Wisconsin Attorney General Refuses to Defend Constitutional Law Enforcement Officers

Wisconsin Attorney General
refuses to defend Constitutional
law enforcement officers

As the Republican Party works to stop the bipartisan John Doe investigation looking into possible issue ad coordination between the Scott Walker campaign, (and likely Wisconsin state senate campaigns), and numerous groups that ran issue ads in the 2012 recall elections, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa ruled that "[Wisconsin] regulations and statutes" do not apply to the groups subpoenaed in the investigation, thus no John Doe probe may continue.

Randa's is an absurdly activist and corrupt decision, heavily criticized among jurists.

Randa has stepped in the middle of a law enforcement investigation conducted by Wisconsin constitutional officers (district attorneys, Article VI, section 4) who are empowered by Wisconsin statutes to conduct John Doe probes in specific circumstances.

Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen should be attempting to intervene in Eric O’Keefe and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc. v Francis Schmitz, et al. (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel document) and defend Wisconsin constitutional officers in their criminal justice investigation.

The fact that Van Hollen is sitting this case out speaks to the fact that Van Hollen feels his duty is to the Republican Party of Wisconsin and not the people and Constitution of Wisconsin.

When Van Hollen feels his party is threatened by litigation, Van Hollen's Department of Justice (DoJ) has no hesitation constructing any argument no matter the effect on the rights of Wisconsin citizens, if the DoJ would prevail.

Consider Van Hollen's effort to try to stay the injunction against Wisconsin's photo voter ID law, Act 23, designed to obstruct Wisconsin voters (Frank v. Walker; League of United Latin American Citizens of Wisconsin v. Deininger).

Writes Van Hollen and the Wisconsin DoJ in a May 2014 motion to keep the GOP-crafted voter ID operative for the next election: “‘[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of  irreparable injury’” [Maryland v. King, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1, 3 (2012)] (other citations omitted).

If Van Hollen truly feels this way, why is he not blasting away at Judge Randa in court and in the press?