Professor Esenberg Channels Emily Litella

In one of the longer posts I’ve read from Esenberg  in some time, the overly earnest law prof goes to great lengths to express his concerns over the Walker recall signature gathering process. Of particular interest to the prof is the possibility of duplicate signatures and bogus names.

After thirteen detailed paragraphs in which the Shark/Shepherd keeps us on the edge of our seats while his ironclad arguments march toward their thunderous and, no doubt, devastating conclusions he suddenly declares!!!!!!!……….. ”  Having said this, I don’t think it is likely that duplicate or dubious signatures will bring the validity of the recall petitions into question.”  Huh? Then what was all the fuss about in the first place?

Maybe he’s Emily Litella’s nephew?


Related Articles

11 thoughts on “Professor Esenberg Channels Emily Litella

  1. I keep reading about this person who signed recall petitions 80 times. I must have missed the original story or don’t I read the right blogs?

    1. Bill,

      I think the most remarkable thing about the story you reference is that a man confessed to a felony on videotape and the reporter never even asked his name.

      No Pulitzer this year!

  2. You should quote all of what I said:

    Having said this, I don’t think it is likely that duplicate or dubious signatures will bring the validity of the recall petitions into question. My guess is that the likelihood of this being determinative is small, but that doesn’t mean that there is nothing to worry about. We are contemplating the validity of an effort to overturn the 2010 gubernatorial election. That this process not be tainted by concerns about fraud and uncertainty regarding the validity of recall petitions is critical.

    Much of what we do in the world has to do with managing risk. I don’t think that the question of whether the target will be met will turn on this, but it might. We won’t know until the process plays itself out. But the risk – and the consequences – makes this worth worrying about.

    Still its nice to see that somebody remembers Emily Litella.

    Bill H.

    Follow the link in my blog. WISN interviewed the guy,

    1. I watched the interview from WISN. Really reliable reporting. What is the man’s name etc. This is being repeated continuously as some great conspiracy? Really? If anyone is worried about it why don’t they contact WISN to get information. He must have signed a release with his name and address.

      1. Bill,

        You sound a little paranoid.

        All I did was note that a man ostensibly confessed to a felony on camera and the reporter didn’t ask him his name.

        I should think the Right would want the recall effort fraudster prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

        Hell, I’ll file a complaint right now. The Sheiffs office in Milwaukee should investigate immediately! Track that guy down and question him!

        1. I was only pointing out how ridiculous this is. If people are going to keep citing this quote, then they should find out the facts and not keeping repeating this crap.

  3. Prof Rick,

    Let’s reference you a bit further then.

    5,000 people signing 25 times? That’s a sobering thought? Doesn’t even sound like a sober thought.

    There must be a probability expert there at Marquette. What’s the likelihood of that happening?

    1. Prof Rick,

      Y’know, I’m starting to see things your way! I got my mind right!

      Sure, sure…. the Dems and unions organize a secret plan to get 5,000 people to each sign 25 times, ( because that’s what your probability expert, or even the guy at the end of the bar, would tell you is probably the only way such a thing could even remotely happen ) because they want to recall Walker so much they’re willing to commit massive fraud on an unprecedented scale certain that they can execute the whole thing undetected.


      The only thing I don’t get yet is where the crop circles come in?

      1. The crop circles are made by black helicopters, Steve. Aren’t you glad I solved your problem?

  4. Prof Rick,

    Kevin Kennedy from the GAB says that of the 215,000 signatures reviewed during the 2011 recalls, only a handful were successfully challenged on the basis of fictitious names or deceased individuals.

    What’s a handful? 10? 20? Let’s say 25 is a handful.

    If the recall Walker movement gets 860,000 signatures that’s four times the number obtained during the 2011 recalls. So it’s not unreasonable to suggest we might have 100 or so bad signatures.

    You were speculating about 120,000 bad signatures. Who worked with you on that figure, Mike Huebsch?

  5. It’s like a hidden Mickey at Disneyworld. It’s Prof. Shh ‘n Shh’s Standard Contradictory Disclaimer™. He puts one in every blog post, just so when he’s proven wrong later, he can later to point to it to show he was actually correct.

Comments are closed.