GOP's AG Joins Cover-up of Scott Walker, Corrupt Court

Wisconsin Is Turing into Corrupt Banana Republic

Update: See also Opoien, The Capital Times.

To no one's surprise Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel (R) has said 'yes, destroy or return all seized material related to the investigation of Scott Walker campaign's illegal collusion.'

In a polemical Dec. 8, 2105 press release Schimel maintains the pretension the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Wisconsin Attorney General, the Wisconsin gerrymandered legislature and Scott Walker are all independently reaching the same conclusion that investigating Scott Walker is a "long, unfortunate chapter in Wisconsin's history."

The reformist and now repealed John Doe statute was used to expose misconduct in public office in Scott Walker's office while serving as Milwaukee County Executive.

A subsequent John Doe investigation found Walker was at the center of a criminal scheme, (Marley, Bice and Glauber, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

Schimel like other Republicans does not want more public exposure of the criminal scheme, or federal litigation of the Court's John Doe decision protecting Walker to blow back on the partisan Court and Walker's allies and donors who happen to be the same special interests.

The Wisconsin DoJ press release is reproduced below:

AG Schimel: John Doe II Should End 

Tuesday, December 8, 2105

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued yet another decision in John Doe II, the protracted and secret investigation into whether a political group exercising free political speech rights improperly coordinated with Governor Walker during the recall election. For the second time this year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court directed that the John Doe proceeding be halted based upon the Court’s conclusion that prosecutors did not have a legal basis to investigate these political groups when they commenced John Doe II. The Court found that campaign finance statutes upon which the prosecutors relied violate free political speech rights guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution. 

Thus, the Court said that the matter is closed, and the evidence seized through subpoenas and search warrants issued as part of the investigation must be returned. That has not yet occurred, and the owners of that property are understandably upset. 

The special prosecutor has indicated that he intends to appeal. The only level of appeal left is to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), but it is very unlikely SCOTUS would take the case. In the unlikely scenario that SCOTUS were to accept the case, it would more than likely uphold the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision. 

I write because I have indirectly been asked as Wisconsin Attorney General to intervene on behalf of the John Doe targets. The Wisconsin DOJ played a role in the proceedings before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, although it was not a leading role. DOJ represented the judge who was assigned to John Doe II after the initial judge recused herself. The new judge quashed subpoenas issued in the John Doe proceeding, finding that the special prosecutor's theory of the case was not supported by Wisconsin law. The special prosecutor appealed that ruling, and DOJ represented the judge in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court again ordered that the seized evidence be returned to its owners. Given that DOJ represented the judge who first found that the John Doe proceeding was invalid, DOJ certainly has no intention of standing in the way of those orders. The Supreme Court’s order should be carried out forthwith. DOJ has no authority to represent those individual property owners in their effort to enforce the Supreme Court’s order. 

This has been a long, unfortunate chapter in Wisconsin's history. The courts have unequivocally rejected the John Doe investigation, both in the manner in which it was carried out, as well as the legal arguments brought by the prosecutors. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has now ordered that the property seized be returned. For everyone involved, the special prosecutor should end the case, and the property seized from the individuals in this case should be returned immediately. 

Wisconsin Supreme Court GOP Majority—Venal Corruption Rules

Judicial Act of Corruption Protects Scott Walker and GOP Court Bloc from Scrutiny

The corrupt Republican Party bloc on the Wisconsin Supreme Court—Chief Justice Patience D.Roggensack, Justice David T. Prosser, Jr, Justice Annette Kingsland Ziegler and Justice Michael J. Gableman—removed any doubt the Wisconsin Supreme Court is simply an extension of the Republican Party this week.

Wisconsin's top appellate court has become a lawless institution, unconstrained by ethics and acting to protect Wisconsin's most corrupt governor and political machine in the state's history.

The text of an unsigned [per curiam] opinion (and Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson's dissent and opinion) is linked ahead: John Doe Proceeding State of Wisconsin ex rel. Three Unnamed Petitioners, Petitioner, v. the Honorable Gregory A. Peterson, John Doe Judge, the Honorable Gregory Potter, Chief Judge and Francis D. Schmitz, as Special Prosecutor, Respondents.

Brendan Fischer has a keen analysis at PRWatch.

Writes Fischer:

On Wednesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's majority contorted itself to find a new way to protect both Scott Walker and the Court's biggest supporters--not to mention itself--following its decision in July rewriting the state's limits on money in politics and ending the 'John Doe' investigation into Walker's campaign coordinating with dark money groups.

Wednesday's ruling was supposed to be a straightforward decision on a motion to reconsider, in light of additional evidence that Walker and his allies had violated the campaign finance laws that the Court upheld in July.

The Court denied that motion, but then (in a lengthy unsigned [per curiam] opinion) went further, rewriting its July decision to fire the Republican Special Prosecutor who had led the investigation, Francis Schmitz, making it harder for him to challenge the justices' conflicts-of-interest by appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. [per curiam pp. 1-29]

In a different era, such a decision would bring bipartisan outrage. Today, the Republicans and Scott Walker's corruption is blatant, openly displayed as temporary political power has gone to the heads of the mediocrities holding it.

Writes Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson in dissent: "In terminating the authority of the Special Prosecutor, the per curiam unfairly leaves the prosecution and the State unrepresented from this date forward and deprives the Special Prosecutor, prosecutors, and law enforcement of the opportunity to preserve materials from destruction," (p. 47).

The Wisconsin law enforcement officials who routinely back Court and other political candidates during campaign season in an unsavory practice will not object to the Court's naked overreach decimating the public integrity check by Wisconsin Constitutional law enforcement officers.

Of note, to call out Roggensack-Prosser Jr.-Kingsland Ziegler-Gableman bloc as corrupt would be an ethical breach for a Wisconsin attorney, violative of (Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule) SCR 20:8.2 Judicial and legal officials.

Nothing in Wisconsin, no institution, no agency, no commission is safe from the corrupt and power-mad Republican Party of Wisconsin's corruption.

No time for lay officials to be silent.

Scott Walker's Corruption Problems Have Staying Power

Joel Bleifuss at In These Times pens a piece today serving as a reminder that no matter what Scott Walker and his four allies on the Wisconsin Supreme Court want, the Republican partisans halting a criminal investigations into criminal activity by Walker is in itself a stain on Walker's run for the presidency.

Because the probe into Walker's criminal scheme is headed for the federal court system, Wisconsin's top criminal in the governor's office cannot wish away the "provision [of the criminal code] that prohibits coordination between candidates and advocacy groups."

Both politically and legally, the John Doe probe is here to stay during Walker's time in the national spotlight.

John Doe special prosecutor Francis Schmitz asked the Wisconsin Court to stay its corrupt decision in a procedural move that is a sure sign Schmitz will pursue his case through federal district court, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.

Walker may ultimately wish he took the deal his campaign's attorney cut last year, until Walker's bosses killed the idea. (Mal Contends) (Stein, Marley and Glauber, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) (Wall Street Journal) (PRWatch)

Judicial Oblivion: Wisconsin Supreme Court Ignored Legal Precedent to End the John Doe Investigation

"In short, the Wisconsin court cited the wrong precedents and wholly ignored the right ones. It is difficult to reconcile its holding with Buckley or McConnell, as a dissenting opinion by Justice Abrahamson pointed out—and perhaps this is why the majority made no attempt to do so," notes Tara Malloy of The Campaign Legal Center.

A must-read by Malloy of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that is corrupt and no longer deserves respect.

Wisconsin Supreme Court's Legitimacy Is Gone

Readers will not find Wisconsin attorneys blasting Justices Roggensack-Prosser Jr.-Ziegler-Gableman as a bloc for rightwing special interests following the Court's decision shutting down the John Doe probe—creating a Wisconsin-GOP-only interpretation of campaign finance law and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

There's a compelling reason for silence among Wisconsin jurists, and it's not based on sentiment or position.

To call out Roggensack-Prosser Jr.-Ziegler-Gableman as corrupt would be an ethical breach for a Wisconsin attorney, violative of (Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule) SCR 20:8.2  Judicial and legal officials.

So it's up to some 20 writers or so across that the state to note, as does Lincoln Caplan in The New Yorker, that the four Republican members of the Court "substituted the misrule of politics for the rule of law."

Justice Roggensack, Prosser Jr., Ziegler and Gableman are corrupt and ruled according to whom the litigants are.

Photo ID

Back before League of Women Voters of Wisconsin v. Walker and Milwaukee Branch of the NAACP v. Walker reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I asked around: Did Wisconsin Act 23, the GOP-crafted photo voter ID law, have a chance at the Court in light of the Wisconsin Constitution, Article III, Section 1 reading: "Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district," an expansive guarantee to vote that has been under attack since Governor Scott Walker and the Republicans assumed control of the executive and legislative branches of Wisconsin government in 2011. (Mal Contends)

No jurist contacted said, 'yes.' The Court would lose all credibility.

Corruption

Today is different than a few years back. The Roggensack-Prosser Jr.-Ziegler-Gableman bloc is corrupt and the rule of law is gone.

There should be no public confidence in the administration of justice from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Even Wisconsin's Legislative Reference Bureau is partisan now as a reading of Wisconsin's Constitution, Article III, Section 1's new language demonstrates.

The Republican Party's ideal of representative democracy is a One-Party state with unrecognized individual rights and unrealized protections for vulnerable members of society, it's called fascism and should be so stated.

Launch Public Integrity Probe of Scott Walker Using Hundreds of Pages of John Doe Docs in Public Domain

Just because the Wisconsin Supreme Court has four corrupt Republican justices, this ought not deter Constitutional law enforcement officers from doing their duty.

Never has a public integrity investigation been so needed in Wisconsin. No cause to use the John Doe statute.

Though the Court ordered John Doe documents showing Scott Walker criminality destroyed, 100s of pages of John Doe documents remain in the public domain.

See Marley, Bice and Glauber, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

All that is missing is the political will and the moral courage.

GOP Court Halts Law Enforcement Probe of Scott Walker and Criminal Scheme

Republican justices stepped up aggressively for Scott Walker today, and stomped on the rule of law

Update: Alice Ollstein notes the four GOP justices ordered that those working on the case "permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation." (ThinkProgress)

See also Wisconsin Supreme Court Ends Walker Investigation, Eviscerating State’s Campaign Finance Limits and Raising Questions about Judicial Impartiality (Brennen Center for Justice) and Corrupt Wisconsin Supreme Court kills John Doe Investigation. As well the Capital Times John Doe ruling dangerous for democracy and the Center for Media and Democracy's analysis.
---
How about those not working on the case? This information belongs in the public record. One can hope for a leak in the tradition of Ellsberg to hold up Walker's illegal actions to a public light.
 ---
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is a corrupt institution on which state Republicans and Scott Walker rely to give a judicial imprimatur to unconstitutional and lawless action.

Today, as expected the Supreme Court halted a law enforcement probe of Scott Walker and rightwingers through numerous consolidated cases (Beck, Wisconsin State Journal).

The latest and long-predicted decision by the Court halts the bipartisan John Doe probe investigating what court documents have shown to be a criminal scheme by Scott Walker and an array of rightwing groups to illegally coordinate fundraising (Marley, Bice and Bill Glauber, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel).

"The expected decision in the case, ... before the state's highest court, [took] a blowtorch to what remains of Wisconsin's post-Watergate campaign finance rules," writes Mary Bottari in PRWatch in a piece run the day before today's decisions were announced.

Wisconsin Republicans are nothing if not consistent in protecting each other, no matter that an entire branch of government—the judiciary branch—has lost credibility as an impartial institution and now reaches "pre-determined conclusion(s) not based on the facts and the law," as noted by former Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson in Ozanne v. Jeff Fitzgerald, Scott Fitzgerald, Ellis and Suder (2011) that gutted Wisconsin's Open Meetings law. (Mal Contends)

There are other law enforcement bodies that can still investigate Walker's clear criminal behavior, and the John Doe judge can release court documents at his discretion under the John Doe statute. Perhaps Scott Walker will call for the release of the probe's records if Scott Walker has nothing to hide

No surprises, just corruption

In recent years, the four GOP justices have voted against rule-of-law justices to enact Court rules favorable to the Republican Party and to outright promote corruption.

In July 2010, the four GOP justices enacted a rule reading in part, "a judge shall not be required to recuse himself or herself in a proceeding based solely on any endorsement or the judge’s campaign committee’s receipt of a lawful campaign contribution, including a campaign contribution from an individual or entity involved in the proceeding." (p.2)

Republican special interest groups petitioned the Court to change the recusal rule.

"In 2010, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's four-justice conservative majority voted to adopt new rules stating that the fact of a campaign contribution alone would not require recusal -- but the rules were literally written by none other than (Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce) WMC, as well as the Wisconsin Realtors Association, which gave over $1 million to Wisconsin Club for Growth in its 2010-2011 fiscal year. In other words, WMC wrote the rules requiring that the justices WMC has elected not recuse in a case involving WMC's election activities." (PRWatch)

Each of the four Republican justices on the Court—Justice David Prosser, Justice Michael Gableman, Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Patience Roggensack—were elected with money by the same groups now appearing before the Court.

"Wisconsin Club for Growth (WiCFG) and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) played a key role in electing the four justices in the majority, in most cases spending more than the candidates themselves."

A bipartisan group of prosecutors allege that the Walker campaign illegally coordinated fundraising and expenditures with WiCFG and WMC (and perhaps other groups) during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections. Representatives of the Walker campaign, WiCFG, and WMC could face criminal liability if prosecutors find that they conspired to evade campaign finance disclosure requirements and contribution limits." (PRWatch)

Republican justices stepped up aggressively for Scott Walker today, and stomped on the rule of law.

Scott Walker Criminality Seen in Black and White

Penokee Hills in northern Wisconsin -
Gogebic Taconite LLC shelled out money
to Wisconsin GOP candidates and the GOP
to gain permission to rip a massive
open pit mine in this pristine region.

Gogebic Taconite LLC (GTac) wants to build the largest open iron ore pit mine in North America, ripping a 1,000-foot pit in the center in the lush Penokee Hills in far-northern Wisconsin in Iron and Ashland counties, and Scott Walker illegally coordinated with at least one group to help GTac inflict this environmental catastrophe onto this region that would "fill in pristine streams and ponds with mine waste" (Kaufman, NYT).

Scott Walker and the Republican Party allies want the GTac mine to proceed for the money, their money--their monetary gain.

Wisconsin law enforcement documents released by court
show Scott Walker illegally sought millions of
dollars in campaign financing
[see Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel].

"According to documents released [August 22, 2014]in a John Doe probe, Wisconsin Club for Growth bank records indicate that Gogebic Taconite LLC gave $700,000 to [R.J.] Johnson's [of the Scott Walker campaign] group in 2011-12. Shortly after the recall elections, Republican lawmakers and Walker approved legislation that will make it easier for Gogebic to construct an iron-ore mine in northern Wisconsin." (John Doe documents released Friday also show a secret $700,000 donation from Gogebic to a pro-Gov. Scott Walker group (Marley, Bice and Bergquist, Milwaukee-Journal-Sentinel)). ...

"The Governor is encouraging all to invest in the Wisconsin Club for Growth," said an April 28, 2011, email from Kate Doner, a Walker campaign consultant, to R.J. Johnson, an adviser to Walker's campaign and the advocacy group. "Wisconsin Club for Growth can accept corporate and personal donations without limitations and no donors disclosure."

In the email, Doner wrote to Johnson that Walker wanted Wisconsin Club for Growth exclusively to coordinate campaign themes. "As the Governor discussed ... he wants all the issue advocacy efforts run thru one group to ensure correct messaging," she wrote.

These documents demonstrate the prosecution's theory of illegal campaign finance coordination committed by the Walker campaign and by Walker himself. This is the smoking gun.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has been all over this story from the beginning as probes by Wisconsin Constitutional law enforcement officers looking into possible criminality have caused panic in Wisconsin GOP circles. See Wisconsin John Doe I (2010-2013) DA: Scott Walker's stonewalling and stalling caused John Doe probe (Bice); and John Doe II: Secret probe spreads to five Wisconsin counties - Possible violations during recall elections among issues (Bice).

Scott Walker refuses to engage any facts or released documents, leaving spokespersons to state: Scott Walker is not a target—a non sequitur since no one is a target in a Wisconsin John Doe probe that is empowered by Wisconsin stature to determine if and by whom (the nature and the extant) crimes may have been committed.

I asked a well-informed law enforcement jurist if anyone ever becomes a "target" in Wisconsin John Doe probes. "Sure, [the jurist said], if that someone is charged with a crime."

Then the criminal justice system begins, and the John Doe probe closes.

Being subpoenaed in a John Doe probe is indicative of nothing, other than the fact that a John Doe investigative team, overseen by a judge, wants sworn testimony or evidence that assists an investigative team into looking at possible criminality.

In the John Doe II case, Scott Walker appears to be at the center of possible criminality in illegally coordinating contributions in violation of Wisconsin campaign finance law.

So, a corrupt federal judge and member of the Federalist Society, Rudolph Randa, halted the John Doe probe in May 2014 (Marley, Bice, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) in a stunning move, ordering the destruction of all evidence gathered to shield Scott Walker and his campaign funding team from being exposed in an election year. Randa's destruction-of-evidence order was stayed by a Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's panel's order of May 7, 2014.

"We hereby stay the return-and-destroy portions of [Judge Randa's] injunction and order defendants not to disclose or use the information they have gathered, and that is within the scope of the injunction, pending further order of this court," reads the opinion and order (footnote omitted).

The Seventh Circuit's panel is composed of Diane Wood, William J. Bauer, and Frank Easterbrook.

Judge Randa is a frequent attendee of privately-funded all-expenses paid trips for judges at Koch-backed judicial junkets (Fischer, Center for Media and Democracy). Randa has also made corrupt rulings protecting the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from survivors of molestation and rape, shielding $10s of millions from bankruptcy proceedings, (Goodstein, NYT) after the archdiocese sought to shield their assets when Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan (now Bishop of New York) was Milwaukee's archbishop.

The Seventh Circuit's panel has set a September 9 hearing date for oral arguments after which Randa's incredible ruling is expected to be overruled, and the Club for Growth will then ask for a hearing (en banc) before the full Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit members or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court asking for a continued injunction of the Wisconsin Consitional law enforcement official doing their jobs [see Question and Answer on John Doe Probe in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, (Patrick Marley) for more background].

The case is Eric O'Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth Inc. v. John T. Chisholm, Bruce J. Landgraf and David Robles et al.

---

A reader asked who represents the area targeted by the GTac mine in the Wisconsin legislature.

The answer is: In the Wisconsin State Senate, an election is being held this November featuring state Rep. Janet Bewley (D-Ashland) and Dane Deutsch (a typical rightwing Republican Party nominee from Rice Lake who refuses to take a public position on the proposed GTac mine) for the 25th Senate District [to fill the seat of the retiring State Sen. Bob Jauch (D-Poplar) who complained that special interests and lack of transparency now define the Wisconsin Legislature under Republican control, so naturally Jauch is taking his pension and quitting, instead of fighting right in the middle of the battle against GTac].

In the State Assembly, an election is being held to fill the seat for Assembly District 74 held by State Rep. Janet Bewley (D-Ashland) who is running for Jauch's seat. The race features Beth Meyers (D-Town of Russell, Bayfield County Board Supervisor), and a shady character named Jamey L. Francis, Republican City Councilman from Hurley, Wisconsin, and chair of the Iron County Republican Party.

Be very afraid, the sparsely populated Iron County is rife with political and judicial corruption. More on this Jamey Francis to come.

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.

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?

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.

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.

GOP Wants to See John Doe Docs, Let's Make Them All Public

Updated - Dan Bice reports the GOP attorneys want to engage in massive discovery of the John Doe investigation.

The presiding judge of the John Doe probe is at liberty to disclose documents to the public as well.

Reports Bice:

"While deposing witnesses and gathering evidence, Rivkin said Thursday that his team of attorneys will be looking at whether the prosecutors involved in the five-county investigation engaged in any partisan activity or consulted with political figures."

Rivkin is of course posturing for Scott Walker.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has not even ruled as of this moment on Randa's ridiculous certification of the bipartisan district attorneys' appellate arguments as "frivolous."

Rivkin is blowing smoke, but he should be careful what he pretends to wish for.

If the presiding judge views releasing the John Doe documents in the public interest, consonant with the rights of those questioned he may make public the John Doe findings and documents.

Does Scott Walker really want this public?

The Journal-Sentinel headline reads attorney Rivkin wants the John Doe documents under a microscope. Hell, why not on the big screen, if there is nothing to hide?

Scott Walker Withdrew Election Board Appt after Unanimous John Doe Vote

Scott Walker still hides from Wisconsin and
offers no comment on the secret router and
email system used by Walker and his aides

No serious observer sees Scott Walker as having a shot in hell of becoming the next president, as Walker incredibly still refuses to commit to a four-year term, should he be reelected as Wisconsin governor.

D.C. pundits don't count as serious for obvious reasons.

Walker has myriad shortcomings, arguably the most compelling are the corruption and criminality from the law enforcement investigations empowered by Wisconsin's John Doe statute. (The text of the Wisconsin statute is newly and heavily annotated online).

Now, news has broken that Walker "withdrew his own 2011 appointment of then-Government Accountability Board Chair David Deininger following a unanimous vote by the board to proceed with an investigation of the allegations"  concerning possible "illegal coordination between Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and a host of conservative organizations," One Wisconsin Now reports.

Here's One Wisconsin Now's press release in its entirety:

MADISON, WI -- Just released filings related to the ongoing John Doe investigation into allegations of illegal coordination between Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and a host of conservative organizations show Gov. Walker withdrew his own 2011 appointment of then-Government Accountability Board Chair David Deininger following a unanimous vote by the board to proceed with an investigation of the allegations.

"This is exhibit A that Gov. Walker's ouster of Chair Deininger was about one thing: The board's willingness to investigate alleged illegal activity leading to Gov. Walker's recall election win," said Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now. "There are no depths to which the Governor will not sink to derail the investigation of his operation."

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "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." The paper reports the vote of the non-partisan board comprised of retired judges took place in June 2013.

But in early November 2013, Gov. Walker withdrew Deininger's nomination to the board, giving no reason other than concerns that the Senate would not confirm him. It was unclear why the Republican-controlled Senate would refuse to confirm Deininger, a former Republican legislator who was appointed to the Court of Appeals by Republican Governor Tommy Thompson. At the time, Republican Majority Leader Sen. Scott Fitzgerald claimed of the decision "No, there's no connection," to decisions under Deininger's leadership during the recall elections.

"The veil is down and the truth is apparent," said Ross. "The Government Accountability Board unanimously voted to authorize the investigation of Gov. Walker's political activities and Gov. Walker used his power to remove its chair."

Gov. Walker made news when, after pledging he was cooperating in the investigation, he had his campaign file a brief seeking to have a case in the investigation moved to the conservative majority-led Wisconsin State Supreme Court.

One Wisconsin Now filed a formal letter Monday with the seven justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, urging four of the court's justices to recuse themselves from a legal request by the campaign of Gov. Scott Walker related to the ongoing John Doe investigation surrounding allegations of illegal coordination between Republican-aligned groups during the recall of Walker. Justice Bradley, who is considered to be one of the liberal justices on the court, previously recused herself from John Doe proceedings, as her son practices law with Dean Strang, one of the attorneys involved in the case.

In its letter, available here, One Wisconsin Now writes that two of the groups reported by media to be involved in the investigation, Club for Growth (CfG) and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), financed over $8 million in spending to elect the four justices, who constitute a conservative majority on the court.