Blogging Blue » Michael Gableman

“Ignore the Public Comments”

Jeff Simpson — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:33:38 +0000

If you take away anything from this next story, as egregious as it is, remember that line. That should be the mantel that the democrats use to prop up their republican counterparts in the upcoming election.

Now on to the story: JSonline delved into more detail regarding the republicans redistricting process. and the one word to describe this process: WOW!

First off, republicans had to SIGN Secrecy agreements:

Other newly released documents also show almost all Republican lawmakers signed legal agreements promising not to discuss the new maps while they were being developed…The agreement tells each lawmaker “you agree not to disclose the fact and/or contents of such discussions or any draft documents within your possession.”

All the agreements were also signed by Eric McLeod of Michael Best & Friedrich, one of several attorneys who advised lawmakers on the maps. Legislative leaders have committed $400,000 in taxpayer money to pay Michael Best and the Troupis Law Office for their work on the maps.

Quick aside: If the name Eric McLeod sounds familiar, he is the lawyer who bought Michael Gableman.

The republicans (specifically Adam Foltz, a legislative aide to Jeff Fitzgerald who helped draft the maps), where this gem was written.

“Public comments on this map may be different than what you hear in this room. Ignore the public comments,” the talking points also say.

Why whatever does that mean? Adam Foltz is no help, he had no idea he wrote them. Luckily we have people like attorney Peter Earle who tells us

it was clear from the case’s record that GOP lawmakers were being told to ignore what their leaders were saying publicly and to focus on what they said in private.

translation: the republicans will be lying in public but working on it behind the scenes. Do not believe anything they say.

This case was started in court in December when Mr. Foltz testified that the new maps were not meant to increase the GOP majority.

Foltz said those who developed the maps used election data from 2000 to 2010 in helping decide where to draw the lines. Yet the goal of the maps was not to increase the GOP’s advantage in elections, he testified.

Not sure Adam rally wants to perjure himself at such a young age to protect the Fitzgerald family. You are too young to start your career like this, Ask Tim Russell what trying to cover up for your boss gets you. Hopefully there is still time for Mr. Foltz to correct his story. Since we now know he is not telling the truth:

The new batch of records also includes memos from Foltz to Republican lawmakers telling them how GOP candidates performed in their districts under the new and old maps. In a deposition in December, Foltz testified the new maps were not meant to increase the GOP majority in the Legislature.

Of the 58 Republicans in the state Assembly at the time, 33 would pick up additional Republican voters. For instance, the district for freshman Rep. Mike Endsley (R-Sheboygan) would go from marginally to solidly Republican.

Those Republican representatives experiencing a drop in the number of Republican voters in their district under the redistricting plan would still have a strong Republican majority of voters. For instance, the district represented by Rep. Joel Kleefisch (R-Oconomowoc) would still be about 60% Republican despite losing a share of its GOP bases under the redistricting plan.

Legal secrecy agreements, eric mcleod, Michael Best & Freidrich, only republicans allowed, new maps where it was broken down by republicans in the district, none of that was done politically? Yes if you believe that you will believe that Scott walker is voluntarily meeting with DA Chisholm.

As for Attorney Earle, here he is testifying at the joint public hearing on redistricting.

New York Times Editorial Blasts Justice Gableman

Phil Scarr — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:49:01 +0000

Wow…

The justice has a blatant conflict of interest: He owes money to a firm that got his vote in this and other cases. He should have agreed not to sit on any case where the law firm is involved until he pays what he owes.

His tawdry defense is that he agreed to pay the firm if he won the case where it represented him, and if the state paid his bill, so the free counsel was not a gift. Evading payment unless he won is unjustifiable.

The editorial goes on to insist that Gableman recuse himself.

This is on the editorial page of The New York Times, it’s not just a random opinion piece.

When the Times pays attention to stuff happening in your state, you know there’s a problem. Justice Gableman is a huckster and a scam artist. He is an embarrassment to Wisconsin’s judicial system and should resign immediately.

There’s more. Go read and share.

A Profound Failure of Judicial Ethics

Phil Scarr — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 03:36:16 +0000

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is out with an editorial critical of Justice Gableman and his relationship with Michael Best & Friedrich. Gableman’s ethical shortcomings are obvious even to the rightward leaning editors at the MJS.

Though the editorial falls short of demanding that Justice Gableman resign, they do call into serious question his judicial impartiality on several cases involving Michael Best & Friedrich, the GOP-linked law firm that provided him with free legal representation. MB&F brought several cases before the high court during and subsequent to providing Justice Gableman these free services.

While he was being represented by the firm and in the year and a half since, Gableman participated in nine cases involving Michael Best & Friedrich clients. He recused himself from a 10th case, in which the firm itself was being sued. In the nine, he ruled in favor of Michael Best five times. In two of the cases, he was in a 4-3 majority; in another, his vote led to a tie. In the four cases in which he voted against Michael Best clients, the votes weren’t close.

What Gableman did was about as unethical as it gets for a judge. In essence, he accepted a bribe (explicit or implicit, it really doesn’t matter) to rule on cases he should, in good conscience, have recused himself from. The rules as laid out in the Wisconsin Judicial Code of Conduct could not be clearer. A judge may accept

10. Any other gift, favor or loan, only if the donor is not a party or other person who has come or is likely to come or whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge.

Which is followed by a very explicit COMMENT about the very specific example we’re reviewing here:

Unless authorized by other provisions of sub. (4) (e), sub. (4)(e) 10 prohibits judges from accepting gifts, favors or loans from lawyers or their firms if they have come or are likely to come before the judge; it also prohibits gifts, favors or loans from clients of lawyers or their firms when the clients’ interests have come or are likely to come before the judge.See sec. 19.43 etseq., Stats.

If tens of thousands of dollars of free legal services from a law firm that comes before the Wisconsin Supreme Court on dozens of occasions for dozens of clients does not trigger a violation of rule 10 than what would? Does someone have to have videotape of a lawyer from Michael Best handing a sack of $100 bills to Gablemen for this rule to trigger? Has it really come to that?

But I think I see the source of the problem, and it comes from the preamble of the Judicial Code of Conduct. It reads,

Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all provisions of this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.

Republicans have long held a strong contempt for an independent judiciary. It is apparent to me that Justice Gablemen believes himself to be exempt from the code’s stipulation to “an independent, fair and competent judiciary.” The GOP have no such requirement themselves. Silly me. It’s so obvious.

Michael Gableman

Jeff Simpson — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:31:52 +0000

In case you haven’t heard, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman recieved free legal counsel from Michael Best & Friedrich in return for their services(which helped Mr. Gableman stay on the Supreme Court) he then voted their way in the numerous cases they tried in front of him. Mr. Gableman also forgot to mention the minor detail to his colleagues or anyone else that he owed MB&F to the tunes of approximately over $100,000 in services. I am not going to re-invent the wheel here in terms of reporting on this, it has already been done so magnificently in many places, I just wanted to bring some of them together:

1. The Journal Sentinel that broke the story has not stopped. Here they discuss the value of the legal services that he received for free, with every legal scholar in the country weighing in about the ethics violation while his current attorney(that he might actually be paying) saying “move along, nothing to see here”.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University Law School professor who specializes in legal ethics, took issue with that characterization.

“Under no circumstances, win, lose, or draw, would Gableman ever have to pay a nickel for the services, regardless of their value and putting aside disbursements,” Gillers wrote in an email. “That’s the very meaning of ‘free.’

“When a client gets representation and will never have to pay for it no matter what happens in the case, the client got free services. Any other characterization of the arrangement is wrong.”

Gillers said the agreement obligated Gableman to recuse himself from cases where Michael Best represented a client before the Supreme Court. Gableman has participated in all cases involving Michael Best but one. In the case where Gableman recused himself, Michael Best itself had been sued.

Gillers said he did not believe the fee arrangement in and of itself was improper. But Monroe Freedman, a professor at Hofstra Law School in New York, said it was.

“The judge is not permitted to accept something of value where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” Freedman said.

2. Here Dave Zweifel of the Cap Times says that if Gableman had any scruples, he'd resign:

It’s one thing to be an ideologue, as Gableman is, but it’s quite another to ignore any semblance of ethics in carrying out the duties he’s supposed to perform on the court. There are ethical guidelines, after all, that clearly state that judges can’t accept gifts from those likely to appear before them.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised by all this chicanery since Gableman’s 2008 campaign consisted of blatantly untruthful ads, painting his opponent, Justice Louis Butler, as someone who found loopholes to get a criminal released when Butler had done nothing of the sort. But when he was brought before the court on accusations that he violated judicial ethics by running those ads, Michael Best & Friedrich attorney Eric McLeod succeeded in getting a 3-3 deadlock on the court, effectively letting Gableman off the hook. Little did anyone know at the time that the law firm wasn’t charging for Gableman’s defense, except for some out-of-pocket expenses. (The law firm contends this was all OK because had Gableman been awarded legal fees in the case — which he was not — it would have been paid.)

3. Our friend the ILLY-T is doing great work covering Mike "Peppercorn" Gableman

$100K+ in never-invoiced legal services over nearly two years of representation of Supreme Court judge “not free,” insists latest high priced GOP attorney

Surely the indictment of a judge’s impartiality, and a man’s professional integrity, must be justified by something more than that he voted slightly higher than 50-50.

Haha.

Believe it or not, Mr. Dinh is referring to Mike Gableman. Either Mr. Dinh has no sense of irony whatsoever or knows little of his new client, who showed that professional integrity is a legal fiction.

4. Bill Leuders from Wisconsin Watch says that Gableman did not act alone, that his attorney, Eric McLeod, also lied and had a gazillion ethics violations himself.

But, as the saying goes, it takes two to tango. If Gableman’s receipt of legal services from Michael Best violated state ethics rules, what can be said about Eric McLeod, the Michael Best lawyer who entered into this agreement?

Plenty, as it turns out.

Monroe Freedman, a nationally recognized expert on legal ethics at Hofstra Law School in New York, says in an interview that he believes McLeod is in violation of an ethics rule against “knowingly assist(ing) a judge or judicial officer” in improper conduct. He also feels the attorney may have run afoul of the rule requiring competent representation.

In addition, Freedman suggests that McLeod violated the rule against attorneys engaging in “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

According to a Nov. 28 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article by veteran reporter Patrick Marley, “McLeod said Gableman had a standard billing agreement with the law firm and has paid that bill.” Michael Best general counsel Jonathan Margolies subsequently wrote the court to set the record straight — that, aside from Gableman’s paying for out-of-pocket legal costs, “no bill for attorneys’ fees was sent and none were paid.”

Freedman calls McLeod’s initial statement, if accurately reported, “at best misrepresentation and therefore a serious violation.”

Some random thoughts and questions:

I am not a lawyer but I am curious is it common that judges have to have so many lawyers at their disposal all the time?

If Gableman and Prosser were both actually paying their attorneys(disc: I am not saying that Prosser did not pay his attorney’s just that the two of them seem to need attorneys an awful lot) we might see the economic recession in WI start to turn around. Let’s hope they vacation in WI!

Justice’s Prosser and Gableman sure seem to have alot in common, they must be good friends.

If well known legal mind Ron Johnson does not like Louis Butler, he must despise Michael Gableman!

Why would a firm as well known as Michael Best & Friedrich, want to sully their name and reputation by engaging in such unethical activities. I get that its nice to have a vote in hand when trying to get a majority of 7 justices, but if they had watched one episode of CSI, they would know that the truth always comes out. Now they are stuck dealing with the aftermath.

I wonder if Gableman is upset that the rights premiere fiction writer, Christian Schneider has not written a fluff piece to try and save his career.

Stay tuned, I have a feeling that this will not go away for a while!

With a Nod and a Wink Was the Judiciary Corrupted

Phil Scarr — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 13:49:29 +0000

The money corrupting our political system is bleeding over into our elected judiciary.

According to a story this morning in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman

received free legal service worth thousands of dollars from one of Wisconsin’s largest law firms as it defended him against an ethics charge, according to a letter released Thursday by the firm.

Got that? A Wisconsin State Supreme Court justice received pro bono legal services from a major GOP law firm (Michael Best) to defend him against ethics charges. Wow… Thousands of dollars in free legal services, certainly something of value, to defend him against charges he behaved unethically. And now he hears lawyers from Michael Best in court and doesn’t recuse himself. Michael Best bought themselves a Supreme Court Justice.

Stephen Gillers, a New York University Law School professor who specializes in legal ethics, said last month that he believed Gableman could hear cases involving Michael Best because the firm no longer represents him. But on Thursday he said he based that view on the understanding that Gableman had paid for the legal work. After reviewing the letter from Margolies, he said he now believed Gableman may be barred permanently from hearing cases involving Michael Best.

“Thanks to the firm, Gableman was in a position of ‘no financial exposure’ (putting aside disbursements) because of the willingness of the firm to go unpaid for its time . . . if it could not secure any (or its full) compensation under the statute,” he wrote in an email.

“The firm conferred a significant benefit on Gableman, namely representation free to him. I don’t know how much work was required in the firm’s representation, but I assume it was substantial since it involved a proceeding before the state Supreme Court.

“In my view the ‘no financial exposure’ benefit the firm gave Gableman requires him to recuse himself indefinitely from cases the firm brings to the court.“

Will Justice Gableman recuse himself when Michael Best comes before the high court? Unlikely. That would be violating the agreement Gableman made with Michael Best when Michael Best “comp’d” Gableman free legal services. And Michael Best always get’s what they pay for.

WI Supreme Court Justice Gableman Caught in an Amatuerish Lie

Steven Reynolds — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:10:55 +0000

As a sideshow concerning the longrunning soap opera that surrounds Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, this time concerning his attack on fellow Justice Ann Bradley, his good buddy on the court Justice Michael Gableman, evidently told investigators that Justice Bradley had been violent previously. Here’s the relevant paragraph from Deputy Hansen’s report (my bolding):

Justice Gableman said at this time his mind also went back to September 18, 2008, a date that he recalled because it was his birthday. Justice Gableman said he had been on the court for approximately one month at the time, and while in a meeting with the other justices, Justice Crooks was reading the horoscopes. Justice Gableman said he remembers making a comment to the chief justice in a joking manner and used her first name, Shirley, during this comment towards her. Justice Gableman said right after he said the chief justice’s first name, Justice Bradley came over to him, hit him on the back of the head and told him that he needed to show respect to the chief. Justice Gableman said that he believed Justice Bradley was not joking because nobody was laughing at the time. Justice Gableman said he has not told anyone about that incident and has not talked about that incident with anyone, including Justice Bradley, after it happened.

Note the bold bit, that Justice Gableman said it happened on his birthday and only a month into his tenure on the court. That was surely included in his tale for verisimilitude. As reported in the Journal Sentinel and the Wisconsin State Journal, three Justices refuted Gableman’s story, including that there was no meeting that day at all (my bold added).

The three- Justice Bradley, Justice Patrick Crooks, and Chief Justice Shirley Abramson – said that they could recall no such incident and that no meeting among the justices took place on that day.

So much for verisimilitude on Gableman’s part. Now he says that the incident happened a year later, disputing his own testimony that it stuck out in his memory because it happened only a month after he joined the court. Well, why DID it stick out in his mind? Because he made it up?

David Prosser himself has made a mockery of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and now he is joined by Justice Micheal Gableman. Please note that the term “verisimilitude” stands for a literary device, where an author includes details to make fiction seem more real. That’s what Micheal Gableman did here, including that the date was his birthday, and that it was shortly after he joined the court, in order to make his telling of the incident more believable to the Deputy taking the statement. But those pieces of versisimilitude are exactly what catch Michael Gableman in his lie.

We could conclude, surely, that a man lying to an officer taking a statement does not deserve to serve on the highest court in the state, and it is clear now that Micheal Gableman lied. More importantly, perhaps, every lawyer knows that it is such detail which will be caught in a situation where a witness lies. Every lawyer knows to advise his or her clients not to embellish. It’s amatuerish. Yeah, Gableman evidently isn’t a good enough lawyer to be on the court.

I suppose I forgot to castigate reporters for not using language straight enough here. They should have called Gableman’s lie what it is. . . a lie. And they should further challenge him concerning the details he include to try and dress up his fiction. Alas, the conservative media doesn’t care for facts.

We MUST break up WMC

Jeff Simpson — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:42:40 +0000

In 2008, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC) , spent millions electing Michael Gableman to the Supreme Court. Of course, that was helped by an unethical and racist ad that Gableman ran, but he was still bought and paid for by WMC.

While the buying of judges is not unheard of, Grisham even wrote a book about it, what is alarming is what WMC used their millions on. The union of businesses, led by their union boss at the time Jim Haney, decided to take their forced dues and politically advocate for their own judge on the Supreme Court. All that while disgusting and dangerous is not the problem, what is the problem is that after searching the state the person they came up with was Michael Gableman!

In the whole David Prosser choked Justice Bradley fiasco, while the whole Supreme Court has proven to be dysfunctional no one has looked as bad or as incompetent as Michael Gableman. Not only did his story not match any of the other witnesses of either side,(he of the Justice Bradley at 5’3″ towered over David Prosser), but he also flat out lied to investigators!

During a July 5 interview about that incident, Gableman told Dane County Detectives Pete Hansen and Sabrina Sims of an alleged incident between him and Bradley. The event took place during a meeting with the other justices on Sept. 18, 2008, Gableman said, a date he said he remembers because it was his birthday and just weeks after he joined the court.

According to the sheriff’s reports, Gableman said he was in a meeting with other justices, including Justice Patrick Crooks, who he said was “reading the horoscopes.” Gableman said he made a joking comment to Abrahamson, calling her by her first name.

In response, Gableman said, “Justice Bradley came over to him, hit him on the back of the head and told him that he needed to show respect to the chief,” according to sheriff’s reports. He said he believed Bradley wasn’t being playful because no one was laughing at the time.

While this “incident” DEFINITELY happened because Gableman recalled it clearly(and Blaska says so) except the court was not in session at this time.

Asked to respond to the allegation, Bradley said in an email to the Wisconsin State Journal that “Justice Gableman recounts an event that never happened on a date that, according to my records, it could not have occurred.”

And Abrahamson said that, according to her records, “no meeting, conference or oral argument of the court occurred on September 18, 2008, or on any day that week.” Her calendar showed she had appointments outside the Capitol that day, including in Milwaukee, she said.

She said she asked Bradley and Crooks to check their records, which also show no meetings that week. And, she said, Justice Patience Roggensack earlier requested that the court not schedule anything between Sept. 15 and Sept. 29 that year.

OOPS. Wait there is more. Justice Gableman changed his story(that he was sure of) but this time he isn’t so sure. Illusory Tenant has more on the \"Gableman Switcheroo\". (warning do not read this post and then operate heavy machinery, the Gableman spin and quick changes could make you dizzy)!

So here we have the business union(WMC) and their boss Jim Haney spending millions of dollars in dues and thousands of hours lobbying to influence legislation in our great state and what they decide to purchase is an ethically challenged, lying, lightweight Justice? If this is how they spend their money, they obviously can not be trusted with anymore.

It is time to disband WMC, our state is broke and we can not afford such incompetence anymore!

Vindication?

Jeff Simpson — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 12:19:02 +0000

Justice David Prosser, through official marionette, Brian Schimming, had this to say”“I was confident the truth would come out – and it did. I am gratified that the prosecutor founds these scurrilous charges were without merit.” (why a GOP operative is the spokesman for a non partisan Judge who continually says he is neutral is another story).

Well the truth DID come out and it is not pretty. Justice Prosser himself admitted to grabbing Justice Bradley by the neck.

Sign the Petition to stand with Justice Bradley!

“It was a total reflex,” said Prosser, who recalled feeling the warmth in Bradley’s neck. He said his first thought was, “Oh my god, I’m touching her neck,” later adding, “What does any self-respecting man do when suddenly that man finds that his hands, or part of his hands, are on a woman’s neck? Get them off the neck as soon as possible.”

(I personally think the answer to Justice Prosser’s question is any “self-respecting man” would NOT HAVE HIS HANDS on a woman’s neck, but I digress.)

Completely impartial Justice Prosser, a member of the “independent” third branch of government, let it be known that what upset him the most was that the decision would not be ready in the time frame that the Fitzgerald Brothers wanted it.

In an interview with investigators, Prosser said Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, had put the court in an awkward position by saying justices needed to act by June 14 or lawmakers would have to vote on the collective bargaining law all over again.

Referring to Abrahamson’s statement that the court’s decision might not be issued until June 15, Prosser, a former Republican Assembly speaker, told investigators: “Now that’s the day after the Assembly would have to vote on this all over again. I’ve been here before. I’ve seen these tactics before.”

For weeks after Walker introduced the measure in February, protesters swarmed the Capitol and Democratic senators fled the state to delay a vote on it. Republicans were loath to take up the measure again.

While none of the Justices were pushing for prosecution, they all(with the exception of Gableman) let let slip how they really feel about Justice David Prosser.

In interviews with sheriff’s detectives, members of the state Supreme Court painted a picture of Justice David Prosser as a sometimes hot-headed colleague who called other justices names and at times made them fear for their safety.

Prosser “loses his cool repeatedly,” Justice Patrick Crooks told Dane County Sheriff Office investigators

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson described Prosser’s past behavior as “temper tantrums” and “disruptive at times,” although the June 13 incident was the first time she said she had seen any physical confrontation between Prosser and another justice. “You never know what’s going to set him off,” she said.

Also in a rare case of bipartisanship on the court, Justice Bradley joined with fellow Justices Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler in saying that Prosser needed counseling.

The court’s head of Human Resources also weighed in:

Following the incident, Margaret Brady, the court’s human resource officer, told investigators she felt Bradley should pursue a restraining order against Prosser so the behavior did not continue. Brady also told Bradley the June 13 incident resembled domestic violence and should be reported to police.

So the truth has come out, irregardless of criminal charges, Justice Prosser did choke his fellow Justice. Also while being interviewed regarding this case all of his co-workers (minus one) let it be known that he can come unhinged and desperately needs help. That is what a Justice of the Supreme Court and the republican party of Wisconsin calls “being cleared”? I guess we have different definitions of that. So does the Wisconsin Judicial Code of Conduct.

SCR 60.02 A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct and shall personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved. This chapter applies to every aspect of judicial behavior except purely legal decisions. Legal decisions made in the course of judicial duty on the record are subject solely to judicial review.

Comment

Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this chapter. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this chapter diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.

Does anyone really think that Justice Prosser has acted “with integrity” or impartiality? Has Justice Prosser “participated in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct”?

One final not to this story. While 5 people on the court had similar stories and all agreed that Justice Prosser has an uncontrollable temper and needs help, there was one dissenting opinion (Justice Michael Gableman).

“[Gableman] described Bradley as being a little bit taller than Prosser and compared Bradley’s stance with Prosser to a famous photo of then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson leaning over a shorted [sic], cowed senator. According to the records, however, Prosser is 5-feet-9-inches tall and weighs 165 pounds. Bradley is 5-feet-3-inches and weighs 131 pounds.”

Witness credibility issues?

Gableman also claimed that Prosser never came in contact with Bradley’s neck despite Prosser’s admission that he had both hands on Bradley’s neck and “felt its heat.” Despite this, Gableman could confidently tell Justice Bradley, “You were not choked.” Why should we believe him?

Mike Gableman has lied before. Just ask the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, whose investigation into this altercation is ongoing, despite Justice Prosser’s 48-point bold triumphalist WISGOP press release.(H/T Illusory Tenant).

Despite a near unanimous opinion of Prossers temper, Gableman also was a dissenting opinion stating that the only time he ever sees Justice Prosser get angry or upset is when “somebody is “going to get the shaft”.

The Rise and Fall of David Prosser

Jeff Simpson — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:24:14 +0000

Much has been written here and elsewhere about how about Scott Walker and Scooter Jensen’s favorite judge: David Prosser. Since there is always new and exciting information coming through, here are some new(and old/uncovered) Prosser stories.

1. Here is a history of one of David Prosser’s more extreme positions from Jud @ Uppity WI.

Prosser, of course, spent many years in the Wisconsin assembly as a far-rightwing Republican and in 1981 successfully fought back an effort to kill an old law that was still on the books that made sex illegal for everyone except married couples.

This is from a AP article in 1981:

The law says anyone having sexual intercourse with a person other than his or her spouse is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. It carries a maximum penalty of nine months in jail, or a $10,000 fine, or both.

The funny thing was that the bill would have still made it illegal for MARRIED persons to have sex with anyone other than their spouse, thereby, making adultery still illegal. But that wasn’t enough for puritanical Prosser, who led the opposition to those trying to kill the bill.

2. A couple more from Uppity WI, he has hitched his re-election wagon not only to Scooter Jensen, but also Michael Gableman and Dan Kapanke. A quick side not on Kapanke: Expect the recall petition to be filed today on Senator Kapanke! Congratulations to the tireless workers of the recall efforts there. Well done! One down/seven to go!

3. The Green Bay Press Gazette endorses Kloppenburg:

Further, Kloppenburg strikes us as the more levelheaded candidate, and frankly we have been troubled by some of Prosser’s statements throughout the campaign. During a meeting with the Press-Gazette editorial board, Prosser said repeatedly the Impartial Justice Act, which provides public funding for state Supreme Court candidates, was designed to oust him from office. At one point, he went so far as to call it “a law designed to get Dave Prosser,” and said he had “a target on my back.” His insistence that this is the case is unsettling.

4. Sarah Palin proudly endorses David Prosser. Still waiting to hear who Brittney Spears and Lindsey Lohan endorse in this race. We will bring them to you as soon as they are available!

6. Finally, and this is a big one, Governor Patrick Lucey, David Prosser’s co-chair, stepped down and endorsed JoAnne Kloppenburg.

“I can no longer in good conscience lend my name and support to Justice Prosser’s candidacy. Too much has come to light that Justice Prosser has lost that most crucial of characteristics for a Supreme Court Justice – as for any judge – even-handed impartiality. Along with that failing has come a disturbing distemper and lack of civility that does not bode well for the High Court in the face of demands that are sure to be placed on it in these times of great political and legal volatility.

“At the very same time that my confidence in Justice Prosser has waned, I admire and have continued to be impressed with Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg. She has adhered throughout the campaign to even-handedness and non-partisanship and has exhibited both promising judicial temperament and good grace even in the heat of a fierce campaign.

“For these reasons I have today resigned as Honorary Co-Chairman of Justice Prosser’s campaign, and I endorse Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg for the Wisconsin Supreme Court on April 5, 2011.”

Vote JoAnne Kloppenburg for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice April 5th!

The cruel and unusual candidacy of David Prosser

Jeff Simpson — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:36:26 +0000

I wanted to expand on Zach\'s post pointing out that Prosser’s home town paper reversed their endorsement of him.
For one because I wanted to use this title for a story on him and secondly, because the incompetence of Prosser can not be stressed enough! After the Appleton Post Crescent endorsed JoAnne Kloppenburg for WI Supreme Court(vote April 5th), The Wausau Daily Herald followed suit.

Lastly, we are troubled by Prosser’s decision last year to vote in favor of an ethics rule, written by the Wisconsin Realtors Association, which stated that justices need not recuse themselves from cases involving campaign donors, no matter how large the contribution. For the judiciary to have credibility with the public, there must be some sort of recusal standard in place — sometimes the appearance of a conflict of interest can be as damaging to the court as an actual conflict.

Maybe after seeing this \"love fest\" of praise from Michael Gableman. We learned that Prosser should have recused himself from the Gableman case. Also one of the reasons he was so crazed in attacking Justice Abrahamson, was because she was speaking bad of Prosser’s “Good friend” (an alleged rumor discussed below)Mike Gableman(Like my wife and I, many happy couples like to shop together at Whole Foods in Madison, WI).

Another thing that is lost in the whole David Prosser is a bitter partisan debate, is his support for convicted felon Scooter Jensen:

But here’s something else that might have been missed amid Wisconsin’s recent political ugliness. In 2006, Prosser said that while he was a legislative leader, staffers who worked under his direction did campaign work. He also acknowledged that in his interview with The P-C on March 18.

Here’s a member of the highest court in Wisconsin, whose judges are expected to possess unimpeachable integrity, admitting he condoned illegal activity as an elected official.

In a brief filed by the attorney of former state Rep. Scott Jensen, a Prosser protege who was charged with three felony counts of misconduct in office (in a December 2010 plea deal, Jensen pleaded no-contest to a misdemeanor charge), Prosser said he basically did the same thing that caused Jensen to be charged.

In the brief, after outlining how his leadership role involved getting more Republicans elected to the Assembly, Prosser said:

“During my term as a legislator and as a speaker, there were caucus members and caucus directors who participated in activities including but not limited to the following: Campaign and political meetings in the Capitol office; assisting the speaker and the elected leadership by recruiting candidates; gathering voting lists and target lists; setting up, attending and staffing fundraisers; and assisting legislators in creating and implementing office plans.”

Prosser’s statement was presented in Jensen’s defense. He’s saying, as others said, that’s the way business is done in Madison. That’s what Jensen’s job was about, too.

It’s illegal. It was illegal when Prosser was in charge and it was illegal when Jensen was in charge.

In his statement, Prosser saw it differently. He said, “Every activity that could be characterized as a campaign activity can be conceivably construed to be an act that furthers the legislative process.”

So, campaigns and legislative work are so intertwined that it’s all part of the same process.

As a taxpayer, what do you think? Should your tax dollars, which were used to fund the caucuses until they were disbanded in the wake of a scandal, have gone toward campaigning?

Only someone who works — or worked — in the Capitol would think taxpayers would go for that.

Again, it was against the law. You’d think Prosser would acknowledge that, even if he didn’t agree. But he told The P-C that “it was a different era and public expectations were quite different.”

Prosser said that the law “had never been interpreted that way.”

So, what do we do? Let bygones be bygones?

We can’t.

Neither can I!