The judicial commission is separately investigating the case for violations of the state's code of ethics for judges. That code says that a judge "shall avoid impropriety" and "shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."Clearly, leaking the story — and leaking it in a deceptive form — was a decision to diminish public confidence in the court. (You might want to question whether the code should say that: What if the court doesn't deserve public confidence in its integrity and impartiality? Are the judges compelled to keep quiet about it?)
If the judicial commission found any wrongdoing, the case would go first to a three-judge panel and then to the Supreme Court to consider.... If the Supreme Court finds misconduct in a judicial ethics case, it can reprimand, censure, suspend or remove a judge.So, wouldn't Prosser and Bradley recuse themselves? That would leave a 3-2 conservative majority on the court. If the commission found wrongdoing by both Bradley and Prosser, then that majority could attempt to display neutrality by voting to remove both justices. I'm partly serious, but mainly being amusing. You do see what is amusing about portraying that as neutral-looking. Governor Scott Walker would have the power to make 2 appointments. From a political perspective, losing Prosser would put conservatives in a better position. They'd have a new justice, without the baggage, and he/she would be smart, strong, and relatively young. And, of course, Bradley would be replaced by a smart, strong, relatively young justice too. Both new justices would naturally be principled conservatives with excellent credentials.
But they aren't going to be removed. I predict a reprimand or at most censure. Still, I must say, that if the tables were turned and the liberal justice had done what Prosser did and the conservative justice had done what Bradley did, there would be cries for removing the justice who did what Bradley did. Look at the investigative file. Picture the Wisconsin protesters picking through that in search of material to make the strongest case against the justice who did what Bradley did. And if the Democratic party controlled the legislature? The protesters would be screaming for impeachment.
But the conservatives are mostly giving Bradley a pass. As long as Prosser's going to be okay, let's just forget about it. That means it paid off to frame a completely unfair charge against Prosser and demonize him in the press, which is exactly what damaged public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Who did that? Who leaked the story to the politically partisan journalist, Bill Lueders? Surely, the judicial commission is going to tell us. It may not have been relevant to the question whether there should be a criminal prosecution — which would explain why the police investigative file doesn't tell us. But it's obviously central to the inquiry into judicial ethics.
Posts
189 comments:
Everything now comes down to what side are you on. Either you're a communist dirtbag with no principles or else you're a normal person bravely struggling to maintain law and order. Not that I have a side or anything.
It will be interesting to read if the Commission, like the press, produces a misleading narrative - that is, a narrative that does not fairly represent the testimony of the eyewitnesses.
Only one of the justices initiated an act of physical intimidation; and that judge admits doing so.
Ethics is a mighty broad charge to make, kind of like a Conduct Unbecoming a Justice charge.
They need to issue a public finding of the facts and then send every one away with a warning to behave better.
That leaves it to the voters.
It is not a matter of sides, it is a matter of what is a "charge" and what is a "choke hold" and are these the sorts of behaviors a Justice should engage in? Justice Roggensack describes Bradley as "walking with rapiditiy" towards Prosser, and that Prosser's " thumbs were in contact with the front of her neck" but that he did not choke her, or at least see didn't see that before she stepped between the two. Just based on her description both seem at fault.
I agree that the mystery of the situation remains unsolved until Shirley the judicial commission tells us who leaked the story in a deceptive form to politically partisan journalist, Bill Lueders.
"there would be cries for removing the justice who did what Bradley did."
Well, we've seen video of him angrily rushing toward someone w/ his fist raised.
So...try again.
But the Meadehouse are mostly giving the vuvuzuelites a pass. As long as Ann's going to be okay, let's just forget about it. That means it paid off to frame a completely unfair charge against Chris and demonize Meadehouse in the public square, which is exactly what damaged public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the fat cops.
FIFY
-- Just based on her description both seem at fault. --
Logic fail.
But for Bradley leaving her desk and working an act of physical intimidation, none of this would happen.
Bradley is 100% at fault for what resulting from her voluntary and deliberate act. The consequence of experiencing a shove off or other defensive maneuver is totally foreseeable.
None of the justices, including Bradley, state any pressure on Bradley's neck.
cboldt,
'both should go'
like the Black Knight offering a draw after Graham Chapman chops off his arms and legs...
Who leaked the story to the politically partisan journalist, Bill Lueders?
I know you just pointed this out below, but it bears repeating.
Justice Bradley promised to go outside the Court for satisfaction: "If I cannot get any assurance from you, the court, that this problem is going to be addressed, then I will go to the outside and take other means."
Someone went outside. Someone took other means. She promised to do both. That's not enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's pretty damning.
So anyone know or care who leaked their version to the MJS? Only one leak is troubling.
No? Didn't think so.
"Just based on her description both seem at fault."
Why? If you defend yourself from an attack, you can't be expected to plan it out carefully. We're talking about an old man rather than a fighter.
Of course I agree with you that Bradley acted wrongly. that's obvious. Charging someone violently is wrong.
I just don't understand why defending yourself with minimal force is faulty. I think that's absurd.
But moreover, Bradley's conduct subsequent to her attack is also terrible. It's as though the idea of respecting the courts has never occurred to her. She's unfit. Prosser seems fine to me, though clearly the corrupt and dishonest and violent find him abhorrent.
" So anyone know or care who leaked their version to the MJS? Only one leak is troubling.
"
You're rambling and hard to understand.
If you're asking why a leaked lie is much worse than the leaked truth, I don't know how to explain that to you. You are suffering from a severe malfunction.
Well, we see this all the time. Liberals see an advantage they push it. If they lose, they come back tomorrow fighting. If a Republican screws up, they never stop mentioning it.
Remember Nixon? From the day he left office till the day he died, the MSM never mentioned his name WITHOUT saying he was "disgraced" "a crook" etc.
OTOH, who the hell even remembers that Clinton lied under oath, or was impeached? Or the Rich pardon? Even conservatives never mention it.
And after Tawnah Brawley, Al Sharpton should have been driven from public life, but here he is, and its like it never happened.
Liberals love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Liberals play to win all the time. Liberals wouldn't give a hoot in a hell for a Liberal politician who lost and laughed.
And that's why social liberals - at least - have gone from one victory to to another over the last 40 years.
First of all, the only way the judiciary committee heard about this particular case ... is either through Justice Prosser. Or it was their own reactions to the LEAK.
IF the problem resides with the Chief Justice ... then the rules go haywire.
Which would always be the case with elected officials.
Except, of course, that through leaking Nixon had to resign.
I'm not so sure the judiciary committee is limited to "looking in the mirror." Or worrying "IF" the leaking business doesn't just need a "plumber."
But of course, when Nixon resigned "all the plumbers had to go."
Maybe, on the other hand? Somebody gave Surly Shirley a glue gun. So she can temporarily fix the cracks in her grandmother's mask. (It works like wrinkle cream.)
How come nobody sez: Ann Walsh-Bradley's gotta go? Are people just waiting for Mark to divorce her, first?
How come Justice David Prosser went there? How did he compose his paperwork?
We already know about Bradley's "script." And, we also know it didn't take wings ... and fly ... like she did.
How come the story's still alive?
How come Ann Bradley-Walsh is so quiet?
How come no one's seen her flying about? Looking for the media. Spouting off to TV cameras. No "Hey, Buddy" series, either.
What would her being so quiet mean?
Is she unconscious? Did she fall down and can't get up?
Did Crooks go home?
What does it say in the horoscopes.
Althouse wrote:
[T]he conservatives are mostly giving Bradley a pass.
Not a pass exactly, conservatives want Bradley retained as a example of what passes for judicial temperament on the Left.
wv: ingliati - If this isn't a cool Italian word for some characteristic of English literary idiom or expression it ought to be
-- First of all, the only way the judiciary committee heard about this particular case ... is either through Justice Prosser. Or it was their own reactions to the LEAK. --
It couldn't have been from the misleading narrative that Leuders published. The Commission had the case before that story came out.
Bradley testified that she learned, sometime on or before June 20, that the Commission had the case. She also said she did not contact the Commission, because she knew it already had the case. She claims she does not recall who told her the Commission had the case, but I do not believe that testimony. I think the Commission gave Abrahamson a heads up, and Abrahamson told Bradley.
I suspect that this knwoledge was a factor in deciding to leak a misleading narrative, so the lie could go around the world before the truth laced its shoes.
Well, we've seen video of him angrily rushing toward someone w/ his fist raised.
I'll bite.
Where did you see this?
"It is not a matter of sides, it is a matter of what is a "charge" and what is a "choke hold" and are these the sorts of behaviors a Justice should engage in? Justice Roggensack describes Bradley as "walking with rapiditiy" towards Prosser, and that Prosser's " thumbs were in contact with the front of her neck" but that he did not choke her, or at least see didn't see that before she stepped between the two. Just based on her description both seem at fault."
There are many more issues. Who was the first physical aggressor, for example in the incident on June 13th.
But there are other stages of the events that are relevant. The meeting among the justices on June 15th at which Bradley made a carefully prepared speech -- we have the text -- in which she threatened to take "other means" if the court did not accept her framing of the problem as entirely Prosser's fault.
There is the stage at which a decision was made -- by whom? -- to go to the politically partisan journalist with a story and to tell it -- or did he pare it down -- out of context so that readers didn't know that Bradley was the first physical aggressor.
It's an unfolding series of events once we begin to think of it in terms of judicial ethics as opposed to prosecutable crimes.
Liberals play to win all the time.
See I think calling on the National Guard to enforce a new policy "playing to win". Can you imagine the absolute freak out if Obama announced the same thing?
Not to mention all the shit like this
Republican state Sen. Dale Schultz said this week he was "decoyed" on Feb. 17 by Gov. Scott Walker into missing a key chance on the Senate floor to put in play a compromise on Walker's plan to eliminate most union bargaining for public employees.
Here's a novelty.
The Judiciary Committee finds that it was outrageous of Ann Walsh-Bradley to demand Justice Prosser leave her outer office ... when he was there with 3 other justices ... on court business.
Wouldn't that solve the problem?
She's not only the aggressor. She was well aware that information TO the public had gone unpublished. And, was being hidden.
The "choke hold" crap is just ancillary.
How can a court function IF it doesn't publish its opinions ... the way the Chief had promised?
What about her "delay" in "doing" her dissent? How long was she going to sit on it?
Oh, horoscopes aren't involved in finding your answer.
I'll go ahead and bet "Bradley suffers." She lost the game. If she doesn't? Then the game is fixed. It's a win-win for the public.
You know what else I think? Part of Ann Walsh-Bradley rage that seemed to have lasted past the point where "dropping it" would have been better ... Was her learning that Justice Prosser filed "a big one" with the Judiciary committee. She got provoked. Which made her crazier.
"Well, we've seen video of him angrily rushing toward someone w/ his fist raised. So...try again."
That supports my point! The pro-Kloppenburg people used that to the extreme that they could in trying to defeat him in the election. That was video of him emoting in the legislature, I believe, taken entirely out of context. Now, my point is, let's say everything the report says Bradley did, was done by Prosser. Think about how the liberals and lefties of Wisconsin would present that material and what they would demand? If they also had control of the legislature, would they hold heated rallies demanding his impeachment? Absolutely! The mildness of the Republicans, by contrast, is clear.
The issue I see from afar (and distance does not always help you see things clearly) is that you've got a Chief Justice who let things get out of hand. This thing should have been buried 5 miles deep the instant it happened. Prosser may have called Bradley a "bitch" at some time in the past. Bradley acted as a hysterical "bitch" after the altercation.
If the Chief Justice could not see that letting this thing go public would redound to no one's credit, she's too danged dumb to be a state Chief Justice.
Remember Nixon? From the day he left office till the day he died, the MSM never mentioned his name WITHOUT saying he was "disgraced" "a crook" etc.
He WAS a crook and a disgrace. No scare quotes needed. In no way was he wronged. Rather the opposite.
Bush 43 might be a better example of an undeservedly maligned former President. A bit more historical perspective will help decide that issue.
Not so for Nixon. We've got him dead to rights, and he deserves all the opprobrium he receives, and them some.
"So anyone know or care who leaked their version to the MJS? Only one leak is troubling."
Are you saying once the initial, incomplete version of the story came out that everyone who knew there was more too it had an ethical responsibility to keep quiet, that for these 2 1/2 months the original Lueders story should have been the only version out there? You're troubled that the demon Prosser story got put in some context? Explain.
-- Who was the first physical aggressor, for example in the incident on June 13th. --
I'd be careful with that sort of phrasing, because it will be used to imply that Prosser was a second aggressor.
In physical assault, self-defense cases, there is ONE aggressor. A person using force in self defense is justified in doing so.
Here is the link to Prosser getting up into Tim Carpenter's face in the Assembly. And here is the link Prosser grabbing a microphone from a reporter. Is Bradly or Abrahamson to blame for those two episodes?
Nothing's going to happen here, is it? The commission will issue a slap on the wrist to both Prosser and Bradley for not playing nicey-nice. The issue of who leaked the story to Lueders will not be addressed. Abrahamson won't be reprimanded for letting this fiasco develop under her watch. We won't learn anything and the court will go being just as fucked up as it is now, if not more so.
That's how I see it playing out, anyway. Any experts in Wisconsin judicial politics see it differently?
Nixon was assassinated by the press! They are pros at it!
The issue really had to do with Nixon getting re-elected. And, then Mark Felt, #2 guy at the FBI ... leaking information to the Washington Post. And, other than being called "DEEP THROAT" ... lived an anonymous life for a very long time!
Here, in a similar vein, you're dealing with the same sort of issue. What do you do with people who can be judged "very bad" ... who've been elected to office.
Go look at the Constitution.
Yes. Campaigns are DIRTY! Americans are trained, and used to seeing mud fly.
AFTER being elected to office ... we're supposed to see people GOVERN. Or in the case of judges, they're supposed to act with "prudence." Prudence is not somebody they can screw.
Of course, it's Wisconsin! Famed for their cheese. And, their recall elections.
But in real life ... how do you cure the problems "grandma's" created over all these years?
By the way, "language" is the nature of court business. You can't take people elected to office, and throw them out of work, because the media hears of words ... "they don't like."
Those words are not the same as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater!
Meanwhile, I've placed my bet.
I'm betting Ann Walsh-Bradley will have been found to be at fault.
Grandma? She's got a "public persona." And, she's used a glue gun to fix the mask that fell off. She's not gonna take it off, now, however.
Sugar's gonna melt in surley Shirley's mouth. She's going to take what the Judiciary Committee recommends "very seriously." She will hold a meeting. "In conference."
I'll also guess she regrets accepting Ann Walsh-Bradley's resignation ... which will be done as a "peace offering." With feathers on top.
The makeup of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission is interesting.
"The Commission has nine members, including one court of appeals judge, one circuit court judge, and two attorneys, all appointed by the Supreme Court; and five non-lawyer members appointed by the governor with Senate confirmation."
I can see the SC appointees either finding no call for action, or attempting to lay blame equally. But the governor-appointed members may be willing to justify a defensive reaction and find Bradley to be at fault - on more than one basis:
initiating an act of physical intimidation toward a fellow justice
promulgating a misleading narrative to the press
promulgating a misleading narrative to investigators
You're troubled that the demon Prosser story got put in some context? Explain.
I was never troubled by Team Prosser leaking their version. I'm saying *you* seem to be troubled by a leaks, but only certain leaks. So sometimes leaks are necessary. Predictably, you have no problem with a leak that helps the Republican narrative.
Gee "Lance the liberal", thanks my making my point. Keep that Nixon hate going. You guys never learn - and never forget.
Contrast "Lance" with your typical 'conservative' who can barely bestir himself to mention what a disgrace Clinton.
Its the difference between victory and defeat.
"Surely, the judicial commission is going to tell us."
Did the journalist tell the commission who his leak was?
If not, not sure how the judicial commission would have that information. Journalists don't like to reveal their leaks.
Carol-Herman could not be more on the money.
Except, as fate is going to have it, Justice Bradley will not resign. Not in the cards. I mean, the stars.
Remember - who is the keeper of charts?
Who reads them their daily horoscopes?
That's right.
Crooks!
"If the Chief Justice could not see that letting this thing go public would redound to no one's credit, she's too danged dumb to be a state Chief Justice."
I don't think the Chief Justice did anything wrong. She and Prosser were having a heated discussion about some important and very tense judicial business. They were in the judicial zone (even if it was emotive). They needed to talk through the problem. Bradley, who had been reading on her computer and not participating in that discussion, suddenly transformed it into an angry and physical confrontation. She meant to take control of the situation and to break up the conversation between Prosser and the Chief. The Chief, it should be noted, continued with the judicial conversation and later went to dinner and then home, all without interacting with Bradley. The Chief remained in the judicial zone and kept out of the physical craziness that had occurred. It's a little hard for me to picture how she remained aloof, but the investigative reports indicate that she did.
I wonder what she was thinking. I imagine that she was not pleased that Bradley broke up what was an important conversation. I think that the Chief was arguing for more time, based on the length and the late appearance of Prosser's concurrence that day. If the matter could be stretched out one more day, it would have been a victory of sorts for the liberal side of the court. The idea that the Chief needed protection or would want protection of the kind Bradley decided upon seems completely implausible.
Thanks, cboldt, I was just wondering how the Commission is constituted.
Do the members who are Supreme Court appointees receive their appointments from the Chief Justice? Are the appointed by the majority? Were the Governor's appointees all appointed by Gov. Walker, or by his predecessor?
Politics will be involved in how this comes out.
I can't wait for the courtroom scene where Professor Masonmint confronts the leaker, "..and so you couldn't have been anywhere but sitting across from Bill Lueders, telling him your version of what happened".
"Could you??"
rcocean said...
Gee "Lance the liberal", thanks my making my point. Keep that Nixon hate going. You guys never learn - and never forget.
Contrast "Lance" with your typical 'conservative' who can barely bestir himself to mention what a disgrace Clinton.
There are plenty of Conservatives who can't stand Willie and have no problem pointing out he was far worse than Nixon.
rc doesn't know many Conservatives, does he?
Ann Althouse said...
That code says that a judge "shall avoid impropriety"
Dare we hope "impropriety" is defined somewhere?
"In no way was he wronged. Rather the opposite."
Dan Rather?
"Not so for Nixon. We've got him dead to rights, and he deserves all the opprobrium he receives, and them some."
Let's kick Nixon around some more. That never gets old.
"It's a little hard for me to picture how she remained aloof, but the investigative reports indicate that she did."
The Chief is a cool cookie. She kept going with the conversation as if nothing happened.
Same thing happened after she was called a bitch, according to the investigation. Just ignored it and kept on without showing any affect.
@The Elder From the commissions website:
"The Commission has nine members, including one court of appeals judge, one circuit court judge, and two attorneys, all appointed by the Supreme Court; and five non-lawyer members appointed by the governor with Senate confirmation."
Wasn't it Prosser who filed with the Judiciary Committee?
Who knows what he wrote up?
But IF he wrote about something that dealt with a problem at the Wisconsin Supreme Court, why do people assume he wrote about the "chokehold attack?"
Where's the evidence for that?
The game's already played out in the media.
But what's behind the screen?
Would the Judiciary Committee slam Justice Prosser for writing his complaint? REALLY?
That's the supposition on the table?
How come ... as the 4 justices "that fateful day" meet first in Prosser's office. Three of them hold the idea to PUBLISH THE MAJORITY OPINION. When, Justice Prosser (supposedly) said, "no, that's not a good idea."
And, the search for the Chief Justice began.
Shirley wasn't in her office.
Crooks went home. (With either the 3 justices asking for the door to be opened, anyway ... so they could look inside? Or they went to Bradley's door.)
A day or two later TUBBS is called in to take a "report." Bradley attempts her "chokehold" angle. But it fell flat! She immedicately heard "Ann, that's not what happened."
Whether "it's like Ann, or not" I do not know.
But I doubt the Judiciary Committee is gonna wade in on "choke hold" ... when the issue that began the "long hallway trek" ... had to do with PUBLISHING the findings of the court ... On Wisconsin's "PUBLIC NOTICE" law.
I get stuck right there.
If there was one missed opportunity to keep this under control, it was Chief Tubbs' fault.
At the meeting on the 15th, my fantasy Tubbs would have, after having heard all this **** go down, turned to the Chief Justice and said "Madam, the fish stinks from the head. If you are, as it seems, unable to maintain comity and collegiality in this Court, and a safe work environment, then I suggest you make an appointment with the Governor right now." You know, a little tough love and adult supervision.
We already know that Chief Tubbs was attempting to close this deplorable incident without an official investigation, as he refused to takes notes. He should have said this while carefully observing the reaction of the two antagonists.
Unfortunately, Tubbs was too conflicted, being a long-time Abrahamson ally (we are told). A missed opportunity, to Wisconsin's detriment and shame.
Liberals hate Nixon because he paid for his sins and redeemed himself in later years. Clinton has never paid for his sins, so he has no redemption cred.
Deep down, Libs know that this is the Natural Order of things, that bad behavior, when revealed, demands a price to be paid...but they cannot overcome their need for power, so their crooks and liars never get redemption and they keep screaming at Emmanuel Milhouse Goldstein.
Membership of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission
Ginger Alden - appointed December 2005
Michael J. Aprahamian - February 2011
John R. Dawson - November 2006
James M. Haney - April 2006
Cynthia Herber - February 2009
Michael R. Miller - December 2003
Emily S. Mueller - December 2010
Paul F. Reilly - December 2010
James C. Alexander - August 1990
“.. in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
Is the Judicial Commission the arbiter of this effect – “promotes public confidence” – as a factual matter? If the Judicial Commission makes a fact finding that the press leak or the behavior of the justices damaged public confidence, then is this fact finding reviewable by a court?
And what goes into considerations of such a fact finding? Is it possible to introduce data (say from survey-feedback) that might show that the Wisconsin public considers both justices to be jerks, but because of a low public benchmark expectation in the first place, the net public opinion about the “integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” hasn’t changed at all - no net negative effect?
Pardon my sociometry (I come here to play - not work) – but just how much jerk-esque jerking around behavior are jerky-justices entitled to jerk onto each other before the “integrity” of the judiciary is effectively lowered in the public mind?
Are Wisconsinites really somehow more sensitive and serious about all this jerking around than Chicagoans who are amused at local alderman jerk-off shenanigans so long as the sewers keep running and the trash is taken away?
How to measure net effect changes in Wisconsin public opinion about the “integrity” of the judiciary without knowing the public opinion benchmark in the first place – what’s to say Wisconsinites wouldn’t poll with pretty low opinions of judicial integrity already, only for public opinion to be improved because of jerking around the press with – the press leak?
Dicey – really dicey – to play this circle jerking jerk-around game too hard.
edutcher @ 5:55 PM
Pray tell, who is Professor Masonmint?
Is this like Money Penny in a 007 story?
(Oh, by the way, I thought, somehow ... like in a card game ... where a deck is not entirely handed out ...) Justice Prosser's complaint went to 3 of the 9.
Is this now in front of the whole commission?
If so, how are secrets being kept as the poker game (or the investigation) continues? How can anyone bluff if the entire audience knows what's in the cards?
Do you know how many American presidents LOVED a game of poker?
Doesn't politics and poker have a lot in common?
Lance said...
Not so for Nixon. We've got him dead to rights, and he deserves all the opprobrium he receives, and them some.
Right Lance, no disagreement here. But you totally missed the point, which is probably your point. The point is that Nixon is ALWAYS remembered that way. Clinton is a lying scheme pervert who has been impeached and disbarred, is still fawned over by adoring leftist-socialist-progressives and the LameStreamMedia.
Of the two, Clinton was the worse case for this reason: Before the Clinton debacle we had the threat of impeachment and removal from office to keep the President in line. By moderate "Republicans" and Democrats preventing his removal, they have also removed impeachment as a remedy for Presidential wrongs. Now that leaves us with two choices: let the bastard destroy our country, or take to armed resistance. Neither of those alternatives are very pleasant.
-- then is this fact finding reviewable by a court? --
There is some sort of due process, where the accused has an opportunity for being heard and to offer a defense. What makes this case particularly interesting is that the ultimate court is the very court whose member or members are the subject of an incident report or complaint.
Just my opinion, but the best "impartial" review is that made by the public, on review of the raw evidence. That the sheriff report is public bodes well. The Commission undertakes a whitewash at its own risk.
Now, wait just a damn minute here, Carol Herman.
If Moneypenny is some mere – titular – assistant inside the court who leaked the story to the press –
Then which Supreme Court Justice is Octopussy?
Actually, I think Ann Walsh-Bradley would have been better off jumping out of her seat ... and running in any direction she chose ... shouting "FIRE, FIRE, MY PANTS ARE ON FIRE" ... and heading out the door.
By the time people caught up to her with a fire hose ... she could turn around. Looking very disappointed. And, say "Ya know what, I think Crooks has already gone home."
... "And, the fire must have gone out as I ran."
(Surley Shirley could'a made a clean getaway! Or she could'a tried hiding in the ladies room. Where she also bolted close the stall's door.
Doubt ANY of the men would have dared to go in.
But that's not how the story came out of the typewriter.
Nor do we really know what Justice Prosser wrote. Which, also, as far as we know, he hasn't retracted.
(As to keeping tabs on the media, we do know how Justice Prosser ... on the PUBLIC NOTICE LAW opinion he gave ... included media coverage. (Which pissed off Shirley, who, in her dessent ... said "that wasn't very judicial.)
Maybe, we need a ruling on that, too.
Cboldt, thank you.
Do you know whether the fact finding itself is subject to review? Sure, review owes. But, this fact finding specifically?
-- Wasn't it Prosser who filed with the Judiciary Committee? --
I'm thinking he didn't. He says he didn't tell anybody except his family, other justices, his attorney, and his (I presume this means the attorney's) investigator; and didn't make any notes until July 7.
So, maybe Roggensack, Gableman, or even Abrahamson (which would be interesting if she presented a misleading narrative to the Commission).
I don't remember Octopussy. Just Octomom. Who'd like to retract the whole thing.
And, Dr. No.
And, Goldfinger ... where I can still hear the song.
Meanwhile, I don't know how the score is going. I keep thinking, because I actually like Justice Prosser, from here ... That he must be winning.
There's no reason for him to lose!
Let alone that when Kloppenhoppen came along ... I thought she had stuck her finger in an electric socket ... to improve her "hair day." While she's no longer, here. Hair. Or there.
Don't politicians, as a general rule, choose not to pick up hot potatoes?
See Cbolt, how memories differ?
I remember Justice Prosser filed "something" ... on a Friday ... before this stuff hit the fan on a Monday.
With Tubbs coming in on a Tuesday.
You know, I've got no complaints that this stuff showed up in the press.
To the contrary. That's why the press is supposed to be there.
And, the Internet is here to keep them all honest.
"Wisconsin's judicial disciplinary system is two-tiered, which means that the investigative and adjudicative functions are divided between separate agencies. The Judicial Commission investigates possible misconduct and disability and determines whether there is probable cause of either. If so, the Commission initiates and prosecutes a proceeding against the judge in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A panel of three court of appeals judges is named to hear the matter, and file with the court findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation regarding disposition. The Supreme Court reviews the panel's report, adopts findings and conclusions, and determines the appropriate sanction or other disposition."
The Wisconsin Judicial Commission
Cboldt, perfect. Thanks. You’re right. It's messy.
I'm not a lawyer, 60 Grit. You can put in the correct term.
Hard enough to know the difference (for me), between desert and dessert.
Now, what I thought a "dissent" meant ... is that you were going down. And, the majority was going UP.
I also know the word is not "decent."
Be my guest. Fix the terminology.
-- I remember Justice Prosser filed "something" ... on a Friday ... before this stuff hit the fan on a Monday. --
Leuders story came out on Saturday, June 25. It says that the Judicial Commission would neither confirm or deny the existence of an investigation. Tubbs said his department would issue a statement that Monday.
Prosser issued a brief statement the same day Leuders story came out, basically that the allegations in Leuders story would be proven false; and that he had nothing else to say.
Bradley released a comment that day too, asserting that Prosser put his hands around her neck "in anger in a chokehold." (Bradley's EXACT words to the public).
Then, Monday the 27th, the Commission announced that it had received information (doesn't say when) and that on Friday, the 24th, it had authorized an investigation.
Carol, I know that you know that I know you know – Octopussy. In this case. Don’t give me that Octomom crap.
“Don't politicians, as a general rule, choose not to pick up hot potatoes?”
Carol, how -- hot -- does hot need to be for Octopussy? Clinton and Octomom Monica, Elliot and “The Octomon Emperors Club!,” Anthony and his Octo-Weiner, John Wayne and Lorena Octo-knife Bobbit – yes, Carol, they all fit into this set using your octogenarian (nearly: but I don’t think you’re 70 - 70 yr. olds can't have such damn fast fingers) logic.
So, we know Prosser has retained counsel to represent him before the Commission. Has Bradley?
Fast fingers?
Nobody beat me at typing speeds! Accuracy? You want that, too?
Octopussy brings back no memories for me. 007? Sure. Dr. No. Saw it. Ditto for Goldfinger. Shirley Bassey (I believe) sung that song!
But over in Wisconsin ... you don't have to be 70 years old ... to see some old trollops being rolled out ...
Which were designed to get Kloppenhoppen elected. And, David Prosser to lose.
He didn't.
I've been following this story ever since, because Ann posts a lot of it, here!
She's got a popular blog.
Lots of people don't comment.
But they're following this story!
I also know the "special prosecutor" was selected by Governor Walker, I believe.
While I also still think David Prosser wrote something. And, delivered it to the Judiciary Committee ... It was a complaint.
But I have no idea what that complaint contains.
Now, if I'm to guess?
Ann Walsh-Bradley ain't doing TV shows ... She's not out there making any more comments.
Gee, I wonder why?
Didn't she have a real good set up to go to "if her colleagues" didn't do what she wanted?
Her colleagues, however, didn't do what she wanted. Fer shur.
And, 60 Grit ... there's a name for what you call an opinion where you disagree with the majority opinion. It has nothing to do with decanters. You can't fool me.
-- I've got no complaints that this stuff showed up in the press. --
I'm glad the raw reports are public, because the press has done a masterful job of extracting the parts that make Prosser look like the instigator (i.e., that the root cause or root issue is "choking"); and downplaying and otherwise calling into question any suggestion that Bradley's action was unprofessional.
But, my impression is that the majority of the public will form its impression from press accounts, so will not be offended by Prosser being slimed by (misleading) official findings.
"Can't we all just get along?"
Carol - “But over in Wisconsin ... you don't have to be 70 years old ... to see some old trollops being rolled out....”
There are no trollops left in Wisconsin. They’re all outright wonton whores (no time to waste pretending coy) and everyone of 'em walked the slut walk (wait, let me check my stats). Truth is – I just reviewed a French sociological study showing that female sexual predatory behavior is now dominant in France (over male sexual predation) and French males are losing interest! I think it's the chokehold effect over in France -- law of diminishing returns. Or are you saying here that by French standards, the Wisconsin court would "up" public opinion if they all got laid?
“Ann posts a lot of it, here!
She's got a popular blog.”
Yes she does!
The press has leeway to get leaks.
Seems odd to me that the Judiciary Committee isn't dealing with what Justice Prosser complained to them about. It can't be about leaks ... unless it's some sort of thing where the court house is DOOMED to float away.
And, then, why would you call lawyers, first?
Meanwhile, all I can see is that David Prosser's FINGER points to Ann Walsh-Bradley.
Not to Leuder's. Not to journalists. That's pretty much the guarantees we give the press in our First Amendment.
Heck, even Thomas Jefferson, who must have been exasperated at the stories of him and Sally Hemmings having children together ... Must have just thrown up his hands.
And, by the way, he WON that election! John Adams, who was slinging the mud to stay in office was just a one-termer.
That our presses can generate "creative writing?" You didn't get a clue when a generation after DEEP THROAT was created out of whole cloth ... you found out it was the 2nd in command at the FBI?
How do you take a 91 year old guy with dementia and charge him, when it's way too late?
If Mark Felt is dead now ... he didn't even get an obituary.
Which is the way the press also always plays the game. Once, you didn't even have to go to school to buy this credential.
... wanton, wonton, what the hell ... first it’s Carol, now it’s you, Sixty ... just watch, some current reader of Catherine Hakim’s new book, “Erotic Capital (Honey Money)” will start new libertarian Chinese cafes all around Lake Mendota, with just that new sign ... “Wonton Whores” ... making Madison the Erotic Capitol of Erotic Capital, once again ...
.. peace out, and turn out the lights ..
Prof. Althouse and readers might find my 12-page excerpts file from the police file useful, since the police file is a lot to get through. I try to include everything relevant for and against both justices from what the witnesses interviewed said. See
http://rasmusen.org/special/wisconsin.pdf
Carol_Herman said...
edutcher @ 5:55 PM
Pray tell, who is Professor Masonmint?
Eons ago, back when I was a kid, Mad Magazine did a spoof of the old Perry Mason show ("The Day Perry Masonmint Lost A Case").
Get it?
Mason Mints?
Since the lovely Miss Ann is doing her best Raymond Burr imitation, I just threw it into the mix.
-- I don't think the Chief Justice did anything wrong. --
She didn't admonish Bradley against initiating physical intimidation.
Why all this time spent kicking Nixon and not demonizing McCarthy, REPULICAN Senator from Wisconsin 1947-1957.
"With Republicans taking control of the Senate in 1953, McCarthy became chairman of the Committee on Government Operations and the subcommittee on investigations. In that capacity, he so angered Democrats that they resigned from the committee in protest."
http://www.apl.org/history/mccarthy/biography.html
"If the judicial commission seeks any discipline for Prosser or Bradley, Marquette University law professor Michael O'Hear said, the Supreme Court members couldn't be expected to handle fairly a case that they witnessed involving their own colleagues."
That's fairly amazing. The justices can't be expected to make a fair decision, regarding an incident they actually witnessed. So, they suck as parents, too, one must conclude.
Who leaked the story to the politically partisan journalist, Bill Lueders? Surely, the judicial commission is going to tell us. It may not have been relevant to the question whether there should be a criminal prosecution …
I would be surprised if the commission revealed who leaked the story. Was the commission tasked with finding out who leaked? I can’t see any criminal prosecution happening over this.
Of course, if he had choked her he would have been toast. He could have ended up on trial. In a way he’s lucky. Just a little bit of loss of self-control and he may have had his life ruined. He had the presence of mind to not grab her arm, to not grab her anywhere. Just kept her at arm’s length. Hopefully, the damage to his reputation is limited mainly to those who dislike him already. They’ll believe anything they’re fed.
Commentor: Well, we've seen video of him angrily rushing toward someone w/ his fist raised.
Althouse: That was video of him emoting in the legislature, I believe, taken entirely out of context.
Here’s the video of Prosser raising his fist to someone across the room But the “fist” was in a palms up orientation – like when you are about to open your hand to show what’s in it. No slap on the biceps – as in the classic Italian, “up yours.” And not palms down – which is the usual fisticuffs-signifying position. It could have signified “victory,” but that’s usually done with a palms oriented toward the side closed fist gesture.
http://tinyurl.com/3lp36z5
Althouse,I concede that a little 5 foot three elderly lady who can charge across a space of five feet and stop on a dime before asking an old man to leave her office is as aggressive, but so is the old man with reflexes so fast he can put his hands around the little old lady's neck and withdraw them faster then you can say that's not really a chokehold. Now does Prosser insulting the CJ involve aggression or are they just having a dialog as you claim?
"so is the old man with reflexes "
Reflexes?
Why reflexes? Oh, because he was reacting quickly to an attack.
Case dismissed.
-- Was the commission tasked with finding out who leaked? I can't see any criminal prosecution happening over this. --
The Commission's jurisdiction isn't criminal. It is judicial conduct. Good question about whether or not it feels the question of leaking of information; and the question of the truthfulness of the leak, are tolerable actions by judges.
Would the Commission tolerate a judge seeking to publish a misleading tale about a neighbor, where the nature of the tale was to allege potentially criminal conduct? Is that "okay" conduct by a judge? Maybe, in Wisconsin.
-- can charge across a space of five feet and stop on a dime before asking an old man to leave her office --
Heh. Well, a bit more than five feet, by measurement of the distances, but interesting that you might accept a narrative where the first utterance of "leave" is after she's in his face.
And by his account, within five seconds of being charged, he left.
As for verbal altercations turning physical, tort law provides lots of guidance. On the testimony of the parties, she stating she got in his face, and he facing an unwelcome advance (she intended it to be an unwelcome advance), Bradley is the physical aggressor, committing the tort of assault; and Prosser's contact is permitted by the privilege of self-defense. See Restatement of Torts. Bradley committed a tort, Prosser did not.
Ah but Bradley's "excited utterance" has a certain legal weight to it suggesting that Prosser's defense went beyond the deflecting what- he was never touched, said she didn't touch him, but got in his face-- just how close, not that close if he had to merely lift up his arms to grasp her neck-- somehow avoiding the fist he claims was in his face. Apparently these old folks are very agile in all sorts of ways.
Back up a minute. I remember when Don Regan leaked to the press that he was frustrated by Nancy's astrologer setting Reagan's schedule.
And, then? What happened to Don Regan? He went from White House Chief of Staff "to what?"
Now, we hear that Crooks leaves work before the others. And, he's a habitual reader of horror-scopes. Since this has probably been "leaked" beforehand ... And, as far as I know ... horoscopes can be pretty well made up ...
Is Crooks an idiot?
Or is there something to all this astrology stuff, after all?
You know, I just don't think the nine members of the Judiciary Committee got together ... one day ... with a bunch of newspapers ... To ask out loud ... "What's leaking, here, that needs to be fixed?"
The First Amendment pretty much covers the press.
And, Ann Walsh-Bradley ... doesn't seem to be asking anyone to time her "racing up out of her seat" ... to see how long it takes her to reach her office door, ya know?
Telling Justice Prosser to leave, however ... AFTER GABELMEN has already reported that Bradley once bopped him in the head ...
Leads me to have certain suspicions that there's a game afoot. And, it's not Bradley's foot, either.
She'd have been so much better off if she just screamed her pants were on fire!
Regrets?
Who has a few?
And, who does not?
Aren't lawyers trained to fight with law suits?
While Bradley's "writing skills" seem NOT to have been quite the script she thought she was tossing off.
But that's just my opinion.
What's the statute of limitations in Wisconsin? If I'm Prosser, I'm biding my time to see what the Commission and Bradley do next, and holding the possibility of civil suit for assault (and defamation) in reserve. But that ammunition goes stale in time, so it needs to be used or lost.
NotquiteunBuckley said...
Why all this time spent kicking Nixon and not demonizing McCarthy, REPULICAN Senator from Wisconsin 1947-1957.
Interesting you should mention him. He does come up, because at one point somebody said something to him like "Sir, have you no decency?" and allusions are made to that. Of course, what I find interesting is the story I have heard that not a single person accused of being a Communist sympathizer, and brought before his committee, was falsely accused. If you have information to the contrary I would like to hear it. So he was rude and obnoxious and right. Bad combination. The press has covered for the Communists for years. Stalin is responsible for the deaths of many more than Hitler, yet it is Hitler who is reviled.
The point isn't that Nixon or McCarthy aren't still being scorned, but that Clinton isn't. Bill Clinton, our "first Black President" (just ask him) is still incredibly popular with the Democratic base, and the press.
Y'know what Stalin said "One man dies and it is a tragedy. A million men die and they are statistics."
-- Ah but Bradley's "excited utterance" has a certain legal weight to it suggesting that Prosser's defense went beyond the deflecting ... --
Still, her testimony about what she experienced (no recollection of any pressure whatsoever) cuts in favor of Prosser's reaction being measured; and his testimony likewise is that of surprise and no particular intention.
Contrast with Bradley's express intention, to get in his face, to get close. That sort of action obviously can create an apprehension of unwelcome contact. The closer she gets, the more justification Prosser has to forcibly shove her off.
-- somehow avoiding the fist he claims was in his face --
Roggensack claims the fist was there too, and that her (Roggensack's) action prevented Bradley from landing a blow.
Bradley should've just said Prosser's raped her and be done with it. No witnesses.
Didn't she learn nothin in all those years of feminism?
Wow, Cbolt! That's it! @ 6:45 PM, you put in the correct chronology!
And, @ 8:03 PM ... you hit it! BINGO!
I didn't know that Justice David Prosser "lawyered up." But he's a smart man. And, that was a very smart thing to do.
The rest is just going to play out.
And, Ann's site deserves lots of credit for following this one. And, for inviting in people who can comment. It releases the pressure, because the media doesn't solve anything. They're running their own horse in this race.
Public opinion counts for a great deal.
And, yes. I trust the more people looking in the better! We no longer live in the days where papers buried news beyond page 3.
-- Public opinion counts for a great deal. --
And it cuts both ways.
But public opinion is supposed to be irrelevant to matters of law.
Set public opinion aside. This case can be decided on the testimony of the eyewitnesses, already made public. The decision "falls out" as a matter of black letter law. If the Commission doesn't cast and decide the case in the standard legal form, the (ignorant) public will be none the wiser.
Greta is talking about this on her show now.
-- Apparently these old folks are very agile in all sorts of ways. --
You either can't (or don't) comprehend what you read; or you lack understanding about the range of motion associated with human arms.
The eyewitness descriptions that notice arms, hand, and other body positions are clear enough. According to eyewitness testimony, The fist "in his face" could have been coming from a 45 degree angle, not from dead ahead, and could have been coming from above.
Not that those details are particularly relevant, because ALL of the contact happens because Bradley makes the deliberate physical advance in order to intimidate Prosser.
-- Greta is talking about this on her show now. --
I'm curious what she says. So far, she's assigned blame equally between Bradley and Prosser. I expect Greta to be fully invested in that, regardless of admissions by the parties.
What if the Judiciary Committee "just comments that Bradley's testimony is cooked?" That she didn't tell the truth.
And, that Bradley was out to malign Justice Prosser. PLUS, she got in the way of the justices resolving an issue that had with their chief?
"Judicial temperament" gets measured by finding fault in what Bradley did. And, in how she went about making this into the issue.
Instead of the real issue. Was to see that the opinions of the justices got published.
It seems the opinions then flew out the door!
PLUS, at 6:45 PM, Cbolt, in your chronology ... the press recorded that Justice Prosser said "Justice Bradley's accusation would be proven false."
Isn't that a key?
PROVEN FALSE.
"The accusation will be proven false."
Both stories can't get propped up equally well.
"....because ALL of the contact happens because Bradley makes the deliberate physical advance in order to intimidate "
Again, one must question either Bradley's competence or loyalty to the cause.
That she is unable to bring down a scrawny old Barney Fife with a simple assault-against-a-woman charge suggests either useless inability or that she is on the other side!
She needs replacement by a more reliable justice.
Isn't in interesting that our all of a sudden the genders of these individuals matters to our resident leftists so much? What's with all these "don't assault women" undertones? Why does gender matter?
It should be don't assault people. That's equality. Right?
-- What if the Judiciary Committee "just comments that Bradley's testimony is cooked?" That she didn't tell the truth. And, that Bradley was out to malign Justice Prosser. PLUS, she got in the way of the justices resolving an issue that had with their chief? --
Well, given conflicting testimony, they either reason that one side is more likely true than the other, or they punt.
I predict they lack the integrity to call it, and punt. There are at least two dynamics that encourage them to punt. One, the Supreme Court is "over" them, so, as a child is loathe to correct a parent, they will be, too.
Second, they view "the law" as political, and prefer to keep political balance on the court. Most observers will be fooled by a legal mumbo-jumbo incantation that justifies punting, where a clear legal decision is standing right in front of them.
-- Both stories can't get propped up equally well. --
Logic has nothing to do with it. The press will side with Bradley, enough of the public will be fooled by diversion from "Bradley intimidated Prosser" to "Prosser choked Bradley". Truth and law are casualties in the New Frontier.
Bradley says:
"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold."
Prosser says:
"Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false. Until then I will refrain from further public comment."
cboldt -- I think your fears about this being swept because of "the media" under the rug are unwarranted. It might end up that way, but the fact is that the media that you assign power to has far less power than it did before the advent of the Internet.
It's fabulous that Althouse, and you, and others are keeping the pressure on here, and that pressure will have an effect. Twenty years ago, such pressure simply would not have been possible because the media gatekeepers would not have allowed it.
Now, they can't do anything about it, except respond to it or try to ignore it.
-- I think your fears about this being swept because of "the media" under the rug are unwarranted. --
There is more dishonesty than the media involved here. The Commission is politicized, the law is politicized, etc. Most of the public is ignorant, so politics is actually the preferred decision vector.
I've followed the details of maybe 20 "interesting" cases, and ZERO of them were decided on the merits. Study the law, and you'll learn the soundsgood widgets too.
Bradley may not be immune, but her side of the divide has TONS of immunity power.
This case is crystal clear, as to Bradley's perfidy, and still the popular media paints the case as clouded or mutual fault.
Only a few of us watch close enough to know the difference.
I've followed the details of maybe 20 "interesting" cases, and ZERO of them were decided on the merits. Study the law, and you'll learn the soundsgood widgets too.
Well, as a lawyer, I have spent some time studying the law.
One great professor I had told a story once. A former student had come to him. This former student explained that he had accidentally overheard the jury members meeting after a trial (lawyers are not supposed to do this). He was absolutely aghast because the jury members were discussing absolutely nothing about the theories of the case that either side had presented. The case was not going to be decided on what the lawyers perceived as the merits at all.
The larger point the professor was making was that the machinations of society -- like the jury system -- don't necessarily work the way they are designed, but they do work, and the end result is greater and more beneficial than the design could even contemplate. The sum is greater than the parts.
As any of this relates to the case at issue, I would advise you to relax. You don't know what's going to happen. Also, politics ain't beanbag, but things work themselves out and the results are often unexpectedly delightful.
Jurors are the FINDERS OF FACT.
Get used to it! Our Founding Fathers had little faith in politicians. And, by extension, judges. And, "ordinary" lawyers, as well.
As long as the jury doesn't bring in "pin the tail on the donkey," or use some form of religious voodoo ... they'll sit among themselves ... And, given how it works with 12 people ... Hardly anyone will be screaming ... or drowning somebody else out.
Sometimes, jurors get real curious. They keep asking someone who has a point of view ... to keep going back and "splaining" it again. And, again.
Jurors have been known to poke holes in the theory of others. If one person holds out? Sure. You get to another legal aspect that I fully respect: Jury Nullification.
Over time, I've even heard that cops testimonies aren't taken for gospel.
As to this particular case?
No juries are involved.
Either Prosser, when he said Bradley's charge(s) will be proven false ... Really means what he says.
And, we're gonna see how the law in Wisconsin works.
Not how the press tried to tie their horse to the lamppost.
Too many eyes are now involved.
Oh. And, I think the media meme is: "BOTH SIDES ARE AT FAULT" ...
Give me a break.
Our system is adversarial.
One person sinks. The other swims.
I never bet on the mares.
Here's a lesson for you. Our best people go into business, science, engineering, the arts, our military.
The government? Those are some guys we hired to do some dirty jobs. We even give them high-falutin' titles like "Right Honourable" to make 'em feel good about themselves, and encourage 'em to behave and do their dirty jobs with diligence.
You'd think they could do their jobs honestly and without drama? The fact that we constantly have to discipline their misbehavior tells you what you need to know about the caliber of the people who seek these government positions. It's no wonder that the Wisconsin Judges can't govern themselves.
-- Well, as a lawyer, I have spent some time studying the law. --
Then you may have a properly reasoned opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida in Gore v. Bush; or any number of federal courts that have (falsely) stated the holding of Presser v. Illinois and/or US v. Miller.
Just saying, in some types of cases, law is an outcome oriented process. The Bradley/Prosser case is very much in the subject matter of judicial self-protection. Judges do no wrong [Heh]. Bring on the whitewash or greywash (both judges bad, but not so bad to warrant removal).
If this case was decided on the merits, Bradley loses, HARD.
-- Jurors are the FINDERS OF FACT --
The finder of fact in the WI Judicial Commission is a panel of judges. There is no public jury. Every single judge in the panel is "under" the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and the findings of fact by this panel of three (unlucky) judges is subject to rejection by the very people being judged.
Expect lots of smoke and fury, signifying nothing.
Page 4 of the report. Interview with Mr. Mark Bradley-Walsh:
"Mark said she just sobs and cries
uncontrollably for two to three minutes before she is able to compose herself."
Kinda interested in the blacked out parts. What's the Walsh-Bradley taking for these crying jags?
Fluoxetine?
in some types of cases, law is an outcome oriented process
Dude, in all cases, law is an outcome oriented process. And that's the way it should be. Because if the outcome isn't good and just, then all the process and all the rules in the world don't matter.
Who exactly is not primarily and utmost concerned with outcomes?
The finder of fact in the WI Judicial Commission is a panel of judges.
Are you sure about this? Because my bet is that you are wrong. The facts are already found.
My guess is that this is what amounts to an appellate court. Appellate courts (and supreme courts) do not and cannot find fact. That's what the trial court does.
In this case, the facts are all in evidence.
I could be wrong but I would be surprised.
The lady justice is obviously at fault and deserves a bare bottom public spanking on Wisconsin Public Television complete with a pre-spanking show, a principle commentator, a color analyst, slow-mo, close ups and a review of highlights.
-- Dude, in all cases, law is an outcome oriented process. --
Of course all legal action is undertaken with the point of reaching an outcome. The remark I'm making is that in some cases, the law and legal rules are IRRELEVANT. The outcome is decided first, then the facts and rules are chosen to support the predetermined outcome.
In the Bradley/Prosser case, the predetermined outcome is "both bad, but neither bad enough to warrant removal."
-- Are you sure about this? Because my bet is that you are wrong. The facts are already found. --
I linked above to the Wisconsin Judicial Commission's summary of procedure. A three judge panel is the body that takes testimony, which can be conflicting, and "finds" which version of facts will be used to reach a decision under the law. The findings and legal rationale of this panel are presented to the WI Supreme Court for judgment.
The outcome is decided first, then the facts and rules are chosen to support the predetermined outcome.
Let me let you in on a little secret. By the nature of the profession, this is what lawyers must do. Someone comes to you, tells you what happened to them, and tells you what they want. Your job is exactly to choose facts and rules to support the predetermined outcome.
You write briefs. You make arguments. Everything you do is based on those facts and that law.
Now, here's the kicker: judges routinely take what they believe to be the superior argument and put exactly that argument into their opinions.
Therefore, in our adversarial system, there is absolutely no way that you are going to have a situation where you don't have The outcome is decided first, then the facts and rules chosen to support the predetermined outcome.
takes testimony
Which testimony? The facts are already in evidence thanks to an investigation.
-- Now, here's the kicker: judges routinely take what they believe to be the superior argument and put exactly that argument into their opinions. --
Psst, I'm a lawyer too.
And sometimes the side the judges pick is the wrong side. I gave you specific examples.
-- Which testimony? The facts are already in evidence thanks to an investigation. --
The trial is not limited to that investigation, but even if it was, that testimony is not 100% in agreement, so there might be a need to choose between competing versions (e.g., fist in his face, or not).
On the theory that falsehoods should be corrected, even if belatedly, Garage Mahal said "See I think calling on the National Guard to enforce a new policy "playing to win"." That didn't happen. Gov. Walker did not call on the National Guard to enforce anything. He did ask them to be prepared to replace prison guards and other public safety personnel should they decide to go out on an illegal strike in response to the collective bargaining reforms. I would call that prudent.
All Justice Prosser wants is for Bradley's charge that she got "choke-held" be proven false.
I think we're close to that now.
Since the Special Prosecutor said there was nothing to try. The Choke-hold wasn't an assault.
What will the Judicial Commission do?
Makes sense they turn the "hot potato" over to the chief ... And, let her hold a meeting.
Even funnier ... if they "recommend" not "counseling" per se ... but a "review" ... which I think all new judges get ... In what is expected of "judicial temperament."
It's not as if anyone here's got Alzheimer's. That would be "special circumstances," requiring medical intervention.
Anger management classes?
If that comes up, it would fool me.
"Punt," is Cbolt's bet.
It's a good as any other bet right now.
Removal?
Not a chance.
People unsubscribing from their newspaper? Nah. Local newspapers report on local people. Not like the NY Times, which did lose significant subscribers. (But then I'd bet they just charge their advertisers more.)
Probably not an option in Wisconsin.
"Punting" however has to seem that it contains "judicial temperament."
Behind the scenes? If Bradley hasn't heard from her "compatriots" on having better decorum ... I'd be surprised.
If she shows up, ahead, in other than blue glasses? Somebody also gave her some fashion advice.
Watching the court decisions come down? I think a lot of eyes will look at the paperwork. Better hold clues as to what's written in the law. And, if what's written holds Constitutional muster.
Heaven help the justice that hasn't quite learned these basic skills.
Shirley Abrahamson still won't be able to assign tax cases to Justice Prosser.
cboldt -- My point is that any Commission is not going to disregard the findings of the special prosecutor. This simply is not done. The facts are in evidence. The testimony is the facts found by the special prosecutor.
Here's my last take. [Oh thank heavens!, you'll be leaving now I hope.] Ever.
The lawyers' response to all this is an over-wrought hammers and nails reaction. You are debating angels and pins.
What happened is unremarkable and forgettable. No harm, no foul. This stuff happens everywhere, all the time. Only lawyers could make this criminal.
It is to be expected, that when over-achievers are packed together into a long-term team relationship, that mammalian dominance striving will continue unabated ... unless and until a strong alpha is able to form a cohesive and stable team. Dominance striving, while understandable, is counter-productive, and sometimes results in unpredictable and uncontrolled events.
It is clear, that the CJ is unable to perform her CJ duties. The Court has destabilized and factionalized. In more primeval mammalian societies, a youthful leader will challenge and cast out the alpha past its prime.
Here, Wisconsin must wait for the Chief Justice to find her honor, at the expense of the integrity of the Law. Sometimes, often, Justices cling to the position until Death pries open their withered grasping hands. And who can blame them? The position is both intoxicating and corrupting. Let Washington, "the greatest man in the history of the world", be the touchstone of knowing when to let go.
At least now, with this breach of secrecy, the good citizens of Wisconsin can make better choices. May we have more such breaches.
An expensive suit story.
I remember telling a lawyer (who sometimes posts here), the story of a slander lawsuit against the comedian, Alan King.
Who came late to an Ed Sullivan appearance. And, when he finally came on stage, dropped his "schtick," and said: TWA LOST MY LUGGAGE. He then went on a rant ... about how you put your luggage on a conveyer belt ... and the last you see of it ... is as it goes through the flapping rubber vertical blinds.
TWA sued Alan King. And, said he should have "made up a name." And, not used the airline's name.
Then, Alan King said ... because he became rich when he was young ... he had put his brother through law school. And, he felt his brother should represent him in court. (Why pay money?)
Anyway, in the courthouse, TWA hired the most expensive lawyers in NYC. All with haavahd credentials. And, Italian hand made suits.
Alan King's brother showed up with food stains on his tie. (And, Alan King plotzed.) He was sure he was going to lose.
Then the judge came out. RIPPING MAD! he screamed at the haarvahd "group" that he just returned from a vacation ... and, believe it or not. TWA LOST HIS LUGGAGE!
You can't sue for slander when what you say is the truth.
And, so, the discussion I had turned to "dress." And, I was told the smartest defense lawyers really do wear nice men's suits. But they remove a button. Or they grab a piece of the fabric and break the weave.
So the jurors shouldn't think the suit is perfect.
Everything goes through the hopper when you face the public!
The truth works best all of the time.
(And, that old routine ... done in the 1950's ... is one I still remember!)
-- My point is that any Commission is not going to disregard the findings of the special prosecutor --
The special prosecutor made no findings. She decided not to prosecute, and gave as her reason that "The totality of the facts and the circumstances and all of the evidence that I reviewed did not support my filing criminal charges." She didn't elaborate as to which elements of the crimes were absent from the facts presented.
Quoting from a newspaper account as to why factual findings are still "up in the air" as far as tort or judicial conduct liability goes ... "She did note, however, that varying accounts were given by witnesses - a group that would have included most of the justices and colleagues - and said that was common in cases with multiple witnesses. Barrett offered no commentary on the merits of the accusations against the two judges or on whether their conduct was fitting for justices in the state's highest court."
The investigation produced conflicted sets of facts. None of those combinations produced a criminal act. I agree, no injury, no Battery. AFAIK, the tort of simple assault (with no injury) is not a crime in Wisconsin.
One fact of this case is that it is unprecedented, so the courts are free to make up whatever rule they want. They may decide that, on these facts, even though a finding of the civil tort of assault is possible, such a finding does not warrant judicial discipline against Bradley; and, because contact is NEVER allowed (which is a bogus legal rule, but they might as well pull it out of the hat), Prosser is sanctioned.
The special prosecutor made no findings.
The special prosecutor made all kinds of findings. Her report is the length of a novella.
"The totality of the facts and the circumstances and all of the evidence that I reviewed did not support my filing criminal charges.
That's what's called a conclusion, dude, based on findings of fact. Or do you propose that this conclusion was arrived at in some more fanciful way?
Tell us how to depoliticize our judiciary. The Wisconsin judicial system is so drenched in politics that it is super depressing. I blame the lefties but I realize that the solution to depoliticizing our judiciary is going to have to work even though lefties still exist.
My suggestion is that we construct some AI systems to replace our inevitably prejudiced judges with some sweet software that does not have a political ax to grind.
One fact of this case is that it is unprecedented
Unprecedented? What are you talking about? Is this the first time two people have had a physical altercation in Wisconsin? I rather doubt it.
Cboldt -- You are making this up as you go along.
-- What happened is unremarkable and forgettable. --
Bullshit. Bradley very publicly accused Prosser of something she later admits he didn't do.
Not only that, the thing she accused him of doing? She caused it!
Bradley's accusation was the spingboard for public calls that Prosser resign or step aside until the issue was resolved.
You're fired.
Tell us how to depoliticize our judiciary.
The way that other states have tried to do this is to appoint judges based on what is called merit selection instead of election.
However, I advise against this. It's vital to make political officials stand before the citizenry for approval. That's what democracy looks like. Also, judges are political officials, like it or not.
Take that away, and you end with the same amount of politics but an inability for people to participate in it. To me, that's unacceptable.
-- Her report is the length of a novella. --
Her report was a one page facsimile transmission. The novella you refer to is a set of reports from interviews by law enforcement. And that set of reports is internally inconsistent. Bradley's version contradicts Prosser, Roggensack, and others.
Cboldt -- Isn't it true that you have decided your preferred outcome in this case first, then chosen the facts and rules to support your preferred predetermined outcome?
I think that you have to agree that you have, if you are honest with yourself.
-- That's what's called a conclusion, dude, based on findings of fact. Or do you propose that this conclusion was arrived at in some more fanciful way? --
I didn't say she didn't reach a conclusion. I think I said all I need to, to respond to this post of yours, above. G'night to you.
-- Is this the first time two people have had a physical altercation in Wisconsin? --
I am simply predicting the rationale to be used either by the Commmission, or the Supreme Court of WI. As you seem to agree, this rationale would be bullshit.
And that set of reports is internally inconsistent.
Are you now seeking sets of facts in criminal cases that are internally consistent?
Further, did the special prosecutor not work with law enforcement concerning the facts?
Further, accepting for the moment that the special prosecutor and law enforcement (two executive agency entities) did not communicate, do you suggest that any Commission will disregard the facts found by law enforcement?
I feel like I am talking to someone who is considering how government works for the first time.
-- Isn't it true that you have decided your preferred outcome in this case first, then chosen the facts and rules to support your preferred predetermined outcome? --
No, it's not. I've acknowledged inconsistencies between the witnesses testimony, found some of them to be less believable, found that all agree Bradley initiated and completed an advance on Prosser, that whether it was a hand over the shoulder or fist (I find the fist version credible), Bradley committed the tort of assault as described in the Restatement of Torts; and that any contact Prosser made was well within the boundary of the privilege of self defense.
-- Are you now seeking sets of facts in criminal cases that are internally consistent? --
Finder of fact - sort through conflicting testimony, and "find."
I think you ought to read what I wrote, read it more carefully. I don't find facts sufficient to meet the elements of a crime. Why do you bring up crime, now, after I disclaimed it?
-- do you suggest that any Commission will disregard the facts found by law enforcement? --
Law enforcement conducted an investigation with multiple witnesses, resulting in conflicting testimony. If you disagree with that, then I'm done with dialog with you as of now.
Your turn.
Cboldt -- But you believe that this Commission will now independently find facts all over again. Why?
Further, how can you be convinced that the members of the Commission will find differently than you have found?
Still further, people are the victims of torts all the time. You were probably the victim of several this past week. However, when there are no damages, nobody cares.
Finally, I am quite positive that no judicial commission is able to determine that someone has committed a tort unless that person has been allowed a trial at law, and the ability to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Why do you bring up crime, now, after I disclaimed it?
Battery, which is offensive touching -- what allegedly happened here -- is a crime in addition to being a tort. If you beat somebody up, you can be prosecuted by the state and be sued by the person you beat up.
Lots and lots and lots of crimes are not prosecuted, just like lots and lots and lots of torts are not brought to trial.
-- But you believe that this Commission will now independently find facts all over again. --
No. I don't assume any furhter investigation, although the Commission has a right to it, as do any judges who are under the spotlight of the Commission. The Commission acts as "prosecutor."
The special prosecutor didn't reconcile competing evidence, she just stated that the evidence didn't support a criminal charge. I agree with her. Bradley has no injury, no criminal battery.
But the threshold for judicial misconduct isn't "crime/no crime." And, with a different threshold, the difference between competing pieces of testimony may well become relevant.
-- Further, how can you be convinced that the members of the Commission will find differently than you have found? --
I'm not convinced, I'm speculating they will greywash the incident.
-- You were probably the victim of several this past week. However, when there are no damages, nobody cares. --
For most torts (assault and trespass being exceptions), "no damages = no tort." But I can maintain a legal action in assault and trespass, just the same, and I believe Prosser could win a civil assault case against Bradley.
-- I am quite positive that no judicial commission is able to determine that someone has committed a tort ... --
They have limited remedial powers, but they could very well find or agree with facts that make a tort.
-- Battery, which is offensive touching -- what allegedly happened here -- is a crime in addition to being a tort. --
Offensive touching is a crime if and only if there is injury. Offensive touching is PERMITTED under certain circumstances, and one of those is to ward off assault. Bradley's testimony supports a conclusion that she assaulted Prosser, and under that circumstance, he has a privilege to make offensive contact with her, it';s called the privilege of self-defense. Black letter tort law.
Cboldt -- Of course they are going to greywash the incident. That's because what happened was that two assholes had an asshole altercation.
If any discipline needs to happen here, it's not because of what these assholes did in their altercation. It's because of what Bradley did in the aftermath, trying to frame Prosser as a bully, which was in no way warranted. This is what Althouse has been correctly harping on.
Bradley's real sin here is going to the press and lying, not some goofy tort.
If you think that anything is going to come of the actual altercation, you are sadly, sadly mistaken.
Offensive touching is a crime if and only if there is injury.
This is simply not true.
Bradley ALSO threatened her own colleagues! She said "if they didn't put Prosser into anger management ... at the least" ... she was going to go "outside" ...
Her "outside," I am presuming is "the media."
Crooks, by the way, has seen his "horror-scopes" exposed. And, also that he'd been called a VIPER.
Not a good day for Bradley ... that Crooks got exposed. (Sort'a like what Don Regan did to Nancy Reagan.) But then that sort'a ended Don Regan's Chief of Staff duties ... didn't it?
It went "QUIET AS THE NIGHT." But somehow what Don Regen did wasn't tolerated.
What if what Bradley did "isn't tolerated?"
Hasn't the Chief Justice seemed to put herself above this fray?
She's about as happy with Bradley ... as Crooks!
And, I see Cbolt's point very well, here! (But he says "punt,") and I say ... unless Bradley can "bend over backwards" ... She's gonna find out that what she did has "repercussions." Which involve unintended consequences.
Or else? She's gonna go pumping out, again, trying to smack Justice Prosser.
The lady's got a short fuse!
That's been demonstrated.
How do the "insiders" stop Bradley from ever attempting to threaten the "whole body" again?
I'm just asking.
She opened a hornet's nest.
It's possible the court will deem it okay to tell Justice Prosser "he needs anger management."
Or they call in Dr. Phil.
Which would be preposterous.
Without the "choke-hold" passing muster ... What's left?
"Gee, Ann Walsh Bradley, you just weren't yourself."
Uh huh.
Now go say "you're sorry."
- -That's because what happened was that two assholes had an asshole altercation. --
None of it would have happened if the first asshole, Bradley, had kept her fat ass in her chair. Any contact Prosser made with Bradley lies 100% at Bradley's feet.
-- If you think that anything is going to come of the actual altercation, you are
sadly, sadly mistaken. --
Well, the converse is that if she HADN'T started it, then her beef to the press was legitimate.
So, it's not that I think Prosser is going to prevail based on Bradley's assault without more; it's that I think Bradley committing an assault is at least a useful point to holding her outside of acceptable boundaries; and is an ESSENTIAL point to making her report bogus.
-- This is simply not true --
Not in the entire universe of law, I agree. But if you can manage to limit your attention to the case at hand on this point, misdemeanor and felony battery in Wisconsin requires injury.
Dude -- You've spent words upon words here arguing about torts. The torts don't matter because, to any extent they happened, they are negligible.
You now seem to be shifting your argument to what Bradley did after the alleged altercation. Good. That's a good start.
But you need to disabuse yourself of the belief that anything is going to come of the actual altercation. You need to completely step away from that line of argument. Because it's a huge, huge waste of time.
... And, Cbolt, I agree.
Glad to have read all these posts.
misdemeanor and felony battery in Wisconsin requires injury
So I am able to pummel the shit out of somebody in Wisconsin and as long as they don't get hurt, the legal system can't punish me? Really?
There's simply no way that is true.
What may be true is that the charge of battery won't stick. But you are arguing technicalities. Dozens of other charges are certainly available against me.
Anyway, the point remains: your arguments about torts are utterly useless. It's the aftermath that is at issue. It's Bradley's lying and bullying.
-- If any discipline needs to happen here, it's not because of what these assholes did in their altercation. It's because of what Bradley did in the aftermath, trying to frame Prosser as a bully, which was in no way warranted. --
Well, the record in hand isn't going to help you much, there. The only framing going on was internal. The evidence that Bradley went public is circumstantial. The prosecutor made no finding on that point, either.
There is no additional harm to Prosser if the framing is strictly internal to the court. They witnessed the incident, and are not apt to be persuaded by Bradley's false characterization.
-- Dude --
Yeah, I know, I wasted my time. It won't happen again. Dude.
-- So I am able to pummel the shit out of somebody in Wisconsin and as long as they don't get hurt, --
LOL. Dude, "pummeling the shit out of somebody" involves hurt. Otherwise you are just spewing words.
Dude, look up the WI criminal statutes.
Right, Cboldt, it's important in comment threads to be all professional and legal-like. Gotcha.
Enjoy your adventures reading the Restatement. Because that gets used in the real world once a year.
Behind closed doors.
There's been conversations that I bet Ann Walsh Bradley never wanted to hear!
And, they don't involve Crooks reading her any horror-scopes.
I think there are now very angry justices ... This is NOT equally distributed! This is ... in my estimation ... words she is hearing from her "esteemed colleagues" ...
And, among the things Ann Walsh-Bradley is told is that she brought SHAME on "her friends."
I don't think Ann Walsh-Bradley gets the freedom of saying ...
butt, butt, butt ...
The leaks were "anonymous." That exit is not granted to her.
Her bobbing Justice Gabelman on the head has also not been forgotten.
And, I have a feeling ... it's just a feeling ... That Bradley set off WRATH ... that's burned a few of her bridges down.
Her husband says she's crying a lot. (Before she can even gather herself together. She's falling apart.)
Now, why is she crying a lot?
What did she hear that she's fending off?
Even if the Judiciary Committee states that they've "reviewed the material, and find nothing that establishes an assault." But these are all just hard working judges ... and everyone's really doing their jobs."
That would be the "punt.
That wouldn't be backstage.
The best solution would involve Bradley saying she felt threatened. And, she didn't realize she wasn't choked. But she was angry. And, now she's calmed down. She's proud to work along with other justices ... And, she's sorry about what she said to Justice Prosser to leave her office. She felt goaded. And, she should have exercised better control.
Then, I think Justice Prosser formally accepts her apology.
Maybe, the tag line would be "No Need To Make A Federal Case Out of It."
Dude, "pummeling the shit out of somebody" involves hurt
Pummel: pound, beat
If I pound and beat somebody, and they suffer no injuries, that's what happened. Let's say it's George Foreman. Let's say I have him on the ground, and I am wailing oh him. Or let's say it's a guy in a suit of armor and I'm punching and punching and punching. Then, when the police arrive, my victim gets up, shakes himself off, and walks away unharmed.
Under your theory, there is no crime.
You are wrong.
I do agree that the crime isn't necessarily battery. But, again, you are splitting hairs at the atomic level. It is a battery, most certainly, though it might be prosecuted as something else.
cboldt thinks what happened is remarkable and unforgettable.
Nah. People blow up at each other, get in each others face, stuff goes down, everybody argues about what just happened. Happens all the time. No harm no foul, let it go, water under the bridge, sometimes it's good to clear the air, sometimes it only breeds more trouble.
You get in someone's face, make an approximate fist, you had better expect unpredictable and perhaps long-lasting consequences. Boy/girl got nothing to do with it.
The only thing here is, We the People are paying these jokers to behave like consummate professionals. Consummate professional have the honor to know when it's time. There ought to be three immediate vacancies on the Court. The fact that there ain't, tells you all you need to know about this crowd.
Andinista -- Your post refutes itself. Are people fallible and do they behave badly? Or are our judges expected to be whatever a consummate professional is at all times?
In my view, the fallible nature of people is most important. Judges aren't Jesuses. It's silly to impose that standard.
Again, the altercation isn't a big deal other than how foolish and embarrassing it is for the people involved. It's what Bradley did after the fact is clearly deceitful. That absolutely merits removal from the bench.
-- There ought to be three immediate vacancies on the Court. --
You'd dismiss a person for a self-defense reaction? Must be a school administrator. Everybody in the fight is wrong, even the victim. That method does take the difficulty of thought out of the process.
Cboldt -- You are setting up Prosser as some innocent victim in all of this. Why?
He clearly was not an innocent victim, and he's clearly a hothead, just like Bradley.
There's nothing wrong with being a hothead. There's nothing particularly wrong with a judge being a hothead. I've dealt with a few.
The wrong here is all ethical, and it happened when Bradley lied about what happened and took it her lies to the press.
-- Under your theory, there is no crime. --
WI Criminal Code: 940. Crimes against life and bodily security.
See particularly 940.19.
Self defense is in Section 939.48
Under your theory, what is the crime?
-- You are setting up Prosser as some innocent victim in all of this. Why? --
That's where the evidence and the law take me.
-- The wrong here is all ethical, and it happened when Bradley lied about what happened and took it her lies to the press. --
The actual and alleged fact patterns matter. It just happens that the false allegation By Bradley involves action that could be criminal (if there had been injury) or tortuous (if not privileged); and also involves a materially false allegation.
I don't disagree that the false allegation represents a larger foul. But if the false allegation had been "Prosser patted me on the head in a condescending (and most unwelcome and embarrassing) way," I think you'll agree that the discussion now would be radically different.
Cboldt -- Prosser was yelling at somebody when all this happened. He also has a history of yelling at people.
As far as crimes that happen when you pummel somebody but don't injure them: false imprisonment, harassment, disturbing the peace -- that's just off the top of my head.
You can rest assured that if you attack someone and try to injure them, you can be found guilty of a crime, regardless of the injury you may cause. The fact that you are debating this demonstrates a certain lack of understanding about reality.
-- Prosser was yelling at somebody when all this happened. He also has a history of yelling at people. --
The allegation that he was yelling is a matter of dispute. The evidence is highly contradictory on that point. Even if true, so what? Grounds to remove him from the bench?
- -The fact that you are debating this demonstrates a certain lack of understanding about reality. --
You can either stop acting the asshole, or get it back, in spades.
The fact that you equate "pummel" with false imprisonment, harassment, and/or disturbing the peace demonstrates what sort of attachment to reality, in your world?
Nevermind, I've had all of you that I am going to take. Talk to the hand, asshole.
Grounds to remove him from the bench?
Who at this point is saying that Prosser should get removed from the bench.
As for your other comment, I'm sorry you don't understand the reality of criminal law in the world you live in. Are you a first-year law student by chance? Perhaps a young police officer?
- -I'm sorry you don't understand the reality of criminal law in the world you live in. --
I'm sorry I posted to you. Forget you ever heard of me. I'll return the favor to you.
Tell me that you aren't going to respond for a fourth time.
Bradley committed a tort
She cooks?
I mean, she's cooked!
I wonder how badly Prosser wants to know who slandered him. I'd like to see the Commission investigate that.
And there's RV with the early misdirection away from the leak.
Deflect, Delay, Deny. It's sad that the lefties are so predictable.
"Just based on her description both seem at fault."
Only if we rely on English law, wherein self-defense is no defense.
But do we really want to be that silly?
F.O.I.A.
Since the story leaked to Leuders was completely misleading, doesn't Leauders have the journalistic obligation to reveal his source?
Ann Althouse said. . .
What if the court doesn't deserve public confidence in its integrity and impartiality? Are the judges compelled to keep quiet about it?
Late to this party, but I think this is obviously false. You'd allow wrongdoing justices to do wrong by compelling other justices to not talk to the press? I think not. Therefore, you can't go after the leaker - even if it appears highly one-sided. Bias is often unconscious.
Numerous people close to the events have fingered Chief Justice Abrahamson as the leaker and media coordinator. My explanation for what happened, which I think is highly supported by all the evidence:
Abrahamson leaked the story in an effort to get rid of or damage Prosser. In her mind, he was totally wrong and Bradley was almost entirely innocent. Remember that Prosser was her foe and Bradley was her close friend. That sort of history will cause even a judge to fail to evaluate events fully impartially.
Now that it appears clear to all, including even Abrahamson at this point, that Bradley is at the very least as culpable as Prosser, Abrahmson will see to it the entire matter is resolved with no job loss to anyone involved.
Bradley should resign or be forced out. She's a liar and a fraud.
From the facts: 3 WI Supreme Court Justices were accompanying Prosser. All 4 of them were looking for their chief. NOBODY WAS LOOKING FOR A FIGHT!
When the door to Bradley's office opens she sees 4 colleagues ... not buglers ... or terrorists. Just colleagues. And, the subject is made very clear to the CHIEF.
When the CHIEF makes it appear she intends to withhold publishing the court's recent opinion on the Legislature's use (or non-use), of the Public Meeting Law ...
The conversation is TOPICAL. It's not argumentative. And, it's possible the CHIEF understood that her behaviors were running counter-productively to the job she is BY LAW tasked to do.
When Justice Prosser adds that he's disappointed in the CHIEF ... you get Ann Walsh-Bradley's response ... She rises from her seat. And, FLIES at Justice Prosser. With witnesses saying that her arms were flailing.
When Roggensack steps in the way of Bradley actually smacking Prosser ... Suddenly ... and in the heat of the moment ... Bradley begins to scream "choke hold." Which is not corroberated by Roggensack. Nor is this even witnessed by Crooks. Because Crooks had already left for the day.
Now that the various witness reports have been published; it seems the justices are attempting to "walk back" from FAKED ASSAULT CHARGES ... With remarks like "Ann, this isn't like you."
Yes. This has been an issue the media tried to use to churn up so much dislike for Prosser, he'd be forced to resign.
And, inside the court, itself, it is apparent that in more than one respect, Shirley Abrahamson fell down on the job. So, when you read her report it's as if she's just "floating above this all." She's not looking to make a case against Prosser.
Sure, there are options. IF Bradley has met (or heard from her colleagues); and they made it clear to her they didn't like her approach to go "outside their sphere" to push "anger management" on Prosser ...
And, Prosser has arleady stated "Bradley's charges will be proven false" ...
What remains ahead is the method.
Will it be the Tubbs method of listening but generating no report?
Will it be a "political" feast of blaming both parties, equally, which satisfies no one?
Will the law, itself, speak?
There was no charges of assault.
Just heated tempers.
(And, for Crooks, exposure that he reads the horoscopes out loud. For Gabelman, the story of how Bradley already bopped him in the head. And, Shirley did nothing.)
And, how to fix things so that harms are painted over.
Would Bradley choke first, if she had to offer an apology?
No. I'm not kidding.
If the solution is that Bradley apologies for treating Prosser like a dog "that has to leave the room," then ... yes. There's a ball in her court. Will she just sit on it?
Or choke?
Milwaukee Hate Radio is claiming a scoop - Crooks is preparing to step down this fall or sooner
Perhaps health related?
Update at 3 today
Just He said --she said?
Then believe Miss Bradley's testimony, the latest of Prosser's abuse victims. Unlikely she would just make shit up.
For that matter, read between the lines of the Lord Prosser rap sheet--and one gets a strong whiff of the...hushhush.
Okay. Crooks is old enough to step down. And, he's probably read in his horoscope that he should look for the "dignified" exit?
Since he wasn't there when the FALSE CHARGES unfolded, his opinion on this case, fails the first test. He witnessed nothing.
The media will never be forced to own up to the FALSE allegation that an assault took place.
The question then becomes how the Wisconsin judges will weigh in.
Since it's gotten astronomical attention ... "Bradley can't just go and talk to the hand."
While "Grandma" has been played, before. This time out? She was smart enough ... as soon as the "the parade of the assault charge" went public ... that she's just floating above the fray.
Even if Abrahamson was the original leaker ... You won't be told so. And, she's too old to be tagged "DEEP THROAT."
Bradley, unfortunately, has her fingerprints on the weapon. The motive. And, in a sense ... a claim that she could go outside the sphere of the courthouse ... to claim Prosser's misfortune in public.
It hangs there.
How do you solve this so that no one appears to lose face?
The least likely outcome would slap Bradley silly for trying to get Prosser removed from office on her bogus charges.
I have to wonder at what point in time she figured this out?
Everything now comes down to what side are you on. Either you're a communist dirtbag with no principles or else you're a normal person bravely struggling to maintain law and order.
Kirby O the ex-beatnik doing his part to deny Due Process: since Lord Prosser's a repub., and Bradley's not, Prosser must be correct (and Bradley's a commie), according to KO-Speak. Pathetic as usual.
Spin along, J.
Bradley's story crapped out.
And, even her friends have run for cover.
Since Bradley including the word "CHOKE" in her assault charge ... Is she, after all, going to be left to choke on it?
It didn't go down.
Mr Carol--you're jumping to conclusions once again, and trusting the TP authorities (and DA's office) to tell the truth (a mistake). Why would she file the report? She's not likely to just fabricate a story about Prosser attacking her (--and she's much smaller than him as well). Lord Prosser has a history of abusing women colleagues (at least verbally). And the judicial commission's investigating the matter as well---he's toast.
J ... I'm not "jumping."
It's just that long ago I read Freud. And, he points out how you can thread the circumstances under which people say something out loud. And, he also commented on how they "dream."
It's possible that Bradley will claim she "woke up from a dream." But she really doesn't "recall."
While all I'm focussing on is the word "CHOKE."
She said it. She said that she was being assaulted. She tried to sway her colleagues to believe her version of the truth.
Then? Well, the police were called in. (And, somehow the Judiciary Committee was also alerted.)
TUBBS shows up! And, TUBBS became a "stand in" for BRADLEY'S NECK!
Which Bradley said ... he should assume ... got strangled.
But TUBBS brought no yellow tape. Nor did he bring a piece of chalk. So that there could be "floor indication markers" that Sherlock had come. And, taken on the case. To "find the truth."
Quite quickly ... during the TUBBS stand in for Bradley's neck ... Roggensack called out: "There was no choke hold." So that should have put an end to that.
Except we've got this "choke" word hanging all about.
Who chokes next?
Can Bradley say "the whole thing was a dream?" Next season we'll all get along better?
And, then Crooks ups and quits?
Stay tuned.
You are suffering from a severe malfunction.
Robotrolls do sometimes freeze up and return repeated error messages.
And the judicial commission's investigating the matter as well---he's toast.
Makes as much sense anything else J says.
Mr Carol--you're jumping to conclusions once again, and trusting the TP authorities (and DA's office) to tell the truth (a mistake).
Of course. According to J, Prosser is guilty, no matter what the facts show.
Once you realize that J and the Obama Party who pays him consider being conservative to be an impeachable offense, their entire worldview makes sense.
Why would she file the report? She's not likely to just fabricate a story about Prosser attacking her (--and she's much smaller than him as well).
Of course she would. She's a pathological liar, supported in the fact that people like you, J, say that it's perfectly appropriate to lie and convict someone based solely on false evidence from a liar.
That's really what this is about, J. You and your Obama Party intend to pervert the court system so that there's no need for trials, evidence, or anything of the sort; you simply accuse, and someone is convicted.
This is what Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Bradley believe in -- the basic Obama Party philosophy that courts exist to imprison and punish conservatives.
And unfortunately for you, Wisconsin and the rest of the country are figuring that out -- that in your twisted world, a proven liar like Bradley can say whatever she wants to smear a conservative and have said conservative imprisoned.
No wonder Bradley is having crying fits. The brat is realizing that her mommy can't protect her any more, and that in fact her mommy Abrahamson is going to lose her position when it's revealed that Abrahamson deliberately lied to the press in order to injure Prosser.
Post a Comment