Unnamed Parties Ask Wisc Supreme Court to Stop DAs' Probe of Scott Walker/GOP Groups

The Republican Party-aligned special interests pumping $ millions into Wisconsin elections really, really do not want law enforcement to investigate possible criminality on their part.

Mary Spicuzza reports that a "pair of unnamed petitioners filed an original action with the state Supreme Court, meaning they are trying to send the matter directly to the high court instead of starting in lower courts and advancing through appeals."

The petition seeks to stop the John Doe probe looking into $10s of millions of GOP-aligned money that is being investigated after reasonable suspicion was presented to a judge that crimes have been committed.

The probe is being conducted under Wisconsin's John Doe statute, Wisconsin statute 968.26, and represents a threat to the Republican Party's project of injecting $ millions into the political system to consolidate their political power.

This action follows  a complaint in federal court filed by some of the same lawyers who drafted the Supreme Court petition, contending First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by John Doe investigators and prosecutors, including the presiding judge.

The two legal actions precede the release of 1,000s of e-mails next week by former top Scott Walker aide, Kelly Rindfleisch, convicted of a felony while employed in Walker's office.

Republicans fear the e-mail release could torpedo any presidential aspirations Scott Walker may be harboring, and labored to stop the release of the e-mails that may also pose a threat to his reelection as governor in November.

"The records in question include emails from Rindfleisch's personal computer and private email account, affidavits supporting John Doe search warrants, and a transcript of a secret hearing on search warrants issued the day before Walker was elected governor in 2010," notes Dan Bice.

Club for Growth Wants to Kill John Doe Probe in Complaint before Federalist Society Judge

From left to right: Felon Tim Russell, Scott Walker
and Felon Brian Pierick, Four other Walker associates
were convicted in a Wisconsin John Doe probe (2010-13).

Update III: Prediction that the Randa rules against the criminal class of Republicans now holding sway in Wisconsin was confirmed April 8, 2014. (Marley. MJS)

Update II: Today, it was reported that due to Randa's ruling a proposed settlement to rape and molestation victims announced today, "would be by far the smallest sexual abuse settlement in any Catholic Church bankruptcy of this size filed to date." Nice job, Rudolph Randa, you protected sexual predators and screwed their vicitms.

Update: Reader notes Federalist Society Judge Rudolph T. Randa made news by fronting for the Milwaukee child-molesting set in ruling for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in a bankruptcy case in July 2013, insulating $50 million in the process, and failed to disclose his connection to the archdiocese. See also Judge Randa Is Asked by Creditors of Archdiocese to Leave Case (Goodstein. NYT).

When is a law and its implementation by law enforcement unconstitutional?

When it's used to determine if and when crimes have been committed by Republicans, who now-a-days see themselves as above and beyond the reach of Wisconsin statutes, aka the law.

So contends Wisconsin Club for Growth (WCG) and WCG's Eric O'Keefe who evidently do not like Wisconsin's John Doe statute, Wisconsin statute 968.26, and call for its implementation and perhaps its existence to be stuck down as unconstitutional in a complaint filed in federal court this week.

WCG is hoping Senior U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa will agree.

Randa is a judicial rightwinger who as recently as February 21, 2013 was listed as an advisor to the rightest Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Studies.

The Federalist Society advocates a roll back of civil rights, reproductive choice, and civil liberties under the rubric of what they claim is a valid approach of textual originalism to constitutional interpretation. (See Richard Posner for a scathing review of this "gotcha jurisprudence.")

Randa is the judge who sent an innocent Georgia Thompson to prison, a ludicrous affair later overturned in an extraordinary decision in oral arguments before a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Randa is listed along with other activist rightwingers as Federalist Society Members, including the following:  Ken Starr, Theodore Olson, Edwin Meese, Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Alex Kozinski, Ann Coulter, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Randy Barnett, Samuel Alito, Troy Eid, Hugo Teufel III, Charles Fried, Richard Allen Epstein, Priscilla Owen, Spencer Abraham, Edith Brown Clement, Rudolph T. Randa, William H. Pryor, Jr., Diane S. Sykes, David M. McIntosh, Maura D. Corrigan, C. Boyden Gray, John Sitilides, David Schizer, Jeff Ballabon, Roger Pilon, Nilda Pedrosa, Charlie Korsmo, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Stephen Bainbridge, Michael I. Krauss, Holly Coors, Don Wagner, Steven G. Calabresi.

The Wisconsin John Doe statute is a law enforcement tool used to determine the existence of criminality when for example conflicts of interests, stonewalling (as in John Doe One that found multiple felonies and misdemeanors in Scott Walker tenure of Milwaukee County Executive), practical difficulties and concern for the good name of innocent citizens mandate launching a John Doe probe after approval by a judge, administered by district attorneys, their agents and a supervising judge.

But the Wisconsin Club for Growth and other Wisconsin rightwingers object again today.

They continuously blasted the first John Doe probe that netted six criminal convictions of Scott Walker appointees, top staff members, and associates. No retractions from the rightwing exist about their smears of John Doe jurists and no claims of innocence exist on record from any of Walker's allies.

Now, WCG and O'Keefe have filed a complaint in federal court contending First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by John Doe investigators and prosecutors, including the presiding judge.

The complaint offers a bizarre history of Scott Walker's tenure and essentially a political editorial that WCG does not like progressives. The complaint also references the federal Citizens United decision as part of its argument that the probe is unconstitutional.

As noted by Jason Stein and Patrick Marley of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the named "defendants in Monday's suit are Reserve Judge Gregory A. Peterson, who is overseeing the investigation; special prosecutor Francis Schmitz; Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm; Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf; Assistant District Attorney David Robles; and investigator Dean Nickel."

Attorney Marcus J. Berghahn offers an instructive research memo on Wisconsin's John Doe statute in which he writes in part:

 Unlike normal criminal proceedings, which can be initiated if there is probable cause to believe a person has violated the law, John Doe proceedings help law enforcement develop the evidence necessary to establish the very existence of probable cause.

If a district attorney requests a judge to convene a proceeding to determine whether a crime has been committed in the court's jurisdiction, the judge shall convene a proceeding," says Wisconsin's John Doe statute. ...

(T)he proceedings are also designed to protect innocent citizens from the fallout of frivolous prosecutions. [See State ex rel. Reimann v. Cir. Ct., 214 Wis. 2d 605, 621, 571 N.W.2d 385, 390 (1997)]

As the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated in 1889: 'When [the John Doe] statute was first enacted the common-law practice was for the magistrate to issue the warrant on a complaint of mere suspicion, and he was protected in doing so. This was found to be a very unsafe practice. Many arrests were made on groundless suspicion, when the accused were innocent of the crime and there was no testimony whatever against them. This statute was made to protect citizens from arrest and imprisonment on frivolous and groundless suspicion." [State ex rel. Long v. Keyes, 75 Wis. 288, 294-95, 44 N.W. 13, 15 (1889).]

The complaint, if not dismissed, will offer a test on whether Randa wants to go out as a jurist committed to the rule of law or a rightwing hack posing as an impartial judge.

My own reading here is that the complaint is a distraction and stalling tactic meant to buy time for Scott Walker's reelection bid in November.

On February 19, many papers and e-mails concerning the criminal conviction of former Walker aide, Kelly Rindfleisch (aka Multiple Kelly), will become public.

Rindfleisch is another Walker aide convicted in the last John Doe probe, but the resulting political embarrassment of criminality in Walker's office will not be decreased by stalling the current John Doe probe, though the mounds of information coming from Scott Walker's former office will offer a nice introduction to the country of who Scott Walker is.

As for the current John Doe, since when do federal judges get to declare law enforcement investigations unconstitutional just because the subject matter involves possible criminality by Republicans?

I would not bet on a favorable ruling on this complaint for the criminal class of Republicans now holding sway in Wisconsin.

Too much of a stink would result, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is not exactly staffed by dummies, Diane Sykes notwithstanding.

GOP Apears Intimidated by Wisconsin John Doe Probe

When the Wisconsin recall movement bloomed in 2011-12, many wise men and women warned that Wisconsin could expect vast sums of money from out-of-state GOP-aligned interests to defend Scott Walker and the GOP.

These warning proved true.

"Overall an estimated $137.5 million was spent on the unprecedented 15 recall races for governor, lieutenant governor and state Senate in 2011 and 2012, reports the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. This is Wisconsin, not populous Florida.

When news broke in October 2013 that a new John Doe probe had been launched (Bice. MJS) looking into what appears to be criminal campaign funding in the 2011-12 recall elections, Republicans and their front groups went ballistic.

The Wall Street Journal called the investigation, which finds out if and by whom crimes have been committed, an attack on GOP speech.

John Doe probes in Wisconsin are begun when a district attorney, under supervision of a judge, has more than reasonable suspension and perhaps less than probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, and investigation is/would be obstructed, is impractical, or might unnecessarily harm innocents, hence the secrecy.

Wisconsin John Doe probes are closely regulated, but the GOP and its GOP propaganda sheets believe that if the GOP is investigated, then by right the Democratic Party must also be investigated.

Other Republicans say the John Doe probe is a fishing expedition, but when pressed for facts to back up the assertion, no Republican offers anything beyond not liking the "unchecked, unbridled scope of these investigations," as Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. told the Wisconsin Reporter.

Left unasked by the GOP Party sheet is the question: How do you know this, Sheriff  Clarke? How do you what the John Doe is investigating, who and why? Who did you talk to?

But something has the GOP spooked.

In a new development, the Franklin Center for Government and Integrity, is attacking the Wisconsin John Doe investigation using anonymous sources and a variety of we-don't-like-you statements, devoid of facts like Clarke. This is typical, as Bill Lueders writes under the "Talk is cheap in John Doe probe':

A lot of folks — perhaps too many — are spouting off about the John Doe probe launched by the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office into the campaign of Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and more than two dozen conservative groups, among others.

Lueders could write a new story, Talk is desperate in John Doe probe; see Why Is the Franklin Center Attacking the John Doe Probe? in The Progressive and PR Watch.

Wisconsin used to be the butt of friendly jokes for it fair and clean elections. Not any more.

Republican illegal collaboration with independent groups is suspected across the political spectrum.

As David Koch told a Palm Beach Post reporter in 2012, "(Koch) took credit for the fact the Republicans maintained control of the legislature in the (Wisconsin) Senate" recall elections held last August. He said it 'was the work our people did, what Americans for Prosperity did and the money spent that enabled them [the Republicans] to keep control in the [state] senate."

For now the public GOP line is: Stop looking at me that way, leave me alone, and quit asking all these questions.

If the GOP members served with a subpoena are sticking to this line, improbable, their politcal and legal futures are not very bright.

Wisconsin GOP Wants New John Doe Probe, with No Cause or Evidence

Here is the false equivalency standard taken to new depths of absurdity.

Republicans feel that if Republican and rightwing action cause a John Doe probe to be launched, for the sake of political equality, a matching John Doe probe must be launched to investigate Democratic and progressive action.

Here's Mary Spicuzza in the Wisconsin State Journal (paid site) this morning: "There is no indication that Democratic candidates or liberal groups are also being investigated in the John Doe probe - which has incensed conservatives."

Has a district attorney and judge cause to believe a crime may have been committed?

That's the standard used to launch Wisconsin John Doe probes. And this standard is not probable cause.

"Unlike normal criminal proceedings, which can be initiated if there is probable cause to believe a person has violated the law, John Doe proceedings help law enforcement develop the evidence necessary to establish the very existence of probable cause," as Marcus J. Berghahn points out in his piece on Wisconsin John Doe probes.

"If a district attorney requests a judge to convene a proceeding to determine whether a crime has been committed in the court's jurisdiction, the judge shall convene a proceeding," says Wisconsin's John Doe statute.

The GOP is apparently upset because a district attorney and judge have cause to have launched a new John Doe proceeding to determine if and by whom crime(s) have been committed in the 2011-12 Recall elections, among other matters.

The GOP line is for the sake of what, political equity, a new John Doe should be convened to look into whether crimes have been committed by Democratic candidates or liberal groups.

Wisconsin John Doe probes look into whether and by whom a crime has been committed, under Wisconsin law, when practical difficulties, conflicts of interests or protection of sensitive information by those testifying derail normal criminal investigations begun when law enforcement determines possible cause of criminality.

The Wisconsin John Doe statute was passed in part because of a concern to protect the innocent. Notes Berghahn:

But the proceedings are also designed to protect innocent citizens from the fallout of frivolous prosecutions.2 [See State ex rel. Reimann v. Cir. Ct., 214 Wis. 2d 605, 621, 571 N.W.2d 385, 390 (1997)]

As the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated in 1889: "When [the John Doe] statute was first enacted the common-law practice was for the magistrate to issue the warrant on a complaint of mere suspicion, and he was protected in doing so. This was found to be a very unsafe practice. Many arrests were made on groundless suspicion, when the accused were innocent of the crime and there was no testimony whatever against them. This statute was made to protect citizens from arrest and imprisonment on frivolous and groundless suspicion."3 [State ex rel. Long v. Keyes, 75 Wis. 288, 294-95, 44 N.W. 13, 15 (1889).]

Take for example, the John Doe probe of 2010-2013 that looked into Scott Walker's office when Walker was Milwaukee County Executive. That John Doe probe was convened because a criminal investigation was stonewalled by Scott Walker's office. (Bice. MJS) None of the six convicted Republicans have said they are innocent, and wrongfully convicted.

By GOP logic, the resulting six criminal convictions of Republicans—Walker aides, Walker appointees and a Walker campaign contributor—in that John Doe probe (2010-2013) should be matched by six criminal convictions of Democrats, facts and evidence not needed in the later cases.

John Doe probes are not mini-trials where only guilt beyond a reasonable doubt causes the probe's district attorney or special prosecutor to file criminal charges.

John Doe probes are investigations, and the standard to file criminal charges, at the prosecutor and overseeing judge's discretion, is whether at trial, the prosecutor's office believes it could convince a neutral jury or judge of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The bizarre, new GOP wants citizens to be held accountable when other citizens commit crimes.

I think the GOP's new theory presents some Constitutional problems.

The judge in the new John Doe probe was Kenosha County Circuit Judge Barbara A. Kluka. Kluka has been replaced by former state Appeals Court Judge Gregory A. Peterson in November 2013.