penny Brummer remains in prison serving a life sentence.

Wisconsin Wrongful Conviction and a $10,000 Reward for At-large Killer

Advocates for Penny Brummer - Wrongfully Convicted in 1994

"Investigators can prematurely arrive at conclusions that are incorrect and then focus on information that supports those plots and conclusions and disregard other information that comes in that does not support those conclusions. That's a process called 'tunnel vision.' And it can and it does lead to conviction of the innocent. Penny [Brummer's] case features many of these same features."
—John Pray, Co-founder of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Innocence Project

Advocates of Penny Brummer are working to correct a 21-year-old injustice in the wrongful conviction of Penny Brummer.

Penny Brummer was convicted of killing Sarah Gonstead in 1994 despite no weapon, no forensic evidence, no motive, and literally no evidence of any kind tying Brummer to the undetermined crime scene.

The police investigation was replete with anti-lesbian bigotry playing a big part in Penny's conviction, and is a case study of confirmation bias. Several jurors expressed disapproval of lesbian and gay relationships in jury questionnaires.

Police investigators questioned Penny's co-workers about her body language, 'how she carried herself at work;' her persona apparently appearing unladylike behavior in an atavistic conception of gender types.

A $10,000 reward has been offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the killer of Sarah Gonstead murdered in 1994 for which Brummer was convicted and given a life sentence for first-degree intentional homicide.

Madison, Wisconsin media—WISC-TV (Madison), WKOW-TV (Madison)—and advocates for Brummer heavily covered the news of the $10,000 reward as a private investigator, Rikki Glen, continues an ongoing investigation

Rikki Glen, Penny's mother, Nancy Brummer, and John Pray of the Wisconsin Innocence Project held a press conference yesterday in front of the Dane County Courthouse.

"The evidence [in the Brummer case] was beyond, beyond thin," said Ms. Glen at the press conference.

The reward for the 21-year old conviction in Brummer v. Wisconsin comes as Dane County has made strides in combating LGBTQ bigotry, and after the win-convictions-for-reason-of-advancing-careers dynamic in the legal community in Wisconsin and Dane County resulted in incarcerations that shamed the criminal justice system.

"Today, we are a more enlightened community than 20 years ago, and Nancy Brummer, and advocates are optimistic that champions for truth will come forward and our community, police and prosecutors will stand up for truth and free Penny Brummer," said Glen.

Said John Pray of the Wisconsin Innocence Project at the press conference: 

It's been over 20 years since Penny Brummer has been convicted of the murder of Sarah Gonstead. It's a very long time and it's been a very difficult 20 years for Penny, for the family, and for her friends and many supporters. In 1994 when Penny was convicted this country was at the beginning of a revolution in the criminal justice system. This revolution was brought about by the first uses of DNA which led to the formation of the Innocence movement. At that time, for the first time, we all became very aware of the indisputable fact that it is possible to convict people of serious crimes—murder, sex assaults—and be completely innocent. We've also learned that this happens a lot more than we are comfortable with and a lot more than we ever thought was possible. In the years since then, we've seen 100s of examples where DNA evidence has proved beyond any doubt the system has grievously erred and that the wrong person was in prison. A number of those people are from Wisconsin. Wisconsin is not immune from that. Some of those people served decades in prison before they were proved innocent. In many of those cases DNA led not only to the release of the innocent person but to the arrest and conviction of the actual murderer or the actual perpetrator who have, by the way, gone on to commit other serious crimes because they have been let free.

We learn from these exonerations what went wrong with the system. And for the most part it isn't because there are evil police and prosecutors who are trying to get it wrong. They're generally good people, they're trying to solve crimes and serve justice. But even when people are acting in good faith there are still many ways that things can go tragically wrong: Eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Witnesses' memories are prone to mistakes. Investigators can prematurely arrive at conclusions that are incorrect and then focus on information that supports those plots and conclusions and disregard other information that comes in that does not support those conclusions. That's a process called 'tunnel vision.' And it can and it does lead to conviction of the innocent. Penny's case features many of these same features.

[Note: Since covering the Brummer case, several jurists, advocates and other well-informed sources have told me on background coverage of this case here has on some occasions borders on ad hominem regarding the presiding judge of Brummer v. Wisconsin, Patrick Fiedler. They point to Fiedler's well-regarded status in the Wisconsin legal community, his CV (ballotpedia), attest to Fiedler as an honorable jurist and brilliant intellect, his swift exoneration of Forest Shomberg in the 2011 wrongful conviction case, and currently his work as an effective defense attorney working to defend the rights of the citizenry of Wisconsin. These assessments are often informed by those who have worked directly and closely with Fielder. This site is indexed in Lexis-Nexis and Bloomberg's Westlaw as a legal research document, and thorough commentary and analysis ought note the above facts.]

Below is the statement on Penny Brummer read by private investigator, Rikki Glen at the press conference held yesterday:

I'm Rikki Glen, a Wisconsin licensed private investigator retained by advocates challenging the wrongful conviction of Penny Brummer.

I am going to read a short statement about why we are here today, followed by statements from Penny's mother, Nancy and John Pray from the UW Innocence Project.

If you have questions we will be glad to try and answer them after we have finished.

Twenty years ago, Penny Brummer was convicted of killing Sarah Gonstead despite no weapon, no forensic evidence, no motive, and no evidence of any kind tying Brummer to the undetermined crime scene. It has long been asserted that anti-lesbian bias played a large part in Penny's conviction.

When I was asked to help with this case, earlier this year, I had a vague recollection of what transpired. As I was reading through the police reports I was shocked and bothered by some of the things that I read.

For instance, there was an alternate suspect. After Penny dropped off Sarah she saw her talking with some people. Penny remembered seeing an old gray van with distinctive bug eye windows. A few days later, Penny was looking for the van when she spotted it not far from the 3054 Club and Taco Bell. Penny gave the license number to her friend's mother, who turned it over to police. The license traced back to a person who had a long record of felonies against women. He admitted he frequented the area where Penny saw him talking to Sarah, and he said that he was the only one who ever drove his vehicle. His driver's license was revoked at the time, so it was a crime for him to drive, but police didn't seem to notice that. He was interviewed briefly, told them he wasn't at that location on March 14th, and that ended the interview.

Police clearly had 'tunnel vision' in building a case against Penny, another common feature in wrongful convictions.

Another example a witness came forward and reported seeing a suspicious man standing by the open passenger door of a parked pickup truck exactly where Sarah's body was later found. This suspicious man matched the description of the person Penny said she saw Sarah talking to near the Taco Bell at East Washington Avenue and North Oak Street in Madison. He also noticed what looked to him to be a pink duffle bag on the ground next to the truck. Sarah was wearing a pink jacket when she disappeared. The police told the witness 'This is all very interesting, but we already have a suspect, and this doesn't fit.'

Today, I announce that a $10,000 reward has been established for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the killer of Sarah Gonstead. Advocates have set up a new toll-free number, (800) 407-1178, for tipsters seeking the $10,000 reward.

A decent and honest district attorney's office, we believe, will not defend this prosecution, because today we are a more enlightened community than 20 years ago, and Nancy Brummer, and advocates are optimistic that champions for truth will come forward and our community, police and prosecutors will stand up for truth and free Penny Brummer.

"Hope springs eternal in the human breast," said Alexander Pope in his An Essay on Man (1734).

For Penny Brummer, her family, her extended family of supporters and in the name of justice for Sarah Gonstead, one hopes truth is soon realized.

Wrongful Conviction—$10,000 Reward Offered in Sarah Gonstead Killing; Innocent Penny Brummer Still in Prison

Wrongful Conviction for Reasons of Careerism and Bigotry Against Lesbians 
"They didn't look at (Penny), they just looked at it as let's get another gay person off the street," said Nancy Brummer, Penny's mother (Pabich, WMTV-TV) -

Updated - As Penny Brummer remains in prison, convicted for the 1994 killing of Sarah Gonstead, a $10,000 reward is now being offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible for 1994 death of Gonstead and Kelly Nolan.

Tipsters may remain anonymous. Email sheila0326@gmail.com, or call toll-free at 800 407-1178.

Penny Brummer's 1994 conviction remains an outrage perpetrated by the Madison Police Dept, the Dane County Sheriff's Dept., and the Dane County District Attorney's office still protecting the wrongful conviction to this day.

Penny Brummer

Here in Dane County, an innocent woman, Penny Brummer, remains behind bars (in Fond du Lac county), a 1994 prosecution presided over by District Attorney Brian Blanchard's office (2001-2010), and an injustice District Attorney Ismael Ozanne (2010-present) has refused to revisit, though the case lacks evidence of any kind—forensic evidence, crime scene eyewitness accounts, murder weapons, nothing but bigotry and what attorneys call "confirmation bias."

So what happened in 1994? The D.A.'s office says: There's no case?

Brummer was a lesbian and veteran so she likely murdered someone, and police had a theory, who needs evidence?

The judge was former Dane County (Wisconsin) Judge Patrick Fiedler, now a partner with Hurley, Burish & Stanton, S.C., after several decades of prosecutorial work in service to the Republican Party and his career. Fiedler, a rightwinger and typical bigot, agreed with the D.A's office.

A decent judge would have dismissed the case.

It is incomprehensible to me why current DA Ismael Ozanne lets this injustice stand.

"Police clearly had 'tunnel vision' in building a case against Penny, another common feature in wrongful convictions. Witness David Zoromski, who reported seeing a suspicious man standing by the open passenger door of a parked pickup truck exactly where Sarah's body was later found, was told by a Dane County Sheriff's Deputy, 'What you saw is all very interesting, but we have a suspect and it doesn't fit.' The man seen by Mr. Zoromski matched the description of the person Penny said she saw Sarah talking to near the Taco Bell at East Washington Avenue and North Oak Street in Madison, after she dropped her off that night. Police identified him and knew he was a convicted felon with a long history of violence toward women -- but they never followed up on this lead."
- From Who Killed Sarah

To support this innocent woman, see Penny Brummer.

Police-Prosecutor State Must End

Updated - "The sentencing reform bill introduced in the Senate on Thursday falls far short of what is needed, but it is a crucial first step on the long path toward unwinding the federal government’s decades-long reliance on prisons as the answer to every ill," notes today's New York Times.

It's not just prison sentences for the guilty, it's the insane police-prosecutor state composed of individuals who have no remorse and blind ambition in arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning innocent Americans.

Every day in Dane County former District Attorney Brian Blanchard (2001-2010) (now a state appellate judge) and former Dane County (Wisconsin) Judge Patrick Fiedler, (now a partner with Hurley, Burish & Stanton, S.C.), draw a level breath one wonders how much the innocent Penny Brummer they convicted weighs on their minds.

Brummer is a lesbian, served in the armed forces, and hence must be guilty of murder. That's the size of their case in 1994. Imbecilic police work, bigotry and careerism.

Can this happen in America? This is America, "a leviathan unmatched in human history," (Loury, Boston Review).

And Blanchard and Fiedler are sleeping fine.

To understand the character of Blanchard and Fiedler, consider this is the same prosecutor-judge combo—so desperate for career advancement—they prosecuted the late, eminent UW-Madison historian Stanley Kutler, (1934-2015). Kutler's charged crime? Yelling at his health insurance company, and opining the bureaucrats' company should be blown up.

This brought a Class B misdemeanor charge filed by Blanchard in 2005, ridiculed across academic circles and among jurists, and ultimately settled with a $149.00 fine.

Fiedler didn't toss the case, Blanchard didn't drop the case.

Blanchard and Fiedler got their headlines.

Kutler emailed and called me a couple of years later after reading some pieces about then U.S. Atty Steven Biskupic's prosecutions of a veteran on a trumped-up "wire fraud" charges, numerous 'voter fraud' charges and the infamous Georgia Thompson prosecution.

Kutler suggested in good humor that Blanchard should consider taking 30 days and reading up on Robert Jackson and his disquisitions on prosecutorial discretion.

The current Dane County District Attorney should do the same, and consider the proposition that apropos to Penny Brummer, and every citizen, the law can afford to be just. And there is no imperative to protect a wrongful prosecution, emphatically when the innocent Ms. Brummer has been sitting in prison for 19 years.

If you have any information that could lead to the arrest and conviction of the person/persons responsible for the death of Sarah Gonstead or the death of Kelly Nolan, please contact: sheila0326@gmail.com. 

Center for Prosecutor Integrity—Needed Here

An innocent woman, Penny Brummer, remains behind bars (in Fond du Lac county), a 1994 prosecution presided over by District Attorney Brian Blanchard's office (2001-2010) for reasons of careerism and bigotry against Lesbians

As the police continue to target black men and women in Dane County, the need for civil liberties checks on the police and the prosecutor is apparent.

One such check is the Center for Prosecutor Integrity (CPI).

When an innocent loses decades of his life, then is exonerated in Wisconsin, what happens? Does the press pound for an explanation? Do police self-evaluate? District Attorney's office?

Nothing happens, careerism and passive compliance remain the order of the day.

At CPR, the mission remains in part:

The Center for Prosecutor Integrity is the nation’s only organization with a sole focus on enhancing prosecutorial ethics.

Three major areas:Addressing Over-Criminalization, Ending Wrongful Convictions and Restoring Equal Treatment Under Law. ...

Our Prosecutor Integrity Registry help tell the story and address the very real problems in our Justice System today.

These are just some of the systemic problems.

Self-conscious malicious prosecutions and prosecutorial misconduct are common, common is Wisconsin.

Penny Brummer

Here in Dane County, for example, an innocent woman, Penny Brummer, remains behind bars (in Fond du Lac county), a 1994 prosecution presided over by District Attorney Brian Blanchard's office (2001-2010), and an injustice District Attorney Ismael R. Ozanne (2010-present) has refused to revisit, though the case lacks evidence of any kind—forensic evidence, eyewitness,  murder weapon, nothing but bigotry and what attorneys call "confirmation bias"—the rest of all call it bullshit.

So what happened in 1994? The D.A.'s office says: There's no case?

Of course not, Brummer was a lesbian so she likely murdered someone, so who needs evidence?

The judge was former Dane County (Wisconsin) Judge Patrick Fiedler, now a partner with Hurley, Burish & Stanton, S.C, after several decades of prosecutorial work in service to the Republican Party and his career. Fiedler, a rightwinger and typical bigot, agreed with the D.A's office.

A decent judge would have dismissed the case.

For the life of me it is incomprehensible to me why Ismael Ozanne lets this injustice stand.

"Police clearly had 'tunnel vision' in building a case against Penny, another common feature in wrongful convictions. Witness David Zoromski, who reported seeing a suspicious man standing by the open passenger door of a parked pickup truck exactly where Sarah's body was later found, was told by a Dane County Sheriff's Deputy, 'What you saw is all very interesting, but we have a suspect and it doesn't fit.' The man seen by Mr. Zoromski matched the description of the person Penny said she saw Sarah talking to near the Taco Bell at East Washington Avenue and North Oak Street in Madison, after she dropped her off that night. Police identified him and knew he was a convicted felon with a long history of violence toward women -- but they never followed up on this lead."
- From Who Killed Sarah-

To support this innocent woman, Penny Brummer.

"They didn't look at (Penny), they just looked at it as let's get another gay person off the street," said Nancy Brummer, Penny's mother (Pabich, WMTV-TV).

What is Ozanne's excuse?

Ozanne has made public statements that his office will cooperate with the Innocence Project.

This is an unusual commitment by district attorneys in wrongful conviction cases.

In light of the growing prison-industrial complex of American society and case after case of innocents behind bars, I asked Ozanne point blank when he was running for Attorney General, "how much does the imprisonment of an innocent weigh on you?"

Ozanne's response is a source of hope for Penny Brummer: "No prosecutor should want to have innocent people who have been wrongfully convicted stay in prison. If evidence is brought to the attention of the authorities demonstrating that a mistake has been made, the interests of justice demand that the evidence is carefully reviewed and the individual should be released if exonerated. As Dane County District Attorney, I have worked with lawyers from the Innocence Project, and will do so in the future. While these decisions are largely at the discretion of the DAs around the state, I would work with them as attorney general, providing resources and advice in these situations. The ultimate goal of the system is not simply to secure convictions, it is to do justice."

These words do not square with Ozanne's inaciton.

As with all the other innocents whose lives were effectively murdered, Ms. Brummer's case calls for enactment of a Conviction Integrity Unit in Dane, Iron and Milwaukee counties, independent of the District Attorney's offices, for starters. (Conviction Integrity Unit, Wrongful Convictions)
-
[A version of this piece was published in 2014.]

State Journal Backs Scott Walker in News Columns

Scott Walker received some good news today: Frontpage coverage in the Wisconsin State Journal in a long piece by Matthew DeFour who decided to double as a press aide for the Walker campaign.

DeFour covered an event in Ames, Iowa sponsored by the evangelical The Family Leader, which is partnered with the virulently misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Semitic Focus on the Family and Family Research Council, part of "an exclusionist religious movement in this country [that] has attempted to restore what it perceives as the ruins of a Christian nation by more closely seeking to unite its version of Christianity with state power." (Foxman, ADL (2005), citing The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance and Pluralism in America (1994)).

DeFour left out these facts in his reporting of the Family Leadership Summit, the proper biblical kind of "family."

DeFour writes this religious right Christianites' event was composed of "religious conservatives." Actually, a more apt explanation would include the word, Christian Dominionist.

And DeFour quotes Scott Walker speaking about his 'faith': "It defines not just who I am and what I believe in, but how I treat others. I hope people saw that even at the height of when 100,000 protesters occupied our Capitol and I had death threats and all sorts of vicious attacks against me, against my family, against my children, against my parents and others, that we didn’t respond in kind. That in part was driven by our faith."

No knockdown is offered.

Is DeFour prepared to state he could not find a source to knock down the religious right and the governor who compared these same Wisconsin families to ISIS, four years after Walker "dropped a bomb" on these families to use Walker's metaphor in 2011?

Or how about knocking down Walker's false narrative that he suffered "vicious attacks?" DeFour couldn't find a source to knock this nonsense down? Or at least note Walker's lies are unverified?

DeFour did note the response from the some 2,700 Christianites was more subdued than Walker's previous address at other Iowa evangelical events.

Coming into the Stephens Auditorium from the July heat perhaps makes people relaxed, even subdued in the late afternoon.

Unless Brett Favre is talking, most people tend to be subdued in mid-July.

Hope for the Innocent

Who killed Sarah?

Update: "Police clearly had 'tunnel vision' in building a case against Penny, another common feature in wrongful convictions. Witness David Zoromski, who reported seeing a suspicious man standing by the open passenger door of a parked pickup truck exactly where Sarah's body was later found, was told by a Dane County Sheriff's Deputy, 'What you saw is all very interesting, but we have a suspect and it doesn't fit.' The man seen by Mr. Zoromski matched the description of the person Penny said she saw Sarah talking to near the Taco Bell at East Washington Avenue and North Oak Street in Madison, after she dropped her off that night. Police identified him and knew he was a convicted felon with a long history of violence toward women -- but they never followed up on this lead."
- From Who Killed Sarah - To support this innocent woman.
---
An innocent women, Penny Brummer, sits in the Taycheedah Correctional Institution located just outside Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, convicted of first degree murder in 1994.

One problem among many with the case is that there is no physical evidence connecting Brummer to the murder of Sarah Gonstead, no murder weapon, and no witnesses. And no motive.

The case is an array of contrived theories, conjecture, and unadulterated bigotry predicated upon the fact that Brummer is a lesbian, hence the murderer of Gonstead (Berry and Berry, Who Killed Sarah?).

Penny Brummer is serving a life sentence for first-degree murder after being convicted on circumstantial evidence, a sentence handed down with apparent joy by former Dane County (Wisconsin) Judge Patrick Fiedler, now a partner with Hurley, Burish & Stanton S.C., after several decades of prosecutorial work in service to the Republican Party and his career.

Fiedler should never have allowed the trial to continue with the paucity of evidence presented.

But Fiedler is not known as a human rights activist, just a GOP hack who is making a lot of money over the lives of victims of the sick judiciary.

"They didn't look at (Penny), they just looked at it as let's get another gay person off the street," said Nancy Brummer, Penny's mother (Pabich, WMTV).

A few years back, Madison writer Bill Lueders visited Brummer at Taycheedah.

"Something's got to happen. God's not going to let me sit here for something I didn't do. I feel he's guiding somebody out there to help me," Lueders wrote, quoting Penny Brummer.

Not God, certainly not former Dane County Sheriff Rick Raemisch (1990-1997), now passing himself off as a prison reformer in Colorado (Goode, NYT).

Raemisch used the occasion of WMTV's piece (Pabich) on the Wisconsin Innocence Project's effort (following work by Wisconsin's Innocence Consultants) to exonerate Brummer to offer this lame, conscience-free statement: "We can place the suspect and the victim in the west end of Dane County at the time the suspect says the victim was being dropped off." (WMTV)

That's compelling. Wonder how this logical wizard, Raemisch, sleeps at night.

DNA Testing Ongoing

Fortunately, the Innocence Project is expecting more results of ongoing DNA analysis soon.

Reports WMTV's Pabich: "The DNA results are expected in the next few months. We (spoke) with the foreman of the jury that convicted Penny. He says he didn't want to talk about the situation 20 years ago and doesn't want to now. I did ask him if he still stands by the decision they made 20 years ago. He said that's a really difficult question."

Dane County DA's Office and Cause for Hope

The current Dane County District Attorney is Ismael Ozanne, and the office is now (to my mind) guided by facts and justice.

Ozanne has made public statements that his office will cooperate with the Innocence Project.

This is an unusual commitment by district attorneys in wrongful conviction cases.

In light of the growing prison-industrial complex of American society and case after case of innocents behind bars, I asked Ozanne point blank when he was running for Attorney General, "how much does the imprisonment of an innocent weigh on you?"

Ozanne's response is a source of hope for Penny Brummer: "No prosecutor should want to have innocent people who have been wrongfully convicted stay in prison. If evidence is brought to the attention of the authorities demonstrating that a mistake has been made, the interests of justice demand that the evidence is carefully reviewed and the individual should be released if exonerated. As Dane County District Attorney, I have worked with lawyers from the Innocence Project, and will do so in the future. While these decisions are largely at the discretion of the DAs around the state, I would work with them as attorney general, providing resources and advice in these situations. The ultimate goal of the system is not simply to secure convictions, it is to do justice."

The most recent piece by WMTV did not interview DA Ozanne but if he lives up to the above statement, he would be working with the Innocence Project to review the case against Brummer, and with new DNA evidence free her.

Any decent human being ought to hope for justice; Penny Brummer can only pray and wait.

Marriage Equity Final Brief Filed

William C. McConkey filed his final brief with the Wisconsin Supreme Court last Friday in his bid to overturn Wisconsin's gay marriage ban.

McConkey's argues in William C. McConkey v. J. B. Van Hollen that the anti-gay marriage referendum resulting in the Wisconsin constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage should be overturned because of ambiguous language in the formulation of the referendum.

The 2005 referendum question submitted to the voters on the marriage amendment is composed of two questions posed in the single referendum.

McConkey argues that this violates the "single subject" rule in Article XII, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution mandating that people may vote for or against more than one proposed amendment separately.

In the reply brief filed Friday, McConkey writes:

Wisconsin voters had a right to expect that a crucial issue like the potential rights and obligations of unmarried individuals who are in a relationship that is not marriage would be discussed and considered fully. Instead, it was coupled with a definition of marriage that was emotionally compelling and presented to the voters in a logrolled resolution that stymied debate and restricted the voters’ right to directly discuss and then address in the voting booth all of the issues before them.

The language of the 2005 referendum reads:

Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state? [Emphasis added]

The Wisconsin Department of Justice is defending the anti-gay marriage amendment.

Oral arguments are scheduled for November 3.

Friend of the Court briefs, amicus curiae, will likely also be filed with the Court.

See also:
- DOJ Files Anti-Gay Marriage Brief
- Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban May Go Down
- Objection, Compound Referendum
- Brief Looks to Doom Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban

DOJ Files Anti-Gay Marriage Brief

The Wisconsin Dept of Justice (DOJ) filed its response brief yesterday to a constitutional challenge to Wisconsin’s same-sex marriage ban approved in a 2006 statewide referendum composed of two questions being considered by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in a legal challenge posed by civil rights advocates.

The case, William C. McConkey v. J. B. Van Hollen, challenges the anti-gay marriage referendum on several constitutional grounds, arguing that the state’s resulting constitutional amendment should be overturned.

Constitutional Amendment Referendum

The language of the 2006 referendum reads:

Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state? [Emphasis added]

Single Purpose

One of the issues addressed in the case is the constitutionality of the referendum formulation that poses more than one proposition in a single ballot question that confuses Wisconsin voters.

The related question of how to determine whether such compound-question referenda serve the same general purpose and comprise the same subject matter in accordance with some case law, will also be considered by the Court.

The DOJ argues that the "general purpose of the amendment was to preserve and protect the unique and historical status of traditional marriage as a union between one man and one woman,” echoing the ruling of Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess, who upheld the amendment last year, saying in part that the two propositions in the referendum are “two sides of the same coin.”

So how does the Court go about determining if two propositions serve the same general purpose?

McConkey argues and the Court of Appeals April 2009 decision agrees vis a vis Judge Niess, that the “proper legal standard and methodology” for determining a general purpose is unclear from existing case law.

The DOJ brief argues that existing case law accords deference to the legislature’s formulation of referendum questions on proposed constitutional amendments.

Both the DOJ and McConkey briefs suggest judicial standards of ascertaining legislative intent of referendum questions.

Single Subject

The compound formulation of a question promotes ambiguity rendering the electorate’s ballot preference unknown because voters are only able to get to cast one yes or no to the two different questions in clear violation of the " ? Article XII, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

The DOJ does not see it that way.

Reads the DOJ brief:

The two parts of the ballot question presented to voters in November 2006 related to and furthered the general purpose of the amendment: to preserve and protect the unique and historical status of traditional marriage as a union of one man and one woman. McConkey’s strained effort to conceptually dissociate the two propositions should be rejected.

One wonders how the same general purpose of two parts of the ballot question can be served [voted upon] and ascertained, when a voter might easily be in favor of the first question but not the second question of the referendum.

The strained effort in this matter is imputing a unitary coherence onto the religious right's compound formulation. Whatever the GOP and the religious right were thinking, they did not communicate their propositions clearly to Wisconsin voters.

See also:

- Objection, Compound Referendum
- Brief Looks to Doom Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban

Brief Looks to Doom Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban

Update: McConkey brief is now available online.

Wisconsin's gay marriage ban resolutions were shepherded through the 2003-05 legislative sessions with exclusive Republican support.

But the gay marriage referendum was written so broadly and ambiguously that the resulting constitutional amendment will likely be struck down in the William C. McConkey v. J. B. Van Hollen (Appeal Number 2008AP001868) Wisconsin Supreme court case.

Reading the McConkey brief filed yesterday is like a breath of fresh air; nothing quite like rigorous logic defeating cynical bigotry.

One big problem with the 2006 referendum is that its formulation is a compound question that asks for one response to two different propositions in the same referendum question.

This compound formulation promotes ambiguity rendering the electorate’s ballot preference unknown because voters were only able to get to cast one yes or no to the two different questions in clear violation of the "single-subject" rule set forth in Article XII, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution.

Divining a Purpose

Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess, who upheld the amendment last year, saying the two clauses in the referendum question were ‘two sides of the same coin’ and properly decided with one vote will likely regret his ill-informed decision that invented a legislative purpose for the two propositons.

Judge Niess said that the legislative purpose of the amendment is the “preservation and protection of the unique and historical status of traditional marriage,” a foolish (and astoundingly ignorant) statement in the face of the dynamic, evolving history of marriage and a purpose he imputes to the legislature with no evidence.

Reads the McConkey brief on this point:

Were the Court to base its determination of a proposed amendment’s purpose on something other than the one found in the Enrolled Joint Resolutions, for instance, by determining purpose from statements made by those participating in the public debate surrounding the amendment, it would be deviating from the determination of purpose already made by the Legislature and legislating from the bench. That is what the circuit court did, when it found that the purpose of the amendment was 'the preservation and protection of the unique and historical status of traditional marriage.' (R. 1, A-App. 7), 2003 J.R. 29 and 2005 J.R. 30 say nothing about preservation, protection, uniqueness, traditional marriage or historical status. [Emphasis added]

Judge Niess can't just make stuff up; he's a judge.

Single Subject

Reads the McConkey brief filed yesterday on the compound question, single subject issue:

The circuit court concluded that the two propositions were ‘two sides of the same coin.’ That is incorrect. Had the second portion of the ballot question merely proposed that ‘marriage between any other individuals shall not be allowed, recognized or valid in this state,’ the circuit court’s observation would be true. But the second proposition was not so limited. It was not the obverse [logical counterpart] of the first.

Rather, the first proposition stated whose marriages would be recognized as valid by the state, and the second proposition limited the legislature’s power to provide to unmarried people a status that is ‘identical or substantially similar’ to marriage. That is a far different purpose than the first.

The Legislature erred by trying to accomplish two separate and distinct things through one ballot question. By having those two distinct purposes, the ballot question violated the single general purpose prong of the single amendment requirement set out in Article XII, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Having done so, Article XIII, Section 13 is unconstitutional.

The Attorney General’s reply brief is due on August 13th.

Objection, Compound Referendum

When Wisconsin citizens vote on constitutional amendments, the language should be clear so that a yes or no vote records the voter’s preference on what the referendum proposes.

A clarity issue, a clarity problem, is taken up by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in the Gay Marriage Ban case likely to be decided this year. [See William C. McConkey v. J. B. Van Hollen (Appeal Number 2008AP001868.]

This lack of clarity issue will be adjudicated by considering the "single-subject test" and essentially divining the general purpose behind the gay marriage and unmarried individuals propositions comprising the referendum. [The other issue is whether the Wisconsin voter McConkey has proper standing as a voter to object to the formulation of the referendum.]

The appeals court held that the few cases on point apparently offer conflicting approaches to applying the single-subject test, and that it is not clear what is the “proper method for determining the purpose of a proposed amendment” which would offer some guidance on this issue.

Constitutional amendment language

The language of the 2006 referendum reads:

Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state? [Emphasis added]

Reading the question‘s 59 words, it’s easy to spot a problem in the formulation of the amendment language.

Compound question

It’s a compound question that asks for one response to two propositions from the voters on the same referendum question. This compound formulation promotes ambiguity rendering the electorate’s ballot preference unknown because voters were only able to get to cast one yes or no to the two different questions.

As mentioned, this problem is addressed in the judiciary through the “single-subject test,” cited as the central question by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (District IV) decision to certify the case to Wisconsin Supreme Court: “[Was] the marriage amendment (enacted) in violation of the single-subject rule set forth in Article XII, section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution.”

Common sense

Let’s apply some common sense analysis vis a vis Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess.

As reported in The Capital Times:

In his ruling last year, Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess said McConkey could sue (and his case was not tossed, and so moved ahead). But he ruled the two clauses in the referendum question were ‘two sides of the same coin’ and properly decided with one vote.

‘They clearly relate to the same subject matter and further the same purpose: the preservation and protection of the unique and historical status of traditional marriage,’ he said in a ruling from the bench.

What in Sam’s hell you thinking, Judge Niess? That's the same conclusion reached by the religious right, J.B. Van Hollen and the GOP who put this referendum on the ballot in the first place: "(H)istorical status of traditional marriage" is a GOP talking point used to protect America from the gays.

There is no justification for Niess imputing a unitary coherence onto the religious right's compound formulation.

This would be like the GOP passing an amendment calling for banning evolution being taught in public schools and prohibiting sex education in the schools, and the Niess saying the questions are related because of they further 'the preservation and protection of the unique and historical status of traditional family values.'

The first part of the referendum question asks about one man-one woman and marriage.

The second part of the question asks about “unmarried individuals” not having relationships resembling a legal marriage without mention of any gender requirement of the individuals in question.

The second part of the question applies to relationships among unmarried individuals and constraints on the legal recognition of certain relationships between unmarried individuals of unspecified gender that “shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”

Do you think a voter could be in favor of the first question but not the second?

And since the voter is forced to answer both questions with one yes or no, that there might be a problem of ambiguity here with the formulation?

Judge Niess’ speculation

Furthermore, Judge Niess’ speculation that the legislative purpose of the amendment is the “preservation and protection of the unique and historical status of traditional marriage” is foolish (and astoundingly ignorant) in the face of the dynamic, evolving history of marriage.

Back to the formulation. Banning same sex marriage in the first proposition. But what happened to same sex exclusions in the second proposition? It’s not there and the propositions are two different subjects with two very different political histories and two different public policy effects.

If Niess wants to speculate on purpose, he would be more on target to assert the GOP and religious right want to punish gays with whom they have both a strange interest and enmity.

And on the second matter, the GOP's politics are very weird about society sanctioning relationships between unmarried individuals of any gender because of their particular mores or political objectives of the moment.

In any event, Niess’ ruling sent the case forward to an appeals court that certified it for Supreme Court hearing.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court invalidates this plain compound-question referendum and the shameful constitutional amendment that it brought us, and creates a judicial doctrine that would offer guidance in the future for clear judicial policymaking should we ever again elect a legislature foolish enough to send voters a compound question as a referendum again.

The Republicans, Which Way Forward

[Writer’s Preface: We’re going to win but we assume nothing beyond the rapacious, corrupt nature of GOP political operatives exemplified by Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen determined to thwart the will of the American people. Van Hollen lost, by the way. GOTV baby, GOTV.]

"The Republicans: Half religious zealots wanting to control every breath every citizen takes. And half ego-anarchist, libertarian cowboys shrilling for no government."
- Tony Kushner, Angels in America (2004)

After next Tuesday's historical defeat, the GOP will do a lot of soul-searching and conclude the GOP needs to drill for more oil, make more enemies abroad, and for God's sake do away with once and for all a woman's right to choose. Deep thinkers, the GOP.

No matter the post-election machinations of the amoral political operatives, I saw Republican future and its name is: Sarah Palin.

We could have not pleaded for a better figurehead.

Pressure Building on Lone Wisc Clinton-declared Superdelegate Officeholder

Update: John Nichols: A Baldwin shift to Obama could send crucial message

So, why is Wisconsin's most progressive elected official and superdelegate still declared, alone among elected state officeholders, for Hillary Clinton?

Good question for Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Madison).

What does it take from Clinton for Baldwin to jump ship?

Hillary playing on homophobia like Hillary does in North Carolina? [See Andrew Sullivan - She's on O'Reilly and her surrogate is accusing her opponent of being a 'pansy'. Classy - but vintage Clinton. Never miss an opportunity to exploit homophobia. Remember DOMA? Remember doubling the discharges from the military? Remember inaction on AIDS? Remember the Clintons' using anti-gay marriage ads in the South in 1996? And yet the gays keep coming back for more. I don't understand why. I really don't. See also DavidKC at DailyKos.]

Hillary playing on fear and race like she has done for months now?

I wish Tammy would cut the shit.

What do you owe Clinton? Better yet, what do you owe your constituents?

Don't get Washingtonized on us.