Steven Avery Attorney Hits Wisconsin Judge for Constructing Adverse Ruling Against Facts and Law — Awaiting Corrupt Ruling

Madison, Wisconsin — The attorney representing Steven Avery offered a harsh opinion this morning that a presiding circuit court judge is constructing an adverse ruling in an effort to preserve what attorney argues is the wrongful conviction of Avery, featured in the Emmy-winning Making a Murderer.

Kathleen Zellner writes in Twitter: "The lower court is facing the impossible task of constructing an adverse ruling that will not be reversed by the higher court. The facts and clearcut laws will be the wrecking ball of this house of cards. Time to do the right thing for Steven Avery."

The lower court is facing the impossible task of constructing an adverse ruling that will not be reversed by the higher court. The facts & clearcut laws will be the wrecking ball of this house of cards. Time to do the right thing for Steven Avery. #JusticeNow #MakingAMurderer https://t.co/QpEoWrt6vY

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) May 30, 2019

Advocates for Steven Avery are growing angry at what appears to be the corrupt effort by Sheboygan County Judge Angela W. Sutkiewicz (substituting) who apparently reached a result adverse to Steven Avery in State v. Steven A. Avery, Appeal Number 2017AP002288 long ago.

But Sutkiewicz works backwards. Result first, then draft an order and opinion to support the position of corrupt Wisconsin law enforcement, an opinion that will, law enforcement and Sutkiewicz believe, prevail in appellate court for a time — a delaying tactic.

The prosecution led by Attorney General Joshua Kaul (D) is employing the legal services of corrupt state attorneys including Mark Williams, Asst Attorney General and Special Prosecutor Thomas J. Fallon, and Special Prosecutor Norman Gahn.

Fallon and Gahn do not challenge the oft-repeated fact that the two corrupt jurists not only worked together to illegally destroy evidence, the two DoJ attorneys now write legal filings opposing Zellner's March 11 call for a reversal or new trial in post-conviction litigation.

Before Zellner won her motion for a remand (sending back) the case to circuit court, Zellner argued in her Feb. 1 legal filing:

The [State] ... conveys an attitude of impunity for its past actions of withholding exculpatory evidence and its current action of continuing the concealment of its destruction of potentially exculpatory or useful evidence. ...

Kahl, Ken Kratz, Mark Williams, Thomas J. Fallon, and Norman Gahn. This is Wisconsin law enforcement. And Angela W. Sutkiewicz is the Wisconsin judiciary.

Fallon and Gahn argue that the evidence they help destroy was "inexplicably released" in their  March 29, 2019 legal filing, (p 13).

In its late-March legal filing, the DoJ argues procedural objections to Avery's charges of bad-faith evidence destruction, deceit, concealment and deception, all of which present Due Process questions, (Steven Avery legal filings; #Work with KZ, WBAY, WLUK).

The deception of the DoJ attorneys veered into another spectacle in February when state attorney Mark Williams left a Feb errant voicemail message to Thomas Fallon on Zellner's phone, plotting how to mislead Zellner.

Making a Murderer's Steven Avery Waits on Ruling, Hearing, Anything from Corrupt Circuit Judge

Update: Sheboygan County Judge Angela W. Sutkiewicz (substituting) reached a result adverse to Steven Avery in State v. Steven A. Avery, Appeal Number 2017AP002288 long ago. But Sutkiewicz works backwards. Result first, then draft an order and opinion to support the position of corrupt Wisconsin law enforcement, an opinion that will fly in appellate court to some extent.

Sutkiewicz is working on drafting and an adverse ruling that will sabotage and work against the wrongfully convicted Steven Avery.

It's how it is here.

From Kathleen Zellner, wrongful conviction attorney:

The lower court is facing the impossible task of constructing an adverse ruling that will not be reversed by the higher court. The facts & clearcut laws will be the wrecking ball of this house of cards. Time to do the right thing for Steven Avery. #JusticeNow #MakingAMurderer https://t.co/QpEoWrt6vY

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) May 30, 2019

The dreadful Kafka could not have imagined Wisconsin law enforcement and Judge Angela W. Sutkiewicz.

Madison, Wisconsin — Wrongfully convicted Steven Avery, is awaiting a state circuit court ruling on his motion for an evidentiary hearing, and a new trial.

A website, Work with KZ, (for Avery's wrongful conviction attorney, Kathleen Zellner) maintains the site for the press, public and those interested in this particular state crucifixion.

The post, Awaiting ruling from Circuit Court, is reproduced below:

Awaiting ruling from Circuit Court

The Court has 90 days from the date the motion was filed with the Circuit Court if the response and reply are NOT considered. (June 9 - or the 10th, since the 9th is a Sunday).

Kathleen's most recent filing implies that the Court did not ask for the State's response.  We will have to wait for the Court to say whether or not the response and subsequent reply will be considered.

IF THE RESPONSE AND REPLY ARE ACCEPTED, the 90 days starts from the date Kathleen filed her reply, which would put the due date at July 10.

This is what we expect:

If the court grants the motion and says Steven gets an evidentiary hearing, the State cannot appeal that decision.

 If they have a hearing and the resulting order is for a new trial to happen, the State will appeal that decision.

If they have a hearing and the resulting order is that a new trial is denied, Kathleen will add it to her appellant brief.

If the court denies the motion and says Steven cannot have an evidentiary hearing, Kathleen will add it to her appellant brief.

So, either way, it's going back to the Court of Appeals.

Here's the info on responses FYI:

Can the State respond?

1. The court can deny the motion without a response from the State.

2. The court can grant a hearing without a response from the State.

3. The court cannot grant the motion without a response from the State. (If the judge asks the State for a response, that means she's probably considering granting the motion.)

4. The State can respond regardless but the judge doesn't have to consider their response if she didn't ask for one.

* If she asks the State for a response, she will dictate how long they have to respond.

For those of you who are interested, here is the Wisconsin Statute that says what the required procedure is for the court: Click Here.

Wrongfully Convicted in Wisconsin — Waiting for Judge Angela Sutkiewicz' Adverse Ruling and Opinion

Madison, Wisconsin — Some things in Wisconsin seem impervious to change.

One of the worst enduring features is corrupt law enforcement exemplified by disgraced ex-district attorney Ken Kratz (Calumet County), Special Prosecutor Mark Williams (Dept of Justice), Attorney General Joshua Kaul, and far too many more to list.

The bad work of Kratz is being defended by Williams, Kaul and others for whom facts, transparency and truth are to be opposed, lest Wisconsin law enforcement is exposed more prominently as indecent, capable and inclined to railroad the innocent.

Williams is a class-A scumbag, revealed by private investigator Ira Robins to have hidden evidence, and lied repeatedly to the court in a frame-up of Lawrencia (Laurie) Bembenek.

It makes sense in the amoral mind of Kaul that in protecting another frame-up Williams would be called upon as a special prosecutor in State of Wisconsin vs. Steven A. Avery, (Manitowoc County Case Number 2005CF000381).

Just three months ago, the wrongfully convicted Steven Avery won an important state appellate court ruling.

Wrote Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner:

Avery Update: We Won!!!!!! Back to the circuit court. #TruthWins @llifeafterten @ZellnerLaw @TManitowoc @michellemalkin #MakingaMurderer

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) February 25, 2019

But Zellner and Avery's advocates know the courtroom of  Judge Angela Sutkiewicz will bring an adverse ruling. Sutkiewicz is as corrupt as any Wisconsin law enforcement personnel, so the case will be won in appellate court.

The problem is Sutkiewicz is taking her sweet time and has not even scheduled hearings, per the Feb 25, 2019 appellate court order mandating "any proceedings necessary to address [Avery's] claims," which the State fails to address in argument on the merits.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice (DoJ) does not address the merits of Steven Avery's characterization of Wisconsin's post-conviction conduct  — DoJ bad faith, evidence destruction and suppression — because the DoJ cannot credibly do so.

So, as Summer approaches, we wait and wait. Writes Zellner:

We would love to give you an Avery update but that is only possible if the everyone does their job...just sayin' 17 days and counting...#MakingAMurderer2 #FolliwtheRules

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) May 14, 2019

Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul Is Promoting a 'Mockery of Justice' in Making a Murderer Case

Above, attorney Kathleen Zellner is shown walking with
innocent people for whom she and her legal team have won
exoneration and freedom. The world-renown attorney
faces perhaps her biggest challenge yet against corrupt
Wisconsin law enforcement, and a state judiciary hostile
to civil rights and stacked with corrupt jurists biased in favor
of police. Zellner has won a worldwide following of
admirers who object to the imprisonment of people known
to be innocent.

Innocent awaits ruling from corrupt county circuit court

Madison, Wisconsin — A wrongfully convicted man, Steven Avery, is awaiting a state circuit court ruling on his motion for an evidentiary hearing, and a new trial.

The Feb 25, 2019 appellate court order mandating "any proceedings necessary to address [Avery's] claims" points to a hearing after briefing at the circuit court to which the case had been sent back.

No such proceedings have been ordered to this date.
 ---
Steven Avery's story is abject demonstration of the determination of law enforcement to work against innocents, and the incapacity of Wisconsin society — corporate media, police, courts, bureaucracies, elected representatives and many citizens — to even acknowledge the perverse efforts of the Wisconsin Dept of Justice (DoJ) now led by Attorney General Joshua Kaul (D), to keep innocents in prison.

Kaul is working to shield criminal acts committed by Wisconsin law enforcement by blocking examination of evidence, opposing all court hearings, and promoting "finality in criminal litigation" so that police and prosecutorial misconduct are protected, and the innocent remain imprisoned, (p.4. State's Response to Defendant's Motion for New Trial Based on Alleged Youngblood Violation, March 29, 2019).

Steven Avery is featured in the Emmy-winning documentary, Making a Murderer.

Kaul has the discretion to accede to Avery's requests for transparency and open examination of evidence and state misconduct.

The case is now before Sheboygan County Judge Angela W. Sutkiewicz who is expected to issue a ruling within weeks on Avery's legal motions. 

Sutkiewicz is a corrupt judge who does the work of police and prosecutors against people and the cause of truth.

Advocates for truth in the Avery case expect their efforts to be won in state appellate court after an anticipated adverse ruling by Sutkiewicz.

The post-conviction ligation is State v. Steven A. Avery, Appeal Number 2017AP002288, now before Manitowoc County Circuit Court, substituted by Sutkiewicz.

State of Wisconsin Criminality 

In its late-March legal filing, the DoJ argues only procedural objections to Avery's charges of bad-faith state evidence destruction, deceit, concealment and deception, all of which present Due Process questions, (Steven Avery legal filings; #Work with KZ, WBAY, WLUK).

Continuing its strategy of avoiding mention of charged state criminality and lawlessness in litigation, the State's conduct is striking in its avoidance of the merits of Avery's charges that the Calumet County Sheriff's Office secretly transferred evidence, the remains of a murder victim, Teresa Halbach, to private custody in 2011, in violation of state statutes that govern preservation of physical evidence collected; among other allegations.

Commenting on the State's March 29, 2019 legal filing in Newsweek Magazine, Avery's post-conviction attorney, Kathleen Zellner, said:

Wisconsin Dept of Justice is painting itself into a corner
in its effort to keep innocent men in prison. "The State
is thumbing its nose at the appellate court once again,"
wrongful conviction attorney Kathleen Zellner told Newsweek
on April 2. "That court specifically ordered that the merits of the
alleged bone destruction be addressed. Rather than follow the
court's directive, the State has constructed a convoluted
procedural argument that defies logic or precedent."

'Of course the State cannot address the merits of Avery's claim, because it is blatantly guilty of evidence destruction. Its charade continues without the slightest inclination to discover the truth. Significantly, one of the culprits in the whole sad scenario authored the State's Response. Unfortunately, the citizens of Wisconsin are the recipients of this mockery of justice.'

Zellner refers to the DoJ post-conviction litigation team and Thomas Fallon, who helped oversee the decision to return the alleged human bones to the Halbach family. Fallon wrote the state’s response, and is defending his own misconduct.

The post-conviction ligation is State v. Steven A. Avery, (Appeal Number 2017AP002288), now before Manitowoc County Circuit Court.

Before Zellner won her motion for a remand (sending back) the case to Circuit Court, Zellner and other advocates for the innocent Avery argued in her Feb. 1 legal filing:

The entire #CorruptiwocCounty case against Steven was based on a house of cards composed of lies, deceptions, fabrications, planting, hiding & destroying of evidence, smoke, mirrors, & the distractions of drugged out narcissistic ex-DA. No wonder they can't keep story straight. https://t.co/KYN3BQ22sK

— Lloyd R Bass II (@lloydbassII) April 13, 2019

Steven Avery Supporters Want Sheboygan County Judge off Case — Cite Conflicts, Bias

Updated - Madison, Wisconsin—Supporters of the wrongfully convicted Steven Avery want Sheboygan County Judge Angela W. Sutkiewicz to step aside from the case on which she has a conflict of interest, and is operating in apparent violation of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Ethics.

Concern that Sutkiewicz is hostile to Avery's post-conviction litigation has caused supporters to begin a petition last weekend, that quickly garnered over 10,000 signatures calling for Sutkiewicz to remove herself from the case, and asking for support from Gov Tony Evers (D).

Judge Sutkiewicz began hearing Avery's post-conviction litigation in 2013 after Manitowoc County Judge Patrick Willis retired in 2012.

In Making a Murderer, season 2, (episode two, 42:51-minute mark), Avery said he "had a problem with [Sutkiewicz] before," recounting that his post-conviction litigation was heard by Sutkiewicz in 2013.

Sutkiewicz was simultaneously presiding over Avery's post-conviction litigation and murder victim's Teresa Halbach's wrongful death suit against Avery in 2013 (Manitowoc County Case Number 2006CV000150 Teresa M Halbach Estate et al vs. Steven A Avery et al.).

Notes Avery: "I thought maybe it, [post-conviction litigation], would go to a different judge, she got them both."

Sutkiewicz held open the Halbach-Avery civil litigation for some 15 months after the Halbach estate requested a voluntary dismissal in November 2013, in an apparent bid to goad the plaintiff into seeking settlement monies from Avery.

In 2015, Avery sent a letter to the court inquiring about the status of the civil suit following the Notice of Motion for (Plaintiff's) Voluntary Dismissal hearing of November 21, 2013. Avery also appealed his post-conviction litigation to state appellate court complaining about Sutkiewicz' conduct in both cases. Sutkiewicz then dismissed the civil litigation in April 2015.

The Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct demands that judges "shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary" (SCR 60.03 A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities).

That Sutkiewicz acted in contravention of the Code of Judicial Conduct appears apparent.

Additionally, the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates:

SCR 60.03 (2)  A judge may not allow family, social, political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.  A judge may not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or of others or convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. ...

Sutkiewicz' conduct in which she heard two Avery cases, Sutkiewicz acted in accordance with her oft-stated wish that courts act as victims' advocates, to the point of compromising the rights of the accused and the convicted.

Next step: Judge Sutkiewicz will hold a hearing in late April in which numerous law enforcement and prosecutors suspected of misconduct will be compelled to testify in a public hearing (Mal Contends, Ferak).

Sutkiewicz is under fire and very public scrutiny.

Notes John Ferak in an interview with Avery post-conviction attorney, Kathleen Zellner:

2. What can people expect to happen in Steven's case over the next 60 to 90 days?

Zellner response: In the next 60 days the circuit court will rule on whether Mr. Avery's conviction should be reversed. The judge, Angela Sutkiewicz, should recuse herself from the case since she has a blatant conflict of interest. She has presided over the Halbach wrongful death case and Avery's post-conviction case. This is totally improper and she should recuse herself as Judge (Willis) did. If she will not, Avery fully expects her to rule against him as she has on every issue to date. She should be holding an evidentiary hearing but it is doubtful she will. The appellate court will reverse her for all of her blatant errors.

Sutkiewicz substitutes her affinity for prosecutors in place of neutral adjudication. To be accused means you have no rights, to be convicted means law enforcement can do no wrong, in what passes for Sutkiewicz' legal mind in Wisconsin.

In 2017, Sutkiewicz rejected Steven Avery's request for a trial made through his post-conviction attorney, Kathleen Zellner.

Sutkiewicz issued her ruling and opinion without ordering and conducting an evidentiary hearing on Kathleen Zellner's 1,200-page post-conviction motion, replete with expert forensic testimony and analyses.

"The judge criticized the defense conclusions as 'speculative' and based on 'interim opinions' by experts," notes Heavy. com.

Few observers believe Sutkiewicz is equipped with the competence to adjudge world-renown forensic scientific evidence.

On June 14, 2018, Avery through Zellner filed a motion for judicial substitution of Sutkiewicz, (Fox-11, Digital). The state objected to the motion for a new judge (Fox-11 News).
---
"When a judge determines that, for any reason, he or she cannot, or it appears he or she cannot, act in an impartial manner," a judge must disqualify herself, reads Wisconsin statute,757.19.

Asks a UK Avery supporter, "why is Sutkiewicz still on this case?"

Wisconsin Supreme Court Election—Tim Burns Towers over Two Opponents

Comment such as that above leave Tim Burns, candidate
for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, labeled a heretic.
The National Review today calls Burns a "Sandernista."

Finally, a, Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate calls bull-shite on this farce

Madison, Wisconsin—There is a case decided in 2001 by the nation's highest appellate court that instructs the Wisconsin Supreme Court primary on Feb. 20.

Atwater V. Lago Vista is a Fourth Amendment case in which a mother and her two young children, three- and five-years old, were pulled over by an over-zealous Texas cop, verbally abused, and arrested in front of multiple, gathering witnesses who all confirmed the same story: Young children were traumatized and cried, as their mother was arrested by a vicious police officer for a traffic violation.

"The question is whether the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrant-less arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seat-belt violation punishable only by a fine. We hold that it does not," the United States Supreme Court held 5-4

A powerful dissent by Justices O’Connor, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer notes the demise of the Fourth Amendment right to privacy and security in this "severe intrusion on an individual’s liberty," (as custodial arrests are), in a decision preceding 9/11 by five months, after which for other reasons: Good bye, Fourth Amendment and hello, American police state.

Atwater is animated by a general disdain the state and federal courts have towards the liberties of Americans against police incursions. For all the fluff about 'land of the free,' after Atwater, the Fourth Amendment barely exists today.

With respect to the Wisconsin Supreme Court election tomorrow, three candidates are on the ballot, two of whom will continue as candidates in the April 3 Spring general election.

Only one candidate, Tim Burns, cares about the liberties and humanity of Gail Atwater of Texas, brutalized by a cop.

Tim Burns

Tim Burns, has made concern for citizens against powerful interests the basis of his campaign.

The only appellate attorney in the race, Burns acclaims the primacy of voters' rights, the right to safe, clean water, civil liberties and citizens' right to an impartial judiciary among other liberties that 20 years ago were not controversial in Wisconsin.

Rebecca Dallet

Rebecca Dallet is a judge pretending the Wisconsin Supreme Court is a trial court.

Dallet's tendency to mislead the electorate plays well politically with some of the state Party and legal establishment.

But Dallet's record belies her claim to instructive experience for Wisconsin's top appellate court, as a bulwark for citizen liberties against unlawful lower courts, and the corporation and police interests for whom jurists like Dallet work.

Dallet is the presiding judge in Wisconsin v. Ryan Erik Diggins, (2003), (overturned on appeal)), in which Dallet found blacks leaning against a wall were engaging in suspicious conduct because racist Milwaukee police said so.

Under Dallet's black-hence-suspicious theory of liberty and people, one can understand how America has evolved into a police state.

Dallet is the problem, so it's no surprise Dallet donated $2,500 to he Koch brothers' chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

This is how Dallet thinks about the world, a land with little rights dominated by Koch brothers-approved stooges.

Michael P. Screnock

Michael P. Screnock is manifestly unqualified, directly funded by corporate Wisconsin. In the Republicans' view of Wisconsin, privacy and liberty claims are of no moment.

This is a moment for Wisconsin.

But if 15 percent of the electorate votes on Feb. 20, I will be quite surprised.

Wisconsin Judge Says He Fears Republican Retaliation, Gives Republican Donor Probation on Fraud Charges

Former Ready Mix Concrete executive and Republican campaign
donor, Todd Schaller, gets off on probation after unlawfully collecting
some $100,000 in his public assistance fraud scheme.
Data from National Institute on Money in State Politics

In Wisconsin, it's not just citizens concerned about what Scott Walker and Republicans will do next.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Jeffrey A. Conen said he's concerned too.

Conen handed down a suspended sentence this week to Republican campaign donor, Todd Schaller.

Judge Conen said he's concerned the former Ready Mix Concrete executive and Republican campaign donor, Schaller, should not serve time for unlawfully collecting some $100,000 in his and partner's public assistance fraud scheme.

Specifically, Conen said he does not wish to "[fuel] the fire" of critics, [in Wisconsin these critics are Republican], who would cut state food and health benefits, (Vielmetti, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

Schaller has given $1,000s in campaign donations to Republicans, according to data obtained from the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Reports Bruce Vielmetti of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: 

A Whitefish Bay couple who collected nearly $100,000 in state food and health care benefits while one of them earned a six-figure salary and their stylish home was featured in the newspaper, avoided jail Wednesday after pleading guilty to public assistance fraud.

Todd Schaller and Mary Carini-Gallagher, both 52, were charged last year with multiple felonies, accused of conspiring to obtain some $115,000 in food share and health care benefits over several years by not informing the state about Schaller's income or the fact they lived in the same household.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Conen suspended 12-month jail sentences for both defendants, meaning they could serve time if they fail terms of probation.

Conen said he didn't really expect either defendant to reoffend, but stressed that the public perception of their crime — of a family living in a nice neighborhood scamming the help intended for the truly needy — "just fuels the fire" of critics who would cut such benefits to everyone.

'That's the real damage to the community,' he said.

It could be argued other damage inflicted onto the community is Conen's conditioning his judicial actions on his political analysis of what unidentified "critics" will do.

I mean why not just state the critics are Republicans, dominating Wisconsin state government. Do it for the community's sake.

Corporate Media Fans Hysteria

Have you heard what Donald Trump did? He fired the Rule
of Law, and then nuked Article III through the power of his
words. Lovers of liberty, Donald Trump is coming, Trump is
coming. Or, perhaps hysteria and delusion have set in.
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,   
The people will waken and listen to hear   
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,   
And the midnight message of Chuck Todd.
(Longfellow)

NBC News political director Chuck Todd made an appearance on Morning Joe Tuesday, championing the federal judiciary.

Tracing his lineage to Gutenberg, Todd offered to take criticism emitting from Donald Trump against U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel on behalf of the "press," warning Trump should stop saying mean things about federal judges such as Curiel.

Trump is "eroding the rule of law," ... "eroding trust in the judiciary," warned Todd. "That's a slippery slope."

Todd didn't specify the darkness to which the slippery slope leads, but his comments follow by days the hysteria of Adam Liptak and the New York Times in similar grandiose posturing regarding the judiciary and the rule of law.

As a historical figure, surly Todd has studied in some detail the American judiciary and its oppression of American citizens who sometimes look to the judicial branch when, most commonly, individual states target Constitutional rights of disfavored swaths of the citizenry.

Have not noticed Todd defending civil liberties against incursions from the Republican-ruled red states. Or for that matter from the Federalist Society's approved federal judges who carry out the intentions of the Koch brothers and the Bradley Foundation.

Libel Law

Should we be concerned Donald Trump will loosen federal libel doctrine as Trump once blustered. No. How would Trump accomplish this? Trump didn't say, and neither has Todd, the Times nor the Post. [In February, Trump said, "One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," (The Politico)].

Trump is hardly the first politician to express dissatisfaction with, or to venture the outlines of a bone-headed argument against New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).

Federal Judiciary Deserves No Trust

Perhaps Todd could cast his gaze at the United States Supreme Court. Immigrant families face a more present danger from rightwing judges as they await word whether the corrupt and ideologically bankrupt U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's attacks will carry the day in United States v. Texas, (No. 15-674) (Denniston, SCOTUSBlog).

Hanen and his ilk are human garbage. Much more dangerous than the ravings of the whiny and incoherent Donald Trump.

Federal litigants face a roll of the dice in the federal judiciary. Nothing better.

Meanwhile, the farce of the American electoral process continues, with no alarm sounded by Chuck Todd and the New York Times, (CounterPunch).

Morning Joe Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Rebecca Bradley's 'Apology' Strains Credulity

One Wisconsin Now's report on the vile rants of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley has resulted in an apology from the candidate up for reelection on April 5.

No longer, Bradley says, does she regard AIDS victims as "degenerates," "abnormal" people who "kill themselves" and deserve no "compassion" and "sympathy."

Now Bradley after One Wisconsin Now's report, says her writings are "not reflective of my worldview."
 
Bradley was appointed by Scott Walker three times in three years, the same Walker who surrounds himself with anti-Semitic, homophobic, repellent individuals cut from the same cloth as Bradley, (The Progressive).

"To those offended by comments I made as a young college student, I apologize, and assure you that those comments are not reflective of my worldview. These comments have nothing to do with who I am as a person or a jurist, and they have nothing to do with the issues facing the voters of this state," said Bradley in a statement.

Bradley did not elaborate on the self-examination and analysis in which she engaged, leading her to a new and different conclusion on 'abnormal degenerates'.

Wisconsinites should be aware of the type of person running for election on the state Supreme Court. Her strangely worded explanation strains credulity, and is unconvincing.

Consider if Bradley had mocked Jews, the disabled, "blacks" and Mexicans—as Scott Walker's aides did, (The Progressive)—would it be credible to accept that Walker and his aides really don't retain this 'worldview'? Bradley is not credible, and hate and bigotry have NO place on the Court.

Wisc SC Judge's Hate-filled Rants Should Disqualify Rebecca Bradley

The hate and wisdom of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley;
Bradley was appointed to the Court to fill a vacancy by Gov. Scott Walker

Gov. Scott Walker has appointed an ideological and unqualified Rebecca Bradley three times to Wisconsin courts since 2012, most recently to the Wisconsin Supreme Court last October.

Under Walker's extremist tenure, Wisconsin has become a model of corruption and failure in too many ways to enumerate as an insidious, hateful ethos marking the Republican Party of Wisconsin has become the hallmark of the gerrymandered legislature, a benighted governor and the Wisconsin Supreme Court that has lost credibility as an impartial top appellate state court.

The Court is worse than even the most rigorous detractors believed.

Yesterday, One Wisconsin Now exposed Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley penned a series of hateful and venomous attacks on gay people and others living with HIV.

Bradley published her writings in the Marquette Tribune in 1992, referring to the LGBTQ community as "queers" and "degenerates," and mocking the AIDS epidemic. It gets worse, see One Wisconsin Now's press release below.

"The hate and vitriol for others Rebecca Bradley displayed in her writings was repugnant and unbecoming for a university student then and it is absolutely unacceptable for a justice of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court today. She is unfit to serve on our high court, and if she has a shred of decency or integrity she will resign immediately," concluded Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now's Executive Director.

Bradley is up for election on April 5, [2016 Spring Election and Presidential Preference Vote (Presidential Primary)], and Wisconsin voters should and likely will reject Bradley's bigotry, and her corruption as a judge who views her position on the Court as a means of furthering the special interests now holding sway in the Republican Party.

Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg who is running against Bradley released a statement reading: "There is no statute of limitations on hate. Rebecca Bradley’s comments are as abhorrent and disturbing today as they were in 1992 as people were dying in huge numbers from AIDS. Her career since that time includes being appointed three times to three judgeships in three years by Scott Walker who is against gay rights. Rebecca Bradley’s alliance with conservative causes and Scott Walker speaks louder than any apology she tries to make." 

Walker said he was not aware of Bradley's views when he appointed her as a circuit, appellate and Supreme Court judge, then asserted Bradley's views had changed in the same sentence, (Marley, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel).

One Wisconsin Now's press release is reproduced below:

Rebecca Bradley’s Published Writings Reveal Opinions That Cross Line Into Hate Speech
 
One Wisconsin Now Uncovers State Court Justice’s ‘Venomous’ Homophobia, Calls for Her Resignation 

MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote a series of hateful and venomous attacks on gay people and people living with HIV, according to articles obtained by One Wisconsin Now. The hate speech in the articles disqualifies Bradley from continuing to hold office and should result in her immediate resignation from the state Supreme Court, according to One Wisconsin Now Executive Director Scot Ross, who released the records at a news conference this morning with a representative of national civil rights group People For the American Way.

“Rebecca Bradley has revealed such a depth of hatred and contempt for people that she cannot be trusted to uphold the most basic tenet of our judicial system, that all are equal before the law,” said Ross. “She denies people their dignity because they are different than her and condemns people that hold political beliefs other than hers.”

In writings published in the Marquette Tribune, Bradley, in multiple instances, derisively referred to members of the LGBTQ community as “queers” and “degenerates”, claimed “homosexual sex kills,” mocked the AIDS epidemic and declared the nearly 45 million voters who supported President Clinton were, “either totally stupid or entirely evil.”

Scott Foval, the Madison-based Regional Political Coordinator for the national organization People For the American Way, also criticized Bradley’s statements, calling them “demeaning.”

Foval commented, “As a gay man and long-term survivor living with HIV, Rebecca Bradley’s hateful diatribes against people like me while at Marquette are shocking and deeply disturbing. I question how anyone in the LGBTQ community, or anyone living with HIV/AIDS feels they could get a fair decision from her. The demeaning statements she authored gravely undermines her ability to continue to serve on the state Supreme Court.”

The thinness of Bradley’s legal resume left her referencing things like a college term paper she wrote in applying for one of the unprecedented three appointments in three years by Gov. Scott Walker. And while disclosing other articles she authored, she specifically failed to make any mention her newspaper writings.

Ross noted there are numerous issues regarding Bradley’ trustworthiness, from her position that judges ought to be able to lie in their campaigns to a string of dishonest and misleading statements about her partisan political inclinations and work with the outside groups in her campaigns. But the deep seeded hatred and contempt Bradley revealed in these writings rises to a new level, displaying such bias she cannot be counted on to fairly judge cases that might come before the court that involve discrimination issues.

“The hate and vitriol for others Rebecca Bradley displayed in her writings was repugnant and unbecoming for a university student then and it is absolutely unacceptable for a justice of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court today. She is unfit to serve on our high court, and if she has a shred of decency or integrity she will resign immediately,” concluded Ross.
#

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

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

Brendan Fischer broke the story at PRWatch today.

Randa has a history of nakedly corrupt judicial policymaking.

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

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

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

JoAnne Kloppenburg Runs Facts-and-Law Campaign

By Michael Leon

I took some flak here for criticizing both Louis Butler Jr. and Justice Michael Gableman, 2008 candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Butler—now a blocked nominee for federal judgeship with no outraged GOP cries of "up-or-down-floor vote"—and Justice Gableman both disgraced the judicial office they sought to hold, I asserted.

'Don’t worry about the result; just tell me what the law is.’

Such a directive ought to be the mission, objective and goal of every justice of the state’s top appellate court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court. ...

If one were to ask candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2008 their commitment to the above principle, one can expect a declaration of absolute fidelity, right? ... [Y]ou would not deduce the presence of this judicial ethos from the campaigns of the two leading candidates for the [Supreme Court], Louis Butler and Judge Michael Gableman. (February 5, 2008)

Since 2008, we have seen two candidates for Wisconsin's high court who dared to edify the electorate in the function of the state's top appellate judicial body—stressing the imperative to be impartial, and avoiding political demagoguery.

These two jurists honor the bench: Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg, now a candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Abrahamson ran a facts-and-law campaign and won reelection decisively in 2009.

This election, we also have one candidate running a facts-and-law campaign: Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg.

Kloppenburg opponent, Justice David Prosser, on the other hand, goes out of his way to declare his bias towards specific communities of interest and certain classes of litigants, as well as fidelity to his political party, a committment Prosser unconvincingly goes on to deny when called on this corrupt stance in office.

From Kloppenburg:

In two weeks, Wisconsin voters will elect a Supreme Court Justice.

You and I share the belief that Justices must be independent, impartial and committed to deciding each case on the facts and the law.

That is the kind of Justice I will be.

Independence, impartiality and committment to facts and the law.

That's refreshing. And in the face of an often lawless Scott Walker administration, committment to facts and the law is imperative to preserve the state of Wisconsin as a functioning democratic entity.

Money, Justice and Due Process

The rightwing hates this decision, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal, et al. (08-22).

You can guess the desirability of the opinion by looking at what side of the five-four decision the members are on.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer in the majority.

In the minority are the Soviet justices: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr..

From Justice Kennedy's opinion:

The question presented is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated when one of the justices in the majority denied a recusal motion. The basis for the motion was that the justice had received campaign contributions in an extraordinary amount from, and through the efforts of, the board chairman and principal officer of the corporation found liable for the damages.

Kennedy wrote that the facts in the case presented an "extraordinary" and "extreme" set of circumstance that compelled the majority to act to protect the due proecss rights of the litigants.

“The court’s decision is appropriately narrow but is nonetheless a huge victory for one of the most basic aspects of the rule of law — the right to a fair hearing,” said James Sample, a lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. (Adam Liptak, NYT)
Fair hearings, the rightwing is not so keen on the concept.

One wonders if Wisconsin Justices will now routinely recuse themselves from cases involving interests who spent extraordinary resources during campaigns to elect them to their positions.

Recusal Standards: A Partial Solution to Judicial Mess

by mal contends

Public financing, education, and aggressive journalism point the way out of the unholy mess the election of Wisconsin Supreme Court justices has become.

So bad is Wisconsin that we are now a poster child for a nationwide problem with electing judges.

Another part of the solution proposed is more aggressive recusal rules, negating the rationale behind buying a Supreme Court seat.

From the Brennan Center for Justice's Justice Under Seige:

... Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, ... (Wisconsin's) largest business lobby, helped kick Justice Louis Butler—Wisconsin's first and only black Supreme Court Justice—off the bench. ... Moneyed groups spending millions, effectively buying seats on state judicial benches, is not just grist for John Grisham's latest bestseller, it's part of a national trend recently highlighted by a Brennan Center op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

This morning's New York Times picks up the torch from the nationwide problem identified by the Brennan Center:

(S)pecial interests are finding that buying up judges likely to side with them in big-dollar cases is a good investment — the real-life grist for John Grisham’s new fictional legal thriller, 'The Appeal.”'

Events this month in Wisconsin and West Virginia only deepen these concerns. On April 1, the first and only African-American member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Louis Butler, lost his seat after a nasty, racially charged campaign in which his opponent, Michael Gableman, was aided by a barrage of TV advertising, paid for by the state’s largest business lobby…

In response to such travesties, judicial reformers have stepped up their call for public financing and strict fund-raising rules for state judicial contests or a switch to a nonelective merit selection system.

But with states in no rush to make these changes, a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice smartly focuses on an effective if less sweeping antidote that would be more achievable in the short-term: persuading jurisdictions to strengthen their recusal rules.

Surely special interests would be less inclined to invest so heavily in judicial elections if they knew the recipients of their largess likely would be barred from sitting on their cases.

Public financing, education, aggressive journalism and stronger recusal rules: That's sounds like a sensible start. I wonder if Fraley, Sykes, Belling, et al will go along.