Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by 2012 Countdown » Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:31 pm
by 2012 Countdown » Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:26 pm
by seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:22 pm
by Bruce Dazzling » Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:26 am
by Laodicean » Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:17 pm
BREAKING: Wisconsin Judge Temporarily Blocks Gov. Walker's Union-Busting Bill
Various sources are reporting that Dane County, Wisconsin, Judge Maryann Sumi has granted a restraining order temporarily blocking the publication of the union-busting law that was rammed through the Wisconsin state legislature recently.
by seemslikeadream » Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:39 pm
Walker Ally On Wisconsin Supreme Court Calls State’s First Female Justice A ‘Bitch’
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson
Newly released emails reveal that Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, a close Republican ally of anti-worker Gov. Scott Walker (R), erupted in rage at his colleague Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson during a contentious discussion early last year:
As the deeply divided state Supreme Court wrestled over whether to force one member off criminal cases last year, Justice David Prosser exploded at Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson behind closed doors, calling her a “bitch” and threatening to “destroy” her. [...]
“In the context of this, I said, ‘You are a total bitch,’ ” Prosser said.
“I probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely warranted. … They (Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley) are masters at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements. This is bullying and abuse of very, very long standing.”
In additional to being Chief Justice, Abrahamson is the first woman to sit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Prior to joining the court, Prosser was the Republican Speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly. His reelection campaign recently promised that he would “protect[] the conservative judicial majority and act[] as a common sense complement” to Gov. Walker if he is reelected.
by brainpanhandler » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:08 pm
by brainpanhandler » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:39 pm
by JackRiddler » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:19 am
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/24/indiana-prosecutor-told-wisconsin-governor-to-stage-false-flag-operation/
Indiana prosecutor told Wisconsin governor to stage ‘false flag’ operation
An Indiana prosecutor and Republican activist has resigned after emails show he suggested Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker stage a fake attack on himself to discredit unions protesting his budget repair bill.
The Republican governor signed a bill on March 11 that eliminates most union rights for public employees.
In an email from February 19, Indiana deputy prosecutor Carlos F. Lam told Walker the situation presented "a good opportunity for what’s called a ‘false flag’ operation."
The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism discovered the email among tens of thousands released to the public last week following a lawsuit by the Isthmus and the Associated Press.
"If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions' cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the unions," Lam said in his email.
"Currently, the media is painting the union protest as a democratic uprising and failing to mention the role of the DNC and umbrella union organizations in the protest," he continued. "Employing a false flag operation would assist in undercutting any support that the media may be creating in favor of the unions."
Lam resigned from his position after the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism published an article about his email.
On February 22, an alternative paper in Buffalo, New York managed to trick Walker into taking a call from their editor posing as tea party tycoon David Koch.
When the editor posing as Koch suggested planting some troublemakers in the protests, Walker responded that "we thought about that," but said it was not necessary "because sooner or later the media stops finding ’em interesting."
"My only fear would be is if there was a ruckus caused is that that would scare the public into thinking maybe the governor has gotta settle to avoid all these problems," he said.
Walker had promised to lay off 1,500 state workers if the bill to curb collective bargaining rights for public employees didn't pass.
In mid-February, 14 Democratic state senators left Wisconsin to stall a vote on the bill. There are 19 Republican senators, but the Senate needs a minimum of 20 members to be present to debate and vote on any bills that spend money.
While the 14 Democratic senators remained in Illinois, Republican state senators removed all references to spending from the bill and passed the proposal to limit public employees' collective bargaining rights.
Wisconsin citizens upset withWalker's attack on public employees' collective bargaining rights have launched a boycott campaign aimed at his campaign contributors.
by seemslikeadream » Sun Mar 27, 2011 4:20 pm
In Lawless Fitzwalkerstan, a Constitution Officer Refuses to Bend to a Royal Governor’s Dictate
by John Nichols
The fear that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Republican allies such as state Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald are turning Wisconsin into the American equivalent of a lawless “rogue state”—dubbed “Fitzwalkerstan” by state Rep. Mark Pocan, the former co-chair of the powerful Legislative Joint Finance Committee—was being taken more seriously Sunday. Walker’s lieutenants have announced that they would begin implementing the governor’s draconian anti-union power grab, despite the fact that a judge has issued an order blocking the law from going into effect.
Dane County Circuit Court Judge Maryann Sumi had issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking publication of the anti-union law until the courts could weigh multiple questions about the legislature’s actions and the law itself. But Walker’s minions are now claiming that steps taken Friday by the state’s Legislative Reference Bureau to prepare for publication of the bill are an authorization to begin implementing it.
“Upon the advice of my legal counsel, the Department of Administration will begin the process of implementing [the law] as we are required to do the day after a bill is lawfully published,” claimed Walker’s Department of Administration secretary Mike Huebsch.
The problem is that bill has not been lawfully published.
“Official publication by the Secretary of State is required for this act to go into effect,” state Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca explained. “The Secretary of State, the only Constitutional officer with the power to publish law, is prohibited by court order from publishing this Act.”
Barca’s right.
State law in Wisconsin clearly says that the elected secretary of state has the authority to order the publication of laws on a timeline established by statutes. Secretary of State Doug La Follette, responding to concerns expressed by local governments with regard to the confusing and potentially illegal manner in which Walker’s law was forced through the legislature, delayed publication in keeping with the statutory timeline.
Then, in response to legal challenges to the new law, which have focused on violations of the state’s open-meetings rules and core constitutional questions, Judge Sumi issued the TRO. Sumi’s order prevented La Follette from ordering the law published. La Follette embraced the order.
Now, with the Walker administration is trying to go around the elected secretary of state and the courts, the talk of Wisconsin as a lawless “Fitzwalkerstan” has spread.
State Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller, D-Monona, described the Walker administration’s announcement that it would “begin the process of implementing” the law as “just another example of how desperate the governor and the Republican leadership is to try to circumvent the law and circumvent having a court determine whether or not they acted appropriately with the law.”
While the governor and his aides have decided to go rogue, Secretary of State La Follette is refusing to let Wisconsin become Fitzwalkerstan.
The state’s senior statewide official, an elected officer with authority afforded him by the state Constitution, La Follette says of the anti-labor law: “It’s still an act of the Legislature that has not yet become law because I have not yet designated a publication date.”
In the midst of the chaos created by a governor and his legislative allies, a chaos that veteran state Representative Pocan, D-Madison, refers to as “authoritarian anarchy,” the secretary of state is holding out for the rule of law.
Noting upcoming trial dates, La Follette says, “At this point, we wait until Monday to see if the Supreme Court decides to do anything. We wait until Tuesday for the trial judge to hold a hearing, which is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Beyond that, I don’t know.”
But Americans should know that, in the wilds of Fitzwalkerstan, an honest man with the great name of La Follette is holding aloft a copies of the Constitution and the state statutes promising that he will abide by its dictates—not those of an outlaw governor.
by seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:11 am
Scott Walker ally, WI Supreme Court Justice Prosser, loses endorsement of hometown paper
Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2011 by GottaLaff
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser
Remember Justice David Prosser who called the state Chief Justice a “total bitch” who he “will destroy.“ And yes, the very same one who announced he would “[protect] the conservative judicial majority and [act] as a common sense compliment to both the new administration and legislature,” and who has allegedly made “promises” (or threats, depending on your perspective) to veer far to the right both during and after the election if attacked by the “left” during the campaign? And who let corporate lobbyists write judicial ethics rules?
What a guy.
Apparently, a couple of newspapers are rescinding their endorsements of him, including his hometown paper:
So, what do we do? Let bygones be bygones?
We can’t. The Post-Crescent endorses JoAnne Kloppenburg.
by seemslikeadream » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:24 pm
Aide: Wisconsin governor to halt plans to enact union law
MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's top aide says the administration will abide by a judge's order to stop preparation to implement a divisive collective bargaining law.
By TODD RICHMOND, SCOTT BAUER, Associated Press
Published: March 31, 2011
MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's top aide says the administration will abide by a judge's order to stop preparation to implement a divisive collective bargaining law.
The Hon. Maryann Sumi reiterates her temporary restraining order barring further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 at the Dane County Courthouse in Madison, Wis., Tuesday, March 29, 2011. Sumi said Tuesday that her earlier restraining order saying the law shouldn’t be enacted had either been ignored or misinterpreted. Sumi stopped short of saying the law was not already in effect. She says she will take more testimony on that issue. (AP Photo/Michael P. King, Pool)
Aide: Wisconsin governor to halt plans to enact union law
Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said Thursday that the Republican governor's administration still believes the law took effect when a state office posted online last week. But he says Walker will abide by Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi's ruling earlier Thursday that the law hadn't taken effect.
Sumi's ruling came after Walker's administration ignored a restraining order she issued earlier this week saying work on the law should stop while she considers a lawsuit challenging the statute's legitimacy.
Walker officials had contended the order didn't apply to them because they weren't named as defendants in the lawsuit.
by Pele'sDaughter » Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:31 pm
by seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:57 am
by seemslikeadream » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:31 am
Running From the Law: Trouble in Wisconsin for Republicans
April 2, 2011
By Sarah Jones
The Republicans in Wisconsin, led by the hubris of Gov. Walker, have made a real mess of things for the state, the people, but also for themselves. With Governor Walker’s entire career hanging in the balance, he and the Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald attempted to push through the anti-union bill late on a Friday night, without notice to the public. Now the Republicans are on the run from the law.
When a judge ruled that it appeared the plaintiff in a case against their passage of the bill would prevail, and so ordered the bill not to be published into law, the Republicans violated the court order by having it published by another entity. The judge came back with a second court order. The cowboys said they were going to do as they pleased in spite of the court order, but then the judge clarified her position and suddenly the boys got into line. Third time is a charm, apparently.
And so the bill is not law yet. The judge is now hearing testimony about how the Republicans originally passed the law and it’s clear they have violated the open meeting law, as alleged. They are now claiming legislative immunity in order to avoid the lawsuit.
Currently, the judge is only hearing testimony on the open meeting law challenge. After this, there is the violation of a court order, the violation of the state constitution in the original legislation, the failure to have quorum, and a likely conspiracy charge regarding the pressure put upon another body to publish the law against their wishes– among other hurdles they face. Right now, the judge is looking into their claim that their meeting was an emergency meeting, but the testimony so far as well as empirical evidence via Walker’s press conferences on the subject make it appear as if they deliberately misled the Democrats and the people. Conspiracy and deliberate and multiple violations of the open meeting law are not small matters.
As far as the issue before the county trial court right now (where all litigation begins, contrary to the conservative smear going around that county trial courts have no business interfering in the legislative process; the court system is a check and balance on both other branches of government and this is exactly how it is supposed to function), the violation of open meetings law, there are several factors being weighed. Republicans claimed it was an emergency meeting that did not need to meet the requirements for open meeting laws under a special senate rule. So the questions are: 1) Was it an emergency meeting. 2) Does the senate rule apply. 3) Was notice given. 4) Was access provided. The access question involves several factors as well: General access to the Capitol as well as access to the assembly chamber and then lastly, as the Republicans took the meeting in a small private room and shut the door (itself a violation of open meeting laws).
Earlier, the judge determined that it did not appear to meet the requirements for an emergency meeting and that the senate rule did not apply, as there were assembly members present. This means that the Republicans did not have a leg to stand on in calling an emergency meeting without proper notice. Open meeting laws require 24 hours’ notice prior to a meeting. Notice was not given other than an email sent out just under two hours before the beginning of the meeting and a posting on a bulletin board. This qualifies is the first count of a violation of the open meeting laws.
But here’s where it starts to get really interesting and potentially career damaging for the Republicans, and that is the issue of access. Access was denied to the Capitol that night, with only one of eight doors being open which caused a bottleneck and delayed entrance so as to miss the meeting. A Democratic lawmaker was turned away from the doors as well and had to climb in through a bathroom window.
Access was further denied into the Senate gallery; people were turned away — even though there are seats for 85 people, only 24 were let in. A guard standing outside the door denied access to everyone after the first 24 people. The doors to the Senate gallery were then locked for the next 40 minutes after a senate staffer claimed there was a security breach. These folks were smart enough to start a petition of people who were there and were denied access. There are just under 3,000 names on that petition. This is a violation of open meeting laws on multiple levels, including access and locked doors. Locked doors to the Legislature when the lawmakers are in session violate the state constitution. Lastly, a text message was sent to a person in the Senate gallery from someone attempting to gain entrance who was told by the guard that the gallery was “full.”
And then there’s the fact that the Republicans moved the conference committee meeting from the Senate chambers (where the 24 citizens had seats) into a small parlor off of the Senate chambers, with no room for anyone but the press and the lawmakers, and closed the doors, while there were plenty of much larger rooms available in the Capitol that night (though none large enough for 3,000 people). This is another violation.
As I reported that night, they violated these open meeting laws as a Democratic lawmaker read the rules aloud to them and begged them to stop. This is all on video, which I can only imagine will be very damaging to the Republicans.
In the course of taking testimony yesterday, it was revealed that the Republicans had discussed having this meeting two days prior. In fact, while they were discussing this plan of how to pass the bill without the Democrats, Gov. Walker released certain emails of his to the press, to “prove” he was trying to work with the Democrats (he did this at the same time he denied giving his emails on this matter to the press under a freedom of information request). And yet, it now appears from testimony that the Republicans never intended to work with the Democrats and that Walker’s press conference deliberately misled the public about the direction the administration and the Republicans were going. So not only did they violate the open meeting laws, but they may have conspired to do so.
The Journal Sentinel reported:
Testimony also showed Republicans discussed forming the committee on March 7 – 48 hours before the committee met. That would have left them time to provide 24 hours’ notice for the meeting, but Marchant said he did not believe a final decision on creating the committee was made until March 9.
At the meeting were: Fitzgerald; his brother, Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon); Brian Hayes, Walker’s budget director; Eric Schutt, Walker’s deputy chief of staff; Bob Lang, director of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau; and the chief clerks of both houses.
Things get worse for the Republicans who are trying to claim legislative immunity to avoid being sued for their actions, let alone testifying in court.
An earlier Journal Sentinel report stated:
Marchant said he got word around 2:30 p.m. on March 9 that the conference committee would be formed and would meet at 6 p.m. that night.
The March 7 meeting came just after back-channel talks between Democrats and Republicans stalled. Meanwhile, Walker told reporters there was no reason to meet with Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) because he wasn’t offering a deal.
The next day, Walker released emails he sent to the Democrats showing he was willing to compromise in the hope of getting them back to Madison. However, he did not disclose that his top aides had been taking about creating the conference committee to get around Democratic senators.
The Republicans are on the run from the court now, claiming legislative immunity to avoid being brought to task for their actions. They may get away with this for two years, depending on how the court ends up defining the legislative period. The judge offered the Republicans the chance to pass their bill properly, but they declined, muttering things about activist judges having no place in the legislative process. If the Republicans believe that, they should be immediately recalled for an utter lack of respect and understanding for how the three branches of government work together to avoid abuse of power. A judge demanding that the law be followed is not an activist judge.
The Wisconsin State Journal reported:
Instead of a decision Friday, Sumi gave lawyers in the case three legal questions she wants them to answer, setting a seven-week period for legal briefs and responses.
In the meantime, the case will also wait for the four lawmakers who are asserting legislative immunity — Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau; Senate President Michael Ellis, R-Neenah; Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon; and Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford — until they either waive immunity or are out of session and can be served with the lawsuit.
That could be months. Ozanne said there are windows in July and December in which the Legislature is not in session. State law grants immunity to legislators during sessions and for 15 days before and after, but it’s not settled whether sessions are defined as legislative floor periods or entire two-year periods between elections.
The Wisconsin Republicans’ strategies from the beginning of this debacle have been so foolish as to make one question their ability to lead in any capacity. Legislators should be able to strategize and plan, but these folks have fumbled the ball at every pass and it looks like their own hubris will block them from a first down, let alone a touchdown. In fact, it almost appears as if they scored one for the other team because the court is just beginning to hear testimony about the open meetings law violation, and this alone is enough to make serious problems for the Republicans. There is a mountain of evidence to back up the claim that they violated the open meeting laws, including their own press conferences, videos, testimony of police officers working the Capitol that night, and a petition signed by just under 3,000 witnesses.
Republicans may avoid the court as long as they are in session. The Wisconsin Republicans are actually on the run from the law now, using the legislative session as cover in order to avoid answering questions that will most certainly not reflect well upon them.
Make no mistake about it, what the Republicans are accused of doing in Wisconsin is a very serious breach of the law, in fact, more egregious than it may first appear. They are entrusted as lawmakers to follow the law when they are making a new law. They appear to have violated the law along with the people’s trust, and now want to avoid responsibility for their actions. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) called the order “judicial activism at its worst. Once again, one Dane County judge is doing everything she can to stand in the way of our efforts to improve the economy and create jobs.” That sort of blustery bravado will only work with their base, whose adaptable values are based on party power plays rather than blind convictions to principles. In point of fact, the budget will be balanced without the collective bargaining law passed.
As this is the third court order put up against them, they are really testing the patience of the court by giving press statements disparaging the court they are afraid to enter. And just why won’t they face the court? They are entitled to claim legislative immunity, but if they are innocent as they proclaim, why are they doing it?
If they had only done this right, they might actually have succeeded. This case may likely end up in the state Supreme Court, bringing extra scrutiny to the upcoming elections for supreme court justice this Tuesday with David Prosser (endorsed by Sarah Palin) having called himself a “complement to Walker” facing off against JoAnn Kloppenburg. Prosser was recently in the press for having called the Chief Justice a “bitch” he was going to “destroy”.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 155 guests
