Justice Roggensack is hardly a conservative judge

Once again, much is being made in the newspapers these days of the altercation which took place in the chambers of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley back in June, 2011.

One reason for that is because there is an impending general election* for the seat of incumbent Justice Patience Roggensack and another reason is that Justice Bradley removed herself last week from the case of Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. David T. Prosser, Jr.

It was an altercation that Justice Roggensack had "almost nothing to do with," says risibly lies one of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's several in-house right-wing Bradley (no relation) Foundation propagandists.

Unless authoring a meanspirited, lawless order and then leading her little posse of alleged "conservatives" into Justice Bradley's chambers to insist on its immediate publication to allay the concerns of Republican allies in the Wisconsin legislature counts as having "almost nothing to do with" the subsequent confrontation among justices.

Meanspirited in the sense that the order is practically a personal attack on Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi, in whose courtroom the Republican legislators' attorneys freely admitted they had violated both the Wisconsin statutes and the Wisconsin constitution.

Lawless in the sense that Justice Roggensack and her Republican pals invented a jurisidictional authority for the Wisconsin Supreme Court that not only is not found in the State constitution but is explicitly contraindicated in the rules of appellate procedure: There is no such thing as "supervisory/original jurisdiction." They represent separate grounds for a party having her case heard by the Supreme Court.

In fact, there is no such thing as "supervisory" jurisdiction among the Wisconsin Supreme Court's panoply of constitutional powers, but there is superintending jurisdiction. Therefore if Roggensack and her fellow Republicans wanted to dream up the law more accurately, they should have invented "superintending/original" jurisdiction.

Furthermore in Justice Roggensack's own granting of her motion for recusal, she cites a Wisconsin statute she apparently believes requires her recusal. Except the statute refers to "any civil or criminal action or proceeding," whereas WJC v. Prosser is neither a criminal nor a civil case, thus the statute upon which Roggensack depends is irrelevant.

And they call her a "conservative" judge? Hardly. To top it all off, the same alleged conservatives then utterly contradicted themselves.

Where has this been reported? Nowhere, except at this here space.

* The primary election is Tuesday, February 19.

The only conservative on that ticket is Ed Fallone.

Wisconsin Supreme Court footnote

What Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi enjoined in the spring of 2011 was the publication of Act 10, and not Act 10 itself nor any of its provisions (the "substance" of the law). Act 10 had already been enacted. The legislative process was completed. There was nothing left for the legislature to do. What remained for Act 10 was purely administrative. Bear that in mind during the inevitable storm of right-wing bullshit* should Judge Sumi decide to run against Roggensack.

* The Bradley Foundation's publishing house has started already.

Scott Walker's Judge Bradley (Foundation)

Reports the local organ:

Scott Walker on Monday appointed president of the Milwaukee chapter of the Federalist Society Rebbeca [sic] Bradley to fill a spot on the circuit court bench in Milwaukee County.

Obviously.

Q. What is your favorite website?
A. NationalReview.com

Dear God help us, here comes another one.

MJS right-wingers to "elevate level of discussion"

Hilarious.

Notes Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial page editor David Haynes: "Another writes regularly for a local think tank." Except three of them do, in addition to a fourth who writes regularly for WPRI, but he already has a regular column in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. What Haynes also fails to mention is that Rick Esenberg's Kulturkampf boutique law firm — which last I heard consists of Prof. Rick and Mike Gableman's former law clerk — is in essence a subsidiary of the Bradley Foundation.

Here's Prof. Rick "elevat[ing] the level of discussion."

And some observers may recall Prof. Rick's lojinks last spring, when he and his compadre James Troupis filed a frivolous lawsuit in Oconto County, the distorted fruits of which they used to underpin 14 comic faux-arrest warrants against the State's Democratic Senate caucus.

Whose idea was it to let this character teach law at a university?

Glad I got the hell out of there before he turned up.*

* Although I admit I was sworn to the bar by Justice David Prosser (following an extended homily on professional ethics, ironically enough).

Of course it could have been worse: it could have been Mike Gableman.

Unabomber likes pancakes. Do you?

Via Xoff, the Bradley Foundation caters to dumbasses.

Update (via Xoff again):

"The Heartland Institute knew this was a risk when deciding to test it, but decided it was a necessary price to make an emotional appeal to people who otherwise aren’t following the climate change debate," said the institute's president Joe Bast.

What a clown. This isn't an emotional appeal, it's a stupidity appeal.

Do conservatives enjoy being insulted, or what?

WISGOP: Incest is [Michael] best

[Former U.S. Attorney Steven] Biskupic and his fellow attorneys based their complaint on a piece of propaganda put out by the MacIver Institute, a "public policy think tank" funded by the ultraconservative Bradley Foundation. The Bradley Foundation is headed by Michael Grebe, former chair of the Walker gubernatorial campaign and the chair of Friends of Scott Walker, one of the organizations that filed the suit in Waukesha County.

By Lisa Kaiser.*

* Best** advocacy journalist in Wisconsin.

** Best as in the superlative, not the aforementioned WISGOP law firm.

The Journal-Sentinel's Rick Esenberg Disclaimer

I see David Haynes and the mandarins on the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial board have added a disclaimer to Marquette University Law School professor Rick Esenberg's attempt at defending Mike Gableman's reported acceptance of a gift or favor from Michael Best & Friedrich, to the effect that Esenberg recently presented oral argument before the court on which Gableman sits. Judges are prohibited by the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct from accepting gifts or favors from lawyers or firms if they have or are likely to come before the judge.

That's a relatively innocuous disclaimer compared to Esenberg's prior relationships with the Gableman political campaign. Esenberg appeared in a video produced by Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce which was distributed at a series of WMC luncheons in 2008. Rick Esenberg's former research assistant at Marquette, Daniel Suhr, assembled a "white paper" criticizing the record of former Justice Louis Butler — perhaps the only actor deserving of the appellation "honorable" in this whole sordid affair — the misrepresentations of law contained in which Esenberg strenuously defended at his blog, where Esenberg also repeated and purported to rationalize some of the sleaziest accusations against Justice Butler.

And Rick Esenberg's Bradley Foundation-funded Kulturkampf boutique law firm, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, hired Tom Kamenick, a former clerk of Gableman's, as an associate. It's like incest but without the sex. Given the foregoing, the Journal-Sentinel's disclaimer is a bit of a joke. The fact that Esenberg argued a case before the Supreme Court isn't such a big deal, unless you realize what case it was, which the Journal-Sentinel's disclaimer doesn't identify.

The case is Wisconsin Prosperity Network v. Myse and Esenberg presented the argument instead of James "Carried ... feet first" Troupis, who represented Justice David Prosser during the latter's political campaign last spring. It's also the case from which Prosser disqualified himself in September, 2011 apparently after being pressured by the Journal-Sentinel's reporting, even though this blog had pointed to the potential conflict of interest as early as the previous April.

Speaking of which case, Prosser and Gableman literally rewrote the Wisconsin constitution to grant an injunction in 2010 in favor of the plaintiffs, a who's who of conservative Republican activists, the granting of which was executed even before the court had decided whether to take jurisdiction of the case. A decision is forthcoming in Myse but a date hasn't been announced. This blog wondered several weeks ago how a divided court is going to address the posture of that injunction.

The Journal-Sentinel is a wholly owned subsidiary of Journal Communications, Inc., which itself is in effect a wholly owned subsidiary of the WISGOP. The transparency of these relationships is remarkable.

But yeah, thanks for the illuminating disclaimer. Great public service.

MacGyver Institute "ignores critical facts"

We asked MacGyver spokesman Brian Fraley* if he had evidence beyond the video to back the group's claim. He said he did not.

What else is new.

* And Bradley Foundation "intellectual."

Speaking of your Bradley Foundation intellectuals

Who could forget this all-times classic:

Although the authors of the WPRI Report argue that "[m]ost of the empirical research done on retail gasoline markets suggests that the primary problem in the market is not predatory pricing, but rather a propensity towards price collusion," there is no evidence in the WPRI Report of any actual collusion in the Wisconsin motor vehicle fuel market. — Seventh Circuit Ct. App.

Price collusion = voter fraud.

Meet your Bradley Foundation intellectuals

The thing about voter fraud is it's just like rape. It happens more than you hear it does because not every victim comes forward to report it.

And that is why Republicans can't report any voter fraud. The end.

Media Trackers: "Our attorneys stand prepared."

Where were they before Mr. Sikma started publishing malicious lies?

Less than prepared, evidently.

Here's what Marquette professor of law Rick Esenberg had to say:

Any suggestion that there is either an action for defamation against either [Media Trackers' Brian Sikma or 620 AM WTMJ's Charlie Sykes] or the basis for a criminal charge is wildly off base given the nature of their remarks and applicable law.

Which was in response [sic] to this:

You said: It was not wrong for Media Trackers to raise the issue.

This outfit did much more than simply raise the issue. Media Trackers' "conservative media analyst" — that's the undeservedly hifalutin title conferred by Wisconsin Public Radio, which devoted an utterly pointless half an hour to him the other day — Brian Sikma reportedly told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: "[Lena Taylor] was, in fact, an accessory to one felon voting on April 5."

And your good pal Charlie Sykes wrote: "Are [Democrats] all fine with Lena Taylor, a respected member of their party in the legislature, being an accessory to voter fraud?"

According to Freer v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., 2004 WI App 201, "'imputation of certain crimes' to the plaintiff" raises a cause of action for defamation in Wisconsin. And there is a certain crime in Wisconsin that would fit Sikma's and Sykes's accusation of "accessory to voter fraud," described in Wis. Stat. § 12.13(1)(h).

Prof. Esenberg offered zero support for his dismissive handwaving.

But who knows, maybe he will be one of Brian Sikma's attorneys.*

In the meantime Mr. Sikma appears intent on measuring the homeless shelter's clothesline, to ensure it's up to municipal building code snuff.

I mean, those homeless people must be guilty of something, right?

* And if so, courtesy the Bradley Foundation, completing the circle.

Media Trackers needs to put up or shut up

Recently we had Rick Esenberg, a professor of law at Marquette University, accusing nine Madison doctors of "fraud" even though there was no finding of any fraudulent behavior on the part of the doctors.

Then we had Prof. Esenberg's fellow Bradley Foundation beneficiary Charlie Sykes accuse two young women in Milwaukee of "recall fraud," even though both were well beyond voting age. Today we have this:

"[Wisconsin State Senator Lena Taylor] was, in fact, an accessory to one felon voting on April 5 when that individual, whenever that person was ineligible to vote under Wisconsin statutes," said Brian Sikma, a spokesman for Mequon-based Media Trackers.

Intentionally procuring, assisting, or advising someone to vote at any election if that person does not have the necessary elector qualifications is itself a felony. In other words, Mr. Sikma is accusing Sen. Taylor of committing a felony. Where's Sikma's evidence? He has none, because:

"At best, this is gross negligence that undermines the integrity of the election process," the Mequon-based Brian Sikma said.

Well, which is it? Negligence — "gross" or otherwise — denotes the absence of intent. So basically this character is accusing Sen. Taylor of a crime, but then he claims "at best" she didn't commit a crime. All of which is dutifully repeated, without any explanation, by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Apparently Brian Sikma doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, but he did manage to convince the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel to generate a headline referring to voter fraud "allegations."

What they don't tell you is there's no substance to any of these "allegations" and there's no such thing in Wisconsin as "negligently" assisting someone to vote, even if Sen. Taylor had anything to do with the voting at all, and indeed there are no facts presented supporting the proposition that she did have anything at all to do with the voting.

Suffice to say this is not exactly local journalism's finest moment.

And we have months more of this B.S. to look forward to, where you can accuse anybody of anything you want, without facts or argument.

Pathetic.

Meet Charlie Sykes's "fraudulent" petitioners

Accusations of recall fraud fall flat:

"I feel like it's bad because you're judging a book by its cover and you don't know anything about us," said Ms. Love, who is 20.

Got that right. They saw your picture. That's all they needed to know.

Where are the photos with ID cards? The JS article says the DPW provided them, but why not show them and let viewers/readers decide? Media Trackers — here's some video evidence, we'll give you our opinion and even put a ? in the title to make it clear we're not making factual claims. JS — here's a claim the Democrats are making. We believe it, therefore, we don't have to show you the supposed "proof" the Democrats provided.

Nice try, counselor, but your reckless desperation is showing.

That's former Mike Gableman clerk/current Rick Esenberg associate — at the latter's Bradley Foundation-funded Kulturkampf law boutique, incidentally — Tom Kamenick demanding the two young ladies relinquish their right to privacy and assume the burden of production. Seems to me the burden is on Charlie Sykes, Media Trackers, and their disciples and in that production they all of them failed rather spectacularly.

Full retraction and apology from Charlie Sykes in the morning, I'm sure.

Stellar work, you Bradley Foundation "intellectuals."

GOP would never use courts to implement policy

Never, ever. Only liberals would do a thing like that, don't you know.

Come to think of it I might even have learned that bit of common wisdom from somebody that the Bradley Foundation paid to say it.

Maybe one of its "intellectuals." Definitely one of its hypocrites.

Oh look, Bradley Foundation "intellectual" lied?

In shocking Journal-Sentinel exposé:

[Conservatives questioned] whether someone under 18 has signed a petition to recall Scott Walker but Graeme Zielinski, spokesman for the Wisconsin Democratic Party, released photos of the two holding their IDs that say they are 20 and 22 years old.

And conservatives didn't merely "question," they accused.

Just a reminder that this is what Journal Communications, Inc. is using the publicly-owned radio frequency 620 kHz for — spreading political lies.

Meet your Bradley Foundation "intellectuals"

This is always good for a laugh.

More fraud accusations from Bradley "intellectuals"

Charlie Sykes — "Recall Fraud Captured on Videotape"

Can you see the "fraud"? Because I can't. False accusations of fraud are becoming a habit with the Bradley Foundation's stable of "intellectuals."

Pretty desperate already, they are. Not to mention wildly irresponsible.

Michael Grebe, a lawyer by both profession and temperament

Really. Well maybe he better look into what his beneficiaries are saying.

"Speaking of fraud, can WTMJ PLEASE stop airing the Right Size Smoothies ad?" — Charlie Sykes blog commenter CleoOne

Haha. Is consumer fraud paying Charlie Sykes's bills?

Wisconsin, meet your enemy

"In some way or another, most [local] conservatives, I guess, would have a connection to us," said Michael Grebe.

The Bradley Foundation.

Where Charlie Sykes is an "intellectual." rofl

Funnier still, the Bradley Foundation promotes "competent government," which apparently refers to powerful legislative committees chaired by the likes of Jim Ott, Mary Lazich, Leah Vukmir, and Glenn Grothman.

And their top attorney plays fast and loose with legal terms of art.

Nothing terribly "intellectual" about that either.

Fear superstition, deny science

A couple more Bradley Foundation projects. The Bradley Foundation's president was Republican Governor Scott Walker's campaign chairman.

The Funding Trail Leads to the Bradley Foundation

More on that spurious right-wing "news" outfit, the Wisconsin Reporter.

(Forgot to mention the BF's president was Walker's campaign chairman.)

On teh web: Wisconsin Reporter's sense of entitlement