Wisconsin Supreme Court Denies Steven Avery Hearing; Court Follows Democrat Request

Wisconsin Supreme Court protects law enforcement
corruption, misconduct in denying Steven Avery petition.

Updated: Madison, Wisconsin — The attempted destruction of Steven Avery by the state of Wisconsin is proceeding apace.

Attorneys received notification of an expected denial of Avery's Aug. 25, 2021 Petition for Review from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on Nov 17, 2021. 

Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, were convicted of first-degree homicide in Wisconsin in 2007 for the murder of a young photographer, Teresa Halbach.

The case is State of Wisconsin v Steven Avery, featured in the Emmy-winning Making a Murderer docuseries.  

The once-exonerated Steven Avery faces a vendetta from multiple foes, including the Wisconsin Democratic leadership, corrupt law enforcement and the Wisconsin Judiciary which has largely abdicated its role as protector of individual Constitutional rights in favor of covering for police misconduct.

The short Court statement includes no dissents, no explanation and no stated reasoning of the decision deliberated in secret. 

"It is ordered that the petition for review is denied," reads the statement, not housed on a public website.

Replied Zellner:

Steven is just beginning. What lies ahead —a habeas petition w/ fed. court,a new petition w/circuit court on evidence appellate ct. left undecided, a new reward offer by our amazing benefactor. We’ve just finished warming up in the first inning @MakingAMurderer

— Kathleen Zellner (@ZellnerLaw) November 19, 2021

This lack of reasoning, lack of transparency, as well as materiel misstatement of facts and history by judges in this case continue to cast doubt on the decisions and the credibility of the Wisconsin judicatory.

This denial is the high court protecting the reputation of the criminal justice system and the Wisconsin Judiciary, and the public's job is to watch as innocent men remain is prison.

Avery seeks a public evidentiary hearing on new exculpatory evidence that was hidden by the prosecution for the purpose of blocking material facts pointing to Avery's innocence. 

He also seeks a new trial, reasoning that the non-existent case for his guilt combined with the clear law enforcement misconduct would make the scandal of another guilty trial verdict impossible.

The next step for Avery is to seek redress in federal court, or file in County Circuit Court.

The sheer number of documented Brady violations and other law reinforcement misconduct make refiling in County Court an easy matter.

In a legal spectacle in Spring 2021, Thomas Sowinski of Manitowoc swore in a statement that he saw the prosecution's key trial witness plant the murder victim's RAV4 vehicle on the property of the man convicted of homicide in 2007.

In other words, a credible resident swears he caught conspirators red-handed in a frame-up scheme in Wisconsin's infamous murder case drawing headlines in State post-conviction litigation.

The response of the DOJ was to invent an ethical violation of atty Kathleen Zellner's, and ignore the new evidence instead of launching an investigation and agreeing to an evidentiary hearing.

It is now conventional wisdom that the Wisconsin Judiciary enjoys no more credibility than, for example, the judiciary of Russia or Brazil.

Democrat-led Wisconsin Dept of Justice Is Terrified of Evidence Hearing in Making a Murderer Case

Eugene Higgins, The Black Cloud, oil on canvas,
Smithsonian American Art Museum

Democrats Block Public Light on Police Misconduct

Madison, Wisconsin — Misstatements, defamation, and refusal to address merits of Steven Avery's legal quest for a second exoneration define Democrat-led Dept of Justice misconduct in post-conviction litigation in State of Wisconsin v. Steven A. Avery, (Appeal Number 2017AP002288).

Unreported in Wisconsin corporate media is the fact the DOJ has gone to unprecedented lengths to block a hearing on law enforcement misconduct that helped frame two innocent Wisconsin men. The State strategy is to delay, defame and make political appeals to corrupt judges and other Wisconsin Democrats who have made the state the worst place to be innocent.

"If Mr. Avery's conviction truly has integrity it will withstand the scrutiny of an evidentiary hearing. Without such scrutiny the question of the integrity and fairness of Mr. Avery's trial hangs like a dark cloud over the Wisconsin criminal justice system," writes Avery attorney, Kathleen Zellner in his Aug 2021 petition to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, (p. 9).

Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, were convicted of first-degree homicide in Wisconsin in 2007 for the murder of a young photographer, Teresa Halbach.

Avery is appealing to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in post-conviction litigation, seeking a new trial or an evidentiary heating in his August 2021 petition.

Since assuming office as attorney general in 2019, Democrat Joshua Kaul has acted perversely in opposition to requested hearings on evidence, garnering disbelief from advocates for the wrongfully convicted and human rights activists.

Kaul is defending the bad work of the odious Ken Kratz, who admits numerous pathologies during his tenure as Calumet County District Attorney to explain away sexual and ethical misconduct in office, before being driven from office, and later resigning his license to practice law in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin attorney Jerome F. Buting has been practicing law here for 40 years. Buting has seen a lot in his practice.

But even Buting was apparently shocked by the conduct of the Democrat Dept of Justice — defying fairness and any sense that a defendant should obtain legal recourse to misconduct — blocking an evidentiary hearing.

Writes Buting on social media after the DOJ penned a bizarre response to Avery's petition before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, a DOJ reponse since publicly rebutted by Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner, devastating the DOJ.

WI’s phobia of an evidentiary hearing in Avery’s case can only be because they know truth would be revealed. Better to cover up #corruptiwoc than seek real justice. But it will only increase public distrust of American justice. #makingamurderer #illusionofjustice #brokensystem

— Jerome Buting (@JButing) September 9, 2021

State’s response to Avery’s @ZellnerLaw petition opposes SCOW review, claiming SA was not treated differently because his case was “the subject of a television show.”
Really? In no other case has WI fought so desperately to avoid any evidentiary hearing. https://t.co/xa4AdS69zX

— Jerome Buting (@JButing) September 9, 2021

It would be difficult for the Wisconsin Judiciary to fall any lower than it has.

The Wisconsin Judiciary has demonstrated that as a branch of government it is no longer an impartial body. Wisconsin courts can be counted on to take the side of corrupt police and dishonest prosecutors no matter how blatant the misconduct in criminal justice litigation.

It is expected in the innocence community that the Democratic-aligned appellate judges — Lisa S. Neubauer and Jeffrey O. Davis — would brush aside state misconduct to politically support Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Joshua Kaul, who work against the innocent.

Both Evers and Kaul are running for reelection in 2022, and a scandal implicating Democratic Party elected officials would likely prove disastrous to the Party, so Party functionaries on the bench and other branches are trying to bury Steven Avery.

Moreover, in the Avery case, Kaul's mother, Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager (2003-2007), was deep into covering for Manitowoc County's misconduct after the first wrongful conviction of Avery. Attorney General Kaul is covering for his Mother's old flacking for crooked police.

Wisconsin's evidence preservation law

One illustration of the DOJ and Democratic judges' perfidy concerns the State's returning the murder victim's remains to the Halbach family, a law enforcement scheme revealed when Avery sought to conduct DNA testing, and found out the bones had been destroyed without notice to him, in violation of Wisconsin's evidence preservation law.

Flaunting the evidence preservation law, in 2011 Calumet County Sheriff Deputy Jeremy Hawkins, Mark Wiegert,and DoJ Attorneys Thomas Fallon and Norman Gahn secretly sneaked the remains of Ms. Halbach, and illegally transported the bones to the Halbach family.

The State previously suggested to the Appellate Court in its Dec. 2018 filing that Avery and Zellner drop their appeal without the State ever having "admitted or disclosed that it had given the bones back to the Halbach family in 2011 [illegally] without notice to Mr. Avery or his counsel," notes Zellner in her Feb. 2019 legal filing.

In other words, law enforcement hid evidence it claims is the murder victim, destroyed this evidence, hid the destruction, lied about the destruction, then claimed the evidence cannot be determined to be exculpatory because it has been destroyed.

In short, the State acted in bad faith at every turn.

Even the prosecutor-biased Judge Angela W. Sutkiewicz acknowledges in 2020 what Zellner uncovered: Writes Sutkiewicz: "The report of Deputy [Jeremy] Hawkins indicates that he, Sergeant Investigator Mark Wiegert, Attorney Thoman Fallon and Attorney Norman Gahn removed materials stored in evidence, and released them to the Halbach family," (p 2).

The Appellate Court hearing the case in July 2021, however, divined, "The Halbach family requested these bone fragments for purposes  of  its  own—likely  for  closure ... ."

Yet, even the DOJ's Thoman Fallon and Norman Gahn who implemented the scheme disconfirm this attempt by the Court, contriving a State-Halbach family scheme, to cover for illegal evidence destruction.

Fallon and Gahn argue that the evidence they helped destroy was "inexplicably released" from the Calumet County Sheriff’s Department’s evidence control unit, March 29, 2019 legal filing, (p 13).

Fallon and Gahn, in effect, assert Fallon and Gahn cannot explain why they released and destroyed the evidence, and state nothing about the Court-invented 'family did it' offering by the appellate court.

This 'Halbach family did it' invention appears nothing so much as a public signal to the Halbach family to speak up and get on board with the lie of moment.

"Inexplicably released" is of course a disingenuous characterization for the illegal destruction of evidence that not only implicates Fallon, Gahn and Wiegert, but also is a clear violation of the Due Process Clause, and is a Brady violation under Wisconsin judicial doctrine.

Lost in all the Court and DOJ lies is the fact an innocent man is litigating for his very life.

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

Obama Is Blowing Court Appointment

Right now millions of Americans should be receiving e-mails from David Plouffe, the 2008 Obama-Biden campaign manager, asking for input, thoughts, and concerns about the pending U.S. Supreme Court appointment.

Selecting the presidential nominee to the Supreme Court is one of the most important powers of the presidency, and the naming and confirmation of a nominee is one of the highest-profile political processes.

The appointment process is also shrouded in secrecy, the ultimate insiders' game.

This can and should change. President Obama could be changing the rules of the game by opening up the process, seeking public input and scoring high political points in the process.

Instead, we are being treated to business-as-usual: Endless guessing about a prescreened short-list and speculation about how crazy the GOP will go in opposing the nominee.

This is business as usual. And opening up the process would be so easy and reap so many benefits that one feels like grabbing the collective administration and saying, "Guys, get your heads out and get creative!"

It's not too late, but like last Summer's appointment of Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor, President Obama is blowing this opportunity for high innovation and democracy during a political spectacle whomever he eventually chooses.

Nothing new, no changes. Too bad.

Makes one believe that too many insiders and not enough innovative thinkers are running the show in the West Wing.

Russ Feingold's Corner of Madness

Update: Please note response of the office of Sen. Feingold in the comments section.

George Wagner's MJS column last month reporting Sen. Russ Feingold defended the filibuster at a listening session in Milwaukee reveals a problem of Feingold's that progressives know about but rarely speak: What Bertrand Russell would describe as Feingold's "corner of madness."

That would be Feingold's tendency to take utterly insupportable positions in the name of polishing his brand as a political maverick. Certainly, it's not Feingold's intellect that leads him to the absurd.

Examples:

- Defending the filibuster in the name of deliberation
- Voting for the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts because Roberts assured the Judiciary Committee that he was committed to the jurisprudence of an "umpire" and not that a rightwing activist, Roberts' past ideology apparently notwithstanding in Feingold's mind

Feingold has accomplished much in his tenure in the Senate, but he will never be a great Senator like Robert M. LaFollette because of his tendency to veer into the political idiosyncratic and irrational.

One can go on: Feingold's fighting against retraining funds for out-of-work Janesville autoworkers, raving against stimulus spending in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression, supporting the Republican crazies in the impeachment of Bill Clinton and other nonsense.

Liberals [Emily Mills, for example] won't call Feingold out on these preposterous positions because of Feingold's lonely voice of opposition to the worst of the Bush-Cheney nightmare.

But if Feingold's views had prevailed, we would have Senate obstruction, an ultra-activist Roberts Court, out-of-work Americans in need of training, and an insufficiently large fiscal stimulus ... . Ohhh, yeah. This is the type of maverick whom Sarah Palin supports, and Feingold knows this to be true so, really: Knock it off, man.

Anti-drug Crusader Takes a Hit

Amy Smith, the last-minute finalist for Dane County Judge rejected by a selection committee and then added by Gov. Jim Doyle is the focus of a piece today by John Nichols in the Cap Times.

Truly, the nicest thing I have heard from practicing members of the Wisconsin Bar is that prosecutor Amy Smith is lying and overzealous.

Writes Nichols:

Members of the selection committee ... would neither confirm nor deny that Smith's name was left off the list because she had on two separate occasions been rebuke by appellate court judges for dishonesty, including one instance where an entire three-judge panel on a drug case chastised the prosecutor for lying about a potential trial witness.

Smith refused repeated requests for her side of the story, even as her name was associated with the most controversial judicial appointment the county has seen in some years.

Nichols see Smith as an example of what is wrong with the proposed so-called merit selection process that would replace the the election of judges, in favor of other judicial election reform.

Smith's crusade against drugs, including that weed sent from the devil Marijuana, was fanatical during her tenure as a prosecutor in Dane County. That she was rebuked as a liar is no great surprise.

See also WKOW's (Madison) report on the selection committee rejecting Smith.

We can't be hating, so let's let Bob take it from here:

Doyle Names Drug NAZI as Judge Finalist

Amy Smith for Dane County Judge? You have got to be kidding me?

The nicest thing I have heard about Amy Smith is that she is a lying, overzealous drug NAZI, most of it done within the ethics of the bar if not simple decency.

What, Gov. Doyle figured this demographic is underrepresented on the bench?

The state DOJ did not rescue Smith from her past deeds at the DA's office (for which she has not apologized to the people of Wisconsin), no matter how much money she gives Governor Doyle's campaign.

From WKOW:

MADISON (WKOW) -- A spokesperson for Governor Doyle told 27 News, Doyle added the name of Amy Smith as a finalist for Dane County Judge after an advisory committee failed to include her in a recommended list of finalists. ...

Madison attorney Michelle Behnke, a member of the advisory committee, declined any comment about Doyle's insertion of Smith into the final process.

‘We take our work seriously,’ Behnke told 27 News. ‘We were comfortable with the list of seven (original) recommended finalists.’

A review of campaign finance records shows Smith's $1,750 in campaign
contributions to Doyle since 2005 were the highest of any of 28 applicants for the judge positions.

‘The public is going to look at that and say it has less to do with judicial qualifications and more to do with campaign contributions,’ said Mike McCabe, executive director of the government watchdog group, Wisconsin Democracy campaign. ...

‘A judge should be more than a lawyer who knows the governor.’Sensenbrenner said Doyle selected Smith because she was highly qualified. Sensenbrenner said Doyle took Smith's two public rebukes into account, but felt on balance, her legal career merited selection.

In 1992, an appeals court judge said Smith made a serious misrepresentation to a trial court about a potential witness in a drug case. In 1995, an appeals court stated Smith falsely denied making statements about a witness in another drug case.

Smith has declined comment to 27 News. In addition to her job as deputy secretary, Smith served under Doyle when Doyle was Wisconsin's attorney general.

If Doyle is that corrupt as to appoint Smith to the bench, I'm voting for Neumann or Walker.

Sonia Sotomayor Hearings Today

Update: Civil Rights Groups: 'We are watching;' GOP: We don't care.

As much as the rightwing has tried to bash Sotomayor, "They haven't laid a glove on her," in the words of Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), her leading Senate supporter.

The Brennan Center for Justice has a comprehensive report on Judge Sotomayor’s Record in Constitutional Cases by attorney Monica Youn.

Youn's report builds an irrefutable case on Sotomayor’s outstanding performance as a judge, but facts seldom get in the way of the Republican Nutty Party.

Look for GOP Senators to be respectful in the hearings, and for activists to be true to their rightwing, racist, hate-America roots going back to Nixon, to Sen. Joe McCarthy. [By the way anyone been to that POS's grave site lately up in Appleton?]

GOP Can't Win on Sotomayor

Update II: Smearing Sotomayor

Update: See also Joe Conason's Obama's Pick Is a Winner, Already.

The GOP attack on Sonia Sotomayor delivers the message that no matter how hard you work and how much you achieve, the GOP will still call you names and attack you.

Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed and the best that GOP senators can hope to do is obstruct and delay. That's an achievement for Republicans.

This is three weeks before last November's election, sure to bring out the worst and end in a victory for the good guys. Enjoy it.

From MoveOn:

Ten Things To Know About Judge Sonia Sotomayor

1. Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the bench than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. Over her three-decade career, she has served in a wide variety of legal roles, including as a prosecutor, litigator, and judge.

2. Judge Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She was the first Latina to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was the youngest member of the court when appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. If confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

3. While on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has consistently protected the rights of working Americans, ruling in favor of health benefits and fair wages for workers in several cases.

4. Judge Sotomayor has shown strong support for First Amendment rights, including in cases of religious expression and the rights to assembly and free speech.

5. Judge Sotomayor has a strong record on civil rights cases, ruling for plaintiffs who had been discriminated against based on disability, sex and race.

6. Judge Sotomayor embodies the American dream. Born to Puerto Rican parents, she grew up in a South Bronx housing project and was raised from age nine by a single mother, excelling in school and working her way to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University and to become an editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School.

7. In 1995, Judge Sotomayor "saved baseball" when she stopped the owners from illegally changing their bargaining agreement with the players, thereby ending the longest professional sports walk-out in history.

8. Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the environment in a case of protecting aquatic life in the vicinity of power plants in 2007, a decision that was overturned by the Roberts Supreme Court.

9. In 1992, Judge Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate without opposition after being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush.

10. Judge Sotomayor is a widely respected legal figure, having been described as "...an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind," "highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character would be assets," and "a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity."

Judge Sotomayor is an historic, uniquely qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. Let's get the word out and make sure we get a prompt, fair confirmation on her nomination.

Sources for each of the 10 things:
1. White House Statement, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=1
2. White House Statement, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=2
3. Cases: Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, 997 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) and Marcella v. Capital Dist. Physicians' Health Plan, Inc., 293 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2002).
4. Cases: Flamer v. White Plains, 841 F. Supp. 1365 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2003), and Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F. Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
5a. "Sotomayor's Notable Court Opinions and Articles," The New York Times, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51454&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=3
5b. Cases: Bartlett v. N.Y. State Board, 970 F. Supp. 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), Greenbaum v. Svenska Hendelsbanken, 67 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001), and Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999).
6. "Sonia Sotomayor: 10 Things You Should Know," The Huffington Post, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51452&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=4
7. "How Sotomayor 'Saved' Baseball," Time, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51455&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=5
8. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=6
9. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=7
10a. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=8
10b. "Sotomayor is Highly Qualified," The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51456&id=16226-9747951-.GHjEBx&t=9
10c. Honorary Degree Citation, Pace University School of Law, 2003 Commencement.

On the GOP, writes Joan Walsh:

Where do I begin? First of all, if Republicans are going to be tin-eared enough to attack Sotomayor on her intelligence and qualifications, they are going to wind up an even tinier minority party than they are now. Acting as though Obama had to lower his standards to appoint the first Hispanic justice is offensive to more than just Hispanics; it exposes a profound prejudice and lack of knowledge about the vast talent pool in our country. Certainly Sotomayor will face tough questions on her judicial philosophy from liberals and conservatives, and she should, but to insinuate she's merely an affirmative action pick is wrong and repellent.

Supreme Court Pick Is Sonia Sotomayor

Update IV: Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases

Update III: GOP, Rush, Romney trash Sotomayor. Keep talking.

Update II: See Greenwald's Obama's excellent pick and Conason's The justice of Obama's dreams.

Update: See also Jeff Zeleny's profile of Sotomayor at the NYT.

The Supreme Court pick is Sonia Sotomayor.

The political fight comes

The rightwing hates Sotomayor. Michelle Malkin on May 1 writes: "Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very concerning given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges."

So we will be treated to watching the rightwing's impudence because there is absolutely nothing that they can do to derail this nomination.

Ed Gilgore sees a white, male pity party coming. Great, Hispanics and women are the muscle of electoral politics so let the GOPers and the fools dig dipper.

If they wish, Republicans can turn Sotomayor's confirmation hearings into a white male pity party, and make it all about identity politics. This would not, of course, go over very well with Latinos, who will naturally feel strongly about their first-ever Supreme Court nominee, and who probably think white men have been pretty well represented in the Court's history.

Some conservatives may seize on the already-infamous New Republic article by Jeff Rosen suggesting that unnamed former clerks and associates think she's insufficiently brilliant and/or temperamentally unsuited to be on the Court.

This is an even more perilous line of attack, since the whole premise of Rosen's piece was the progressive hunt for a strongly ideological judicial titan who could go toe-to-toe with the Court's conservatives. Most regular folks will also have a hard time accepting that someone who graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and was then on the law review at Yale isn't smart enough for the Court. And she is classically prepared for the appointment, having taken a textbook path to the Court, from prosecutor to district court to Court of Appeals. She doesn't have the Harriet Miers problem of a skimpy resume.

And from Tom Goldstein at ScotusBlog:

Even more important, Republicans cannot afford to find themselves in the position of implicitly opposing Judge Sotomayor. To Hispanics, the nomination would be an absolutely historic landmark. It really is impossible to overstate its significance. The achievement of a lifetime appointment at the absolute highest levels of the government is a profound event for that community, which in turn is a vital electoral group now and in the future.

Equally significant for not only Hispanics but all Americans, Sotomayor has an extraordinarily compelling personal narrative. She is a first generation American, born of immigrant parents. She grew up in a housing project, losing her father as an adolescent, raised (with her brother) by her mother, who worked as a nurse. She got herself to Princeton, graduating as one of the top two people in her class, then went to Yale Law. Almost all of her career has been in public service–as a prosecutor, trial judge, and now appellate judge. She has almost no money to her name.

Lueders’ Lets Justice Ziegler off the Hook

For my money, Bill Lueders and John Nichols are the two best political writers living in Wisconsin.

But I was stunned to read Lueders’ piece, “In Defense of Annette Ziegler,” in which Lueders calls Nichols’ criticism of Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler’s admitted conflicts of interests “way overblown,” “unfair,” and motivated by hostility toward Ziegler’s “ideology.”

Lueders’ acknowledges “… Ziegler was wrong to preside over cases in which she had an undisclosed personal connection to one of the parties. Her poor judgment was exacerbated by her initial refusal to admit she'd done anything wrong. …”

Wrong? A more apt description of Ziegler’s judicial misconduct is appalling, and contrary to settled law and ethical rules that specifically call for judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

Lueders knows better than most the violence that can be inflicted upon citizens by officials at all levels of law enforcement and the judiciary in civil and criminal litigation.

Judges have the power to interpret and apply the law, and the affirmative duty to maintain an ethical commitment to impartiality without which judicial rulings are an assault on the political body—that’s us.

Ziegler failed that duty, over and over, and this ought to disqualify her from sitting on the state’s highest bench, making judicial policy, whatever the recommended ruling of a judicial panel. [From the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign: Attorneys who violate rules governing their professional behavior and ethics – or who even fail to pay their annual State Bar dues on time – get stiffer punishment than the penalties being recommended for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler who had economic conflicts of interest in dozens of cases she handled as a circuit court judge, according to a Wisconsin Democracy Campaign review. ]

WMC

Lueders aims his harshest attack on Nichols’ condemnations centering on Ziegler’s hearing a case involving Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), which any serious political observer will tell you, paid for the election of Ziegler to the Court.

Writes Lueders:

When Ziegler agreed to hear a case involving Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), the big-business lobby group that spent more than $2 million to get her elected (more than her own campaign's record-breaking sum), The Cap Times was apoplectic.

… The objections being sounded by The Cap Times and others have everything to do with ideology. If a liberal justice committed the same indiscretions, WMC would be demanding her resignation and The Cap Times would be saying it was not a big deal.

Fine, let Lueders cite another judge who has heard (without notifying the litigants) over 50 cases in which her/his family has a financial stake, who lied about it repeatedly during the campaign for Supreme Court, and who after the election hears a case on which the lobbying entity that elected (or rather just paid $2 million in ads favorable to her election) her has a clear financial interest; and then let’s read the resulting criticism or cite the absence of it. Lueders cites no such judge.

Lueders concludes:

But it was the voters of Wisconsin, not WMC, who elected Annette Ziegler — and by a wide margin. If they were paying attention, they would have known about her conflicts and her “I'm with you” signals to conservatives. But they either didn't know or didn't care.

If we want a different system, we should fight for it. … In the meantime, we'll continue to get justices like Annette Ziegler. In other words, we'll get the justices we deserve.

No, the Supreme Court has the power right now to suspend or expel Ziegler whom we do not deserve.

And though Ziegler is certainly not alone in hearing cases in which litigants have contributed money in or advocated in the political system for a subsequently sitting judge, and public financing is certainly needed, the confluence of Ziegler’s misconduct, her lying about it, and her refusal to recuse herself from the WMC-related case, has diluted the confidence of the public in an impartial judiciary and ought to disqualify her from sitting on the state’s highest court.

If such an expulsion were to result in shining the light on other judicial misconduct and political corruption, so much the better.

###

Today the Presidency Was Stolen from the American People: The Supreme Court Coup

Bush and his cronies could never win a free and open election in a democracy, so they stole the election in 2000 (and 2004).

Today marks the anniversary of that betrayal of the American people.

Via BuzzFlash:

"About 10 p.m. EST on December 12, the United States Supreme Court handed down its ruling in favor of Bush by a 5–4 vote, effectively ending the legal review of the vote count with Bush in the lead. Seven of the nine justices cited differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount, both of which, they ruled, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution."

Can anyone imagine the Supreme Court in 2000 using the Equal Protection Clause to install a Democrat in the White House had Al Gore offered up the argument?

From: Judith E. Schaeffer, Legal Director, People For the American Way

Re: Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court and the 2008 Election Season

Seven years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore. By stopping the contested vote count in Florida on December 12, 2000, the conservative wing of the Supreme Court effectively gave the presidency to George W. Bush and took the decision away from the voters.

Less than one year from now, the voters will decide the future of the Supreme Court. The next appointments to the Court will almost certainly be made by the President elected in November 2008, and confirmed by a Senate with new members elected in the same cycle. It’s crucial that voters understand that their votes will help determine the shape of the Court for many years to come, and the anniversary of Bush v. Gore is a timely opportunity to raise the issue for your readers.

Bush v. Gore demonstrated all too clearly that the Supreme Court has a profound and lasting effect on the daily lives of all Americans, who look to the Supreme Court as a fair arbiter of the law and our nation’s highest values.

Since that decision, President Bush’s lifetime appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito have pushed the Court even farther to the right. The two men are likely to serve for many decades, ensuring that President Bush’s influence will extend long past the end of his term. Their nominations and confirmations to the Court illustrate the grave importance election results have on shaping the Court.

On issues ranging from reproductive choice to school integration to fair pay for equal work, the Roberts Court has started to reverse years of progress that most Americans accept as moderate, fair and wise. In the coming years, we can expect more and more rulings outside the mainstream.

It’s no coincidence that the Supreme Court has been a major electoral issue for the Religious Right for the last several election cycles. In order to roll back constitutional protections on privacy rights and church-state separation, the leaders of the movement have been whipping their followers into a fury for years, demanding that candidates pledge to appoint and confirm ultraconservative justices. The result has been a decades-long push by the far right to fill the federal courts with jurists who place a narrow ideological agenda above the rule of law and the Constitution.

The Republican candidates for President have been only too happy to oblige. John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee have all pledged to appoint justices in the mold of ultraconservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – even when such an appointment would conflict with their own stated positions, such as Guiliani’s professed "pro-choice" stand.

Replacing another moderate justice with a hard-right conservative would be a devastating blow to the principles of fairness and equality that the vast majority of Americans embrace. Another right wing justice added to the ultra-conservative voting bloc of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas could help reverse decades of precedents, threatening legal rights that Americans take for granted.

It’s time for progressives and moderates to make the same stand at the ballot box, and demand a Supreme Court that reflects mainstream American values: Equality, regardless of race or religion. Fair pay for women and minorities in the workplace. The rights of families to make private medical decisions without government interference. And much, much more.

Mainstream Americans must demand appointments of justices to the court who reflect their values, justices who will apply the law fairly, not ideologically. That will require a fair-minded president, and a Senate majority large enough to confirm progressive nominees.

People For the American Way will be working from now until Election Day to educate voters in key states about the importance of the courts, and how their votes for Senate and President could affect the Court and the nation for decades to come. To kick off our campaign, we’ll be placing a billboard in Manchester, New Hampshire from December 10th until primary day to highlight the Bush v. Gore anniversary and draw attention to the importance of the courts.

The anniversary of Bush v. Gore is a reminder that courts matter, something that voters should bear in mind throughout the coming election season. The outcome of the next election day may depend on it.
From People for the American Way.
###

Cap. Times Calls for Ziegler Resignation

The Capital Times became the first daily newspaper to call for the resignation of Wisconsin Supreme Court justice Annette Ziegler.

We can expect more calls for Ziegler's resignation to follow in the coming months.

Ziegler, elected in the spring of 2007, was hit with denunciations for her conduct as a Washington County judge during her successful campaign that drew little attention from Wisconsin voters.

Ziegler, in violation of Wisconsin judicial conflict of interest rules, presided over dozens of cases in which her family had a financial interest, and failed to disclose to the litigants the conflicts in each case.

Now, Ziegler, awaiting discipline for her conduct on the bench as a county judge, is taking criticism for refusing to recuse herself, as a current Supreme Court justice, from a case that is a high priority of the corporate lobbying group, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, that spent over $2 million (surpassing the amount spent by Ziegler’s campaign) to elect Ziegler to her current judgeship.

Excerpts from the editorial:

Scandal-plagued Supreme Court Justice Annette Ziegler has refused to recuse herself from deliberations on a tax case that is a top priority of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the corporate lobbying group that spent more than $2 million to aid her election bid earlier this year.

In so doing, she has confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that she lacks not just the integrity but the judgment that must always be required of a jurist.

Ziegler does not merely refuse to embrace even the most basic standards of legal ethics. Her actions of recent days indicate that she does not even understand those standards.

It is for this reason that Ziegler must leave the Supreme Court bench. ...

As a national watchdog on judicial ethics issues, James Sample, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, has observed, "The argument could certainly be made that it would be reasonable to question her impartiality (in this case)."

But we don't have to take Sample's word for it. Ziegler has effectively admitted the conflict.

Early in November, the justice disclosed in a letter to lawyers representing the parties involved in the case that WMC had been a key supporter of her campaign. But the letter from Ziegler, whose shamelessness has extended to openly lying to the voters of Wisconsin about the facts of her ethical abuses, also informed the lawyers that she intended to participate in deliberations regarding the tax case.

That combination of an admission of a conflict and a refusal to recuse is what disqualifies Ziegler from further service on the court. And if she does not recognize that fact, then the other justices must speak up to assert a basic standard of judicial responsibility. ...

It does not matter what the court decides in this specific case. The damage runs deeper. When a justice admits to a conflict in a case and then goes ahead and participates in deliberations regarding that case, the whole matter of the high court's legitimacy as a fair arbiter of legal disputes is called into question. ...

Should the Supreme Court, as widely expected, not expel Ziegler (and Ziegler’s resignation is possible, but not likely), the perceived integrity and impartiality of the judiciary will sink to the level of the most cynical of politicians.

Should Wisconsin citizens then decide that Ziegler's current term (set to expire on July 31, 2017) is too long to bear, a citizen recall requiring over 500,000 signatures in a given 60-day period is the only recourse to rid our state of this disgrace to the cause of judicial integrity.

###

Wrongfully Jailed Face Apathetic Gov and Long Road to Normalcy

Taking away more peoples' liberties than any other country speaks clearly about the putative aspect of the political-legal American culture.

Politically ambitious or corrupt prosecutors scoff at the notion of prosecutorial discretion.

Unfortunately, for those proven innocent after spending years in prison, the road to a comfortable, normal life is elusive.

The New York Times has two excellent piece this morning reporting on the issue of 100s of innocents robbed of their liberty by unscrupulous prosecutors.

by JANET ROBERTS and ELIZABETH STANTON

Christopher Ochoa (an innocent man convicted of murder, and who served 12 years before being proved innocent, freed through the work of the Wisconsin Innocence Project) graduated from law school five years out of prison and started his own practice in Madison, Wis. He has a girlfriend and is looking to buy a house. ...

The men are among the more than 200 prisoners exonerated since 1989 by DNA evidence — almost all of whom had been incarcerated for murder or rape. Their varied experiences are typical of what The New York Times found in one of the most extensive looks to date at what happens to those exonerated inmates after they leave prison.

The Times worked from a list of DNA-exonerated prisoners kept by the Innocence Project — widely regarded as the most thorough record of DNA exonerations. The Times then gathered extensive information on 137 of those whose convictions had been overturned, interviewing 115.
The findings show that most of them have struggled to keep jobs, pay for health care, rebuild family ties and shed the psychological effects of years of questionable or wrongful imprisonment.

Prosecutors issued no apologies for the inflicted harm on the innocent. It's difficult to shame the shameless.

See also FERNANDA SANTOS's Vindicated by DNA, but a Lost Man on the Outside.

As a boy, Jeffrey Mark Deskovic could swim the length of a pool underwater without coming up for air. On sultry days at the Elmira state prison, where he spent most of his 16 years behind bars for a rape and murder he did not commit, Mr. Deskovic would close his eyes under a row of outdoor showers and imagine himself swimming. ...

In September, he filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the police, the medical examiner, a prison guard and the governments of two counties, alleging that detectives falsified reports and coerced his confession, and that the prison guard groped and beat him. A separate lawsuit in the Court of Claims is planned seeking payment from the state for the wrongful incarceration.
###

Ziegler’s Corruption Ought to Disqualify Her

Update III: SCR 60.03 A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.

A. SCR 60.03(1) states: "A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

That's cited from a decision (March 22, 2004) of the Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee (OPINION 03-1) deciding that "a judge (is) required, after a contested election, to recuse himself or herself from contested matters involving a former campaign manager," for "a reasonable period of time."

Surely, Ziegler's conflicts, her pattern of conflicts, are much more serious and cause much more damage in not avoiding the "impropriety and the appearance of impropriety," promoting the public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Update II: Hearing ended.

Update: Cory Liebmann live-blogging the Judicial Conduct Panel hearing.

Dee J. Hall, reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal, must have looked long and far to find a source willing to knock down criticism of Justice Annette Ziegler’s presiding over numerous cases in which Ziegler had a clear financial interest, violative of Wisconsin conflict of interest rules.

Hall has been skillfully covering the case for the State Journal, and in Sunday’s piece she found an authoritative source who well represents the character of Ziegler’s dismissive attitude toward the public interest: Herbert Kritzer, a former UW Law School professor now teaching at William Mitchell School of Law in Saint Paul, Minnesota.

Kritzer’s quote is incredible: “I would describe the misconduct as significant in the sense that it raises some questions about Justice Ziegler’s judgment. … But I wouldn’t call it serious, in the sense that I think it extremely unlikely that it had any actual impact on any decisions then-Judge Ziegler made.”

The Judicial Conduct Panel now investigating Ziegler will hold a hearing today (Monday, November 19) and the Wisconsin Supreme Court will ultimately decide the fate of Ziegler, disciplining one of its own members for the first time in state history.

As the State Journal’s Hall points out, “The disciplinary options available to the court include reprimand, censure, suspension, and expulsion.”

But what has Wisconsin jurists appalled is Ziegler and Kritzer’s blasé mindset toward the conflict-of-interest rules (State Code of Judicial Conduct and its enforcers) that guide Wisconsin judges.

The rules exist to assure the public and all parties involved in litigation that Wisconsin judges hearing cases will be impartial, neutral, and fair in all facets of a given legal case, meaning that a judge is to be regarded as an utterly objective entity who will base decisions upon the law and nothing else.

“You won’t hear many attorneys saying this out loud (on the record), but this professor (Kritzer) is nuts. It doesn’t matter how she (Ziegler) ruled. She had a conflict of interest and failed to disclose it. That’s unforgivable,” one jurist commented. “For a law professor to say that (presiding over cases in which one has a conflict of interests) is not serious is ridiculous. It’s always serious, and it always matters that even if circumstances exist that would only lead to a perception of a conflict of interest, perception is vitally important so people know their judges are not corrupt.”

Public interest groups agree.

One such group, One Wisconsin Now maintains a website detailing the “(Judicial Conduct) panel’s requests with links to the documents and information sought … .”

Reads the website: “Newly elected Justice Annette Ziegler has the dubious distinction of being the first sitting Justice on Wisconsin’s State Supreme Court to find herself in the middle of an ethics investigation. She is also likely to be the first Justice to force her own colleagues on the high court to discipline her for her ethical lapses. She is accused of violating SCR Chapter 60, Code of Conduct pursuant to Section 757.81(4)(a) of the (Wisconsin) Statutes.”

Wisconsin citizens elected Ziegler after these conflicts of interests and Ziegler's lies about them on the campaign trail were widely disclosed.

But it’s up to jurists, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to see that Ziegler, surely a demonstrably corrupt judge to any objective observer, is not allowed to continue serving on the state’s highest court.

Many Wisconsin attorneys expect the Court—declining in the academic quality of its opinions and ascending in it partisanship—to issue a slap on the wrist.
###

Rudy Says He Loves Corrupt, Liberty-destroying Judges Too

Update: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia (Glnn Greenwald at Salon)

One of the things a man must do to secure today's Republican presidential nomination is nail down the support of right-wing attorneys for whom the Bill of Rights and the rule of law are simple obstacles to be overcome in their power grab.

Rudy Giuliani tried his hand in that enterprise yesterday, addressing the 2007 National Lawyers Convention of the Federalist Society, legal rightwingers working to bring about a revolution in American jurisprudence through the appointment of federal judges who would weaken the liberties in the Bill of Rights and serve the GOP and its interests.

Of course, the Federalist Society dresses up their judicial ideology as strict constructionalism, fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and the law.

Like what Rudy said: “We’re seeking to find judges who understand the very, very important concept that judges exist to interpret the law, not to invent the law.”

Reports indicate that at the event Rudy vowed to nominate justices like "Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts," the four most conservative (strict constructionalist-like) judges on the current Supreme Court. (Walter Shapiro in Salon)

In reality, Rudy is a (born-again) strict constructionist: Someone who wishes to make abortion illegal (now, through the appointment of judges who would do so), sees no great defined liberty rights in the Constitution, is a lousy scholar of Constitutional thought, and will overturn any judicial precedent if it fits with the right wing political network that puts him in power should he win a general election.

Strict constructionalism is to the judiciary what freedom and autonomy are to U.S.-occupied Iraq, an expensive lie that will do one hell of a lot of damage.

These strict constructionists would even halt an election and appoint a man like George W. Bush to the presidency if they ever had the chance.

Rudy's kind of people.

###

Biskupic Targeted by DoJ, Then Given Reprieve

Madison, WI—Now we know. McClatchy Newspapers reports that US Atty Biskupic "who prosecuted a state Democratic official on corruption charges during last year's heated governor's race was once targeted for firing by the Department of Justice, but given a reprieve for reasons that remain unclear ...

"Congressional investigators looking into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys saw Wisconsin prosecutor Steven M. Biskupic's name on a list of lawyers targeted for removal when they were inspecting a Justice Department document not yet made public, according to an attorney for a lawmaker involved in the investigation."

The timeframe is unclear, but something turned the DoJ around favorably on Biskupic. I'm voting for his prosecutions of voting fraud and Georgia Thompson, and an attentiveness to Republican electoral concerns.

Josh Marshall, whose Talking Points Memo has been all over the Biskupic story, says of the development, "This will be big."

Update: Today’s New York Times reports that DoJ e-mails obtained reveal the partisan nature of DoJ deliberations on which US Attys were to keep their jobs.

“Some of the new documents show the department’s acute awareness of individual United States attorneys’ political and ideological views. An undated spreadsheet attached to a Feb. 12, 2007, e-mail message listed the federal prosecutors who had served under President Bush along with their past work experience.

“The chart included a category for Republican Party and campaign work, showing who had been a delegate to a Republican convention or had managed a Republican political campaign. The chart had a separate category indicating who among the prosecutors was a member of the Federalist Society, a Washington-based association that serves as a talent pool for young conservatives seeking appointments in Republican administrations.”

Biskupic’s rating on the right-wing ideological chart is low, the man had something about which to be worried, were he interested in maintaining his US Atty position.

- Regards to Folkbum for deriving the chart from the US House of Rep. Comm on the Judiciary, and for his excellent piece on Biskupic. -

Update II:

Study Reveals Partisan DoJ

This has been out for awhile, but it is worth noting the politicized DoJ context in which US Atty Biskupic functions.

An ongoing study by Donald C. Shields and John F. Cragan notes that “(d)ata indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops.”
###

Bice Runs Data on Biskupic Prosecution

Madison, WI—Biskupic did pursue voter fraud, futilely, writes Bice in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. And he has the data on the prosecutions, and the data do not paint a flattering picture of Biskupic.

Update: Bice's work is doubly important because the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's editorial board is bending over backward to give US Atty Biskupic the benefit of the doubt. And, as their editorial notes, Biskupic does have (or had) a lot of liberal friends in the state.

But let's clear about what is being asked of Biskupic in these matters: Full cooperation from his office, the DoJ and the White House with the judiciary committees, and full production of requested documents for congressional oversight.

We have not had anything like cooperation from Biskupic's overseers, and Biskupic's prosecution-voting fraud data, and an innocent human being like Georgia Thompson, hardly argue towards giving Biskupic the benefit of the doubt.
###

Nation’s Eyes on Biskupic and Corruption

By Michael Leon

Madison, WI—Adding up Biskupic so far; he conducts a joint investigation with former Milwaukee Co. DA Michael McCann into voting fraud in 2004, and concludes there is no basis for voting irregularities and organized voting fraud.

Now, we find that despite this finding, Biskupic prosecuted vigorously, in accordance with the priorities of the Republican Party and Karl Rove (SOP for the man) and state Republican activists, and the DOJ, including in one prosecution a single occurrence of one person voting illegally once (while on probation), drawing the ire of the 7th circuit.

“I find this whole prosecution mysterious,” Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, said at a hearing in Ms. Prude’s case. “I don’t know whether the Eastern District of Wisconsin goes after every felon who accidentally votes. It is not like she voted five times. She cast one vote.” (From the New York Times' April 12, 2007 piece on non-existent “voter fraud)

“In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting,” read the Times piece.

Not Honorable

Days prior to the 7th Circuit's Thompson decision on April 5, I asked around about Biskupic among several liberal Wisconsin attorneys and activists, and they pooh poohed the notion that Biskupic was a Rovian.

No more. Biskupic’s reputation as a public servant is shot for good.

Talking Points Memo, as usual, is hot on the trail noting just now that “House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and subcommittee chairwoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) wrote to the chairman of the Republican National Committee today to demand White House officials' emails related to the U.S. attorney firings investigation.”

Apparently Conyers has his hands or awareness of a paper trail.

US Atty Press Release

I just did a search of press releases (using keyword “voter fraud) at the US Atty Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and came up with this one announcing that “Richard G. Frohling, an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, will lead the efforts … in the connection with the Justice Department’s nationwide Election Day Program for the upcoming November 7, 2006 general elections. AUSA Frohling … is responsible for overseeing the District’s handling of complaints of election fraud and voting rights abuses in consultation with Justice Department Headquarters.”

The PR reads at the bottom:

For more information contact:
Assistant United States Attorney Richard G. Frohling
Criminal Chief Paul L. Kanter
414-297-1700

I encourage that we all contact these agents of corruption, and let them know how we feel about the conduct of their office.
###

US Atty Biskupic the Machiavellian

Madison, WI—Salon’s Sidney Blumenthal casts the Biskupic/Thompson prosecution as a component of the Bush “Mayberry Machiavellis”—cut-throat, provincial, amoral ignoramuses who would not endure a classical liberal democracy to save their lives.

In Biskupic’s case, he saw the writing of the walls of Mayberry, threw away 16 years of service as a prosecutor, resulting in, as Thompson’s attorney, Stephen Hurley, told me, “The great irony of the case … having been wrongfully prosecuted for doing her job for allegedly political reasons, now the question is being asked whether (Biskupic) engaged in this same behavior.”

Update: From today New York Times' piece on non-existent “voter fraud,” specifically citing a baffling case of one citizen voting while on probation federally prosecuted by none other than US Atty Stephen Biskupic:

“I find this whole prosecution mysterious,” Judge Diane P. Wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, said at a hearing in Ms. Prude’s case. “I don’t know whether the Eastern District of Wisconsin goes after every felon who accidentally votes. It is not like she voted five times. She cast one vote.”

The Justice Department stand is backed by Republican Party and White House officials, including Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser. The White House has acknowledged that he relayed Republican complaints to President Bush and the Justice Department that some prosecutors were not attacking voter fraud vigorously. In speeches, Mr. Rove often mentions fraud accusations and warns of tainted elections."
###