June 27, 2011

"Two agencies are investigating a claim by Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley that Justice David Prosser put her in a chokehold earlier this month..."

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:
The separate probes are being run by the Dane County Sheriff's Office and the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which oversees the state's judicial ethics code. The sheriff's investigation was launched Monday; the commission's was authorized Friday and publicly acknowledged Monday.

"After consulting with members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I have turned over the investigation into an alleged incident in the court's offices on June 13, 2011, to Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney," Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs said in a statement....

It was not clear why Tubbs would consult with members of the court on who should investigate the matter.


Jason said...

My question:

Why have Capitol Police if they are just going to punt on any investigation?

Tubbs is so far in over his head its comical.

Bob_R said...

If they handed this over to Madison cops who had to police the bars after football games this investigation would be over in about ten minutes. Bunch of lard white desk jockeys who haven't seen a punch thrown in anger in 50 years. People in $1,000 suits touch each other and think it's time to call the cops. Pussies.

Sprezzatura said...

So, are they also investigating Prosser's anonymously sourced claim of victimhood.

MikeR said...

I must admit that I never paid all that much attention to Wisconsin. It's not to be believed; this thing just never ends. Any guesses on what they'll come up with next?

People setting themselves on fire as a protest?

Attempts to kidnap the Koch brothers' children?

Congressmen refusing to come out of the Congressional bathrooms until the governor gives in?

Super-gluing their tongues to the rotunda?

I can't wait.

Shouting Thomas said...

Yes, much ado about nothing.

This is the after affect of feminism. Hysteria.

Nobody got hurt. Obviously, nothing of any importance happened.

Pussies is right.

edutcher said...

Since there's a height differential that makes the whole chokehold thing a tad problematical, I can see why Tubbs passed the buck.

He's lost without Sonny.

From Inwood said...

Dan Rather has a letter written by Prosser when he was in the military calling all women "bitches".

Shouting Thomas said...

This hysteria is courtesy of feminism.

Clearly, nothing happened that makes a fucking bit of difference.

Drop it. Forget about it.

That's what men would do. This crap is the negative bullshit that women brought into the workplace.

Bob_R said...

And the Badgers are going to win the Big Ten with an ACC quarterback. The whole state shoud be ashamed!

VanderDouchen said...

I think this is a great deal to do about something. As a culture, we've been preached to for decades about how advanced we are, how civilized we are, how nuanced and diverse we are, yet, a hgh court of the land behaves like children, at best, and criminals at worst. Someone here is seriously in the wrong, I thnk the public games are making it worse, and I don't thiink this is going to go the way that person thinks it is.

This is just more proof positive that the reasons to maintain ancient requirements for self defense never leave the sleeve.

We really need to bring back duals at dawn. At the crack of dawn, in fact.

WV: approobl:

You do not have my approobl to hit or choke me.

Revenant said...

Wouldn't Bradley have bruises on her neck if Prosser had choked her?

What am I missing?

Anonymous said...

I think the investigation should be handed over to Garage Mahal. It will be swift and conclusive.

And as an added bonus, he can also play judge and jury, saving the taxpayers much money.

edutcher said...

From Inwood said...

Dan Rather has a letter written by Prosser when he was in the military calling all women "bitches".

OK, we're talking about 40 years ago, right?

And the letter was found by Mary Mapes, no doubt.

Alex said...

Once again, where is the evidence?

pbj - you are going down the disgraceful road with garage. I beg you to turn back.

Jason said...

"That's what men would do. This crap is the negative bullshit that women brought into the workplace."

Especially when they are bitter.

There is a common denominator with the circus that is the Wisconsin Supreme Court over the past few years - Bradley and Abrahamson.

They were part of the reason Bablitch didnt run for re-election, they hate Gableman because he beat Louis Butler, and now they HATE Prosser because he has robbed them of being the knights in shining armor for the unions and the left in this state by preventing them from overturning Scott Walker's collective bargaining laws.

When you have a dysfunctional workplace, the blame lies with the supervisor. The Supreme Court is nothing more than a circus, and Abrahamson is the ringmaster.

1775OGG said...

Got an excllent trade between Wisconsin and Minnesota: Wisconsin's Governor Walker adds governing Minnesota to his load and Minnesota's Supreme Court takes over the Wisconsin duties. We get rid of Governor Doofus Dayton and you get rid of a disfunctional SCOTSOFWI.

Good deal for all involved.

Bob_R said...

Nobody is missing anything. A bunch of upper middle class people got mad at each other and yelled. There was some actual physical contact. No furniture was broken, no flesh was bruised, no blood flowed - yet some soft, fish belly white people were shocked. They reported this to a poorly educated and barely employed "journalist." Now we all have heard his "reports." We are wasting time talking about it instead of watching bad TV shows. Thank god for the internet.

Carol_Herman said...

Well, it seems the judiciary's investigative arm, has also investigated Gableman and Ziegler. And, both of them are supreme court justices, still.

Now, if this were a poker game. And, all the cards were various denominations of "laws" ... I think Prosser holds a winning hand.

I think Bradley thought she'd continue going after Prosser ... somehow proving her case because he keeps uttering "bitch." And, not under his breath.

But it's just another episode of Jerry Springer. (Without the flinging of chairs.)

Anyway, all the other "justices" are shit scared of Bradley by now.

While, who knows? The way the case gets distorted in the press ... might knock some common sense in the legal community?

Or George Soros can go into the 49 other states and buy equal mayhem.

Automatic_Wing said...

What's interesting is that the commission's investigation - requested by Prosser - was authorized on Friday.

Lueders' story was published on Saturday, was it not?

I'd been wondering why someone leaked the story to Lueders almost 2 weeks after the fact...perhaps this is why. Maybe Bradley wanted to get "her side of the story" out through a friendly outlet before the commission's investigation became public knowledge.

Luther said...

My question, out of the gate, is why Bradley made her first statements... being attacked, without at the same time saying that she had filed a compliant with appropriate authorities. That smells, to me.

Matter of fact, this all smells of agenda, not process.

Sprezzatura said...

"pbj - you are going down the disgraceful road with garage. I beg you to turn back."

Actually, my comment is a much better fit w/ Nevadabob. Apparently, according to N-bob and anonymous sources, Prosser is the dignified (as Althouse (who is a more informed than 99.999999% of the public in these matters) describes him) victim.

So, why no mention of an investigation re Prosser's victimhood? Apparently threatening a judge is a felony, as stated in the link. Can the police just ignore this anonymously sourced threat against the dignified Justice.

Maybe he was at a negative threat level. That is, since he threatened to destroy a Justice, he can be threatened one time by another Justice, and that threat will not count. But, now that he's at the neutral threat level, there will be consequences the next time Prosser is threatened.

Irene said...

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal wondered, "It was not clear why Tubbs would consult with members of the court on who should investigate the matter."

Maybe it's because Dane County Sheriff Mahoney appeared twice in this reelection ad on Chief Justice Abrahamson's behalf.

Or maybe it's because the Dane County DA who has authority to prosecute any criminal charges is the named plaintiff in the case about which the justices reportedly were arguing when the alleged incident occurred.

But that's okay because the DA says he'll appoint a special prosecutor if there's any appearance of a conflict of interest.

WineSlob said...

Prosser can't even choke his chicken anymore, much less Bradley. The idea that he throttled her hideous, jiggly-skinned neck in front of most of the other justices is just absurd.

Sprezzatura said...

"What's interesting is that the commission's investigation - requested by Prosser - was authorized on Friday."

Isn't it more noteworthy that Tubbs had already been called in and interviewed the Justices two days after the incident?

Obviously the chokehold complaint (which is what we are told is being investigated) was brought to the attention of the police almost immediately after the event.

garage mahal said...

Yes, much ado about nothing

Try that yourself. Go up to a judge and put him/her in a chokehold, and see what happens. In Wisc it is a felony.

Carol_Herman said...

No, edutcher. It was found by Lucy Ramirez.

More than interesting in itself, though, is that Prosser isn't commenting to the press.

Isn't that what got Weiner in trouble? What did he gain when he said he couldn't identify his own crotch "with certitude?"

Huma, on the other hand, remains mum.

He who can keep his or her tongue in one's mouth, wins.

rcocean said...

"Wouldn't Bradley have bruises on her neck if Prosser had choked her?"

No, because its been reported that "he exerted no pressure". Which means she got out of his "chock hold" by moving her head.

So, no bruises on her neck but obviously the mental damage was enormous. Can we really let a women with this kind of damage be a judge?

I don't think she can handle it anymore, not after this kind of punishment. Maybe its time for BOTH of them to resign.

JAL said...

Matter of fact, this all smells of agenda, not process.

You don't say.

S.O.R.E. L.O.S.E.R.S.

garage mahal said...

"Wouldn't Bradley have bruises on her neck if Prosser had choked her?"

Perhaps she does.

Shouting Thomas said...

Try that yourself. Go up to a judge and put him/her in a chokehold, and see what happens. In Wisc it is a felony.

Garbage, you fucking con artist, you don't have a fucking idea what happened.

Every time you touch the keyboard, you lie.


bagoh20 said...

@Bob R 10:29 Pretty much covers it in it's entirety.

The punctuation being JAL's

"Sore Losers"

Everything else is masturbatory, and unsatisfying at that.

Carol_Herman said...

First, Kloppenhoppen uses taxpayer funds to recount an election where she came in 7000 votes short. And, the recount matched the first night's results.

Now, we've got "two" taxpayer investigations going on at once.

I guess when taxpayer money is involved ... no expense is spared, huh?

If this were a circus, Barnum would be charging money for admission.

What's nice about the Internet, though, is how much of this stuff is available for free.

Did Bradley, after she calmed down, think she'd go get Prosser another way? What was it like when that complaint of hers first registered?

Did it stop the other justices from laughing?

How do twits get promoted to such high office?

Quilly_Mammoth said...

Important question that I am having problems finding...did Prosser ask the Judicial Commission for an investigation prior to Bradley's public statements?

Steve Austin said...

I wonder which side will call Milwaukee resident and former NBA star Latrell Sprewell as their expert witness?

G Joubert said...

According to Professor Jacobson when the results of the investigation come in, at least one of them must resign. And since Walker gets to appoint the replacement(s), I'm thinking Bradley and her minions may have very badly overplayed their hand.

traditionalguy said...

Has Bradley shown up in a neck brace yet? Drama is all about setting the stage with backdrops and props. Prosser could come in with facial scratches using a Walker...in honor of the Governor, you know.

Carol_Herman said...

Excuse me.

Bradley is proving she had a "choke hold" applied that caused mental damage, but no black and blue skin marks?

It's a bag full of holes.

And, it invites people to challenge this story because you don't have to go to law school ... to know what's up.

It's a scam.

How much is George Soros paying for this?

Carol_Herman said...

Oh, Traditionalguy. A neck press is definitely called for.

Let me guess that Bradley did not find a competent attorney to take her case on contingency.

Anonymous said...

Bradley's gone all Victorian and indulging in hysterics just because Prosser won. I sure hope she gets bounced for the court for lying.

North Dallas Thirty said...

Easy answer. Impeach Abrahamson for covering up a crime.

Really, it makes perfect sense. The Chief Justice covered up and refused to report to the appropriate authorities what she's now claiming is assault and battery.

Doesn't that make sense, garage and PB&J? After all, you can't have a judge like Abrahamson who covers up actual physical crimes against a judge, which you claim are an automatic felony in Wisconsin, right?

Now watch. If their concern is the law, these two will support Abrahamson being impeached, since she by her own admission witnessed a crime and did not file a police report or make an investigation.

If their concern is a partisan attack on Prosser, they will melt down.

William said...

My only area of experience in this field is with crack whores. The anger of a crack whore who finds that the client has lifted her stash is legendary. They aim for the eyes and come at you with their nails out. I have found it best in such cases to grab their arms above the elbow and, taking advantage of my superior upper body strength, pin their arms to their body. This neutralizes the attack.....However, as I say, my experience is with crack whores. Supreme Court Justices have superior reasoning powers. They may attempt to further attack by kneeing you in the testes or drilling you foot with their high heels. It's a judgement call, but I still think Prosser's best bet would have been to pin her arms as she came at him. At any rate, if your hands wind up around a woman's neck, the optics look very bad......I think the Solomonic decision would be for both Justices to resign. Walker could name Prosser's replacement, and some Dem poobah could name Bradley's. The relationship is far too toxic to remain status quo.

Known Unknown said...

Reading Carol Herman's comments is like narrating a game of pinball.

Quilly_Mammoth said...

I'm still agog at the Left's reaction. Can we talk Realpolitik here?

Let's say Prosser is guilty of attacking Bradley (I don't think he is, but) the case is now with the Dane County Sheriff office. They take four weeks to get their case together, and with holidays it's going to take four weeks.

The results get passed to Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne. Mr. Ozanne, if true to his word, must pass because the case being discussed at he time of the incident involved _him_. So he requests a Special Prosecutor. As he said he would in conflict of interest cases.

By this time it is September, Prosser has been sworn in. If he resigns now Walker appoints a young, charismatic conservative judge.

The only win is for those who have Prosser Derangement Syndrome. They gained nothing but his removal from public office. But his replacement will be there for decades.

george said...

So how long would it really take to investigate something like this? You take the statements of the people in the room and you are finished before lunch. It is unlikely you will have enough to press charges in such a case barring a unanimous account coming from all of the witnesses. But I expect the legal profession to take some action in policing itself.

Speculation is fun but we don't really have any facts we can be sure of now so it is kind of pointless. You would think the professional journalists would have been more thorough as far as getting details but it has been my experience that they are an extremely incurious bunch. You will find more and better questions on any decent blog than the ones they ask.

mtrobertsattorney said...

What we don't know yet is the height/weight differential between the two protagnists. This will be very important if self-defense becomes an issue.

From the photos of J. Prosser, he looks like he is about 5'2" or 5'3" and weighs between 135-140lbs.

As for J. Bradley, we don't have much to go on. The word on the street is that she is about 5'7" or 5'8" and weighs in somewhere between 165 and 170lbs.

Maybe Garage, who appears to know more about this incident than anyone, can help us out with some valuable information.

Sloanasaurus said...

If this story is a he-said, she-said story, then we need to look at what actually is alleged to have occurred. The claimed "choke hold" could have occurred. But, putting someone in a choke hold does not seem to be a plausible agressive move. If the story was that Prosser smacked Bradly, or pushed Bradley, then that would make sense if you were accusing Prosser as being the agressor.

The more likely story is that Bradley did either assualt or threaten to assualt Prosser by entering into his "space." A "choke-hold" or something that looked like one makes more sense as a defensive move.

Moreover, Bradly has more motive to attack Prosser. She has been on the losing side of the Union debate, her friend was defeated by Prosser in the election, and she was on the losing side of the decision to rule against Judge Sumi. She blew her top.

AlphaLiberal said...

I posted this in the cafe post.

Hey, for all of your foreigners who never heard of Prosser or Abrahamson before two months ago. The ones telling us Cheeseheads whats going on in Wisconsin, why don't you check out this video reminding us all of David Prosser's long record as a hotheaded bully. It's a sampler.

This is not the first public controversy involving David Prosser being belligerently hostile. Don't know if he's attacked other people before. If so, I hope they come forward.

Ken said...

"You have failed me for the last time, Justice Bradley."

Ralph L said...

Jason, they call him MISTER TUBBS!

Carol_Herman said...

I think they're going to have to come in with yellow police tape, and wrap it around Bradley's office window.

While it's hard to find witnesses.

Because it's said when your case goes flying out the window, it hardly makes a sound.

While Prosser is being attacked, again, by the same bitches. That tried this tactic before. But he still won a majority of voters.

It's not against the law to whisper the word bitch. Or even to say it out loud. So far as we know, that's all Prosser is guilty of.

Yet, when "bitch" was said out loud, suddenly Bradley flew out of her chair, as if some button in the room got pressed.

Search the room.

See if you can find a spring under Bradley's chair.

And, you bet. She'd make her case better, if she began using a neck brace.

I don't think Prosser should be forced to resign. Was he not supposed to resist getting pummeled by a batshit crazed lunatic?

Joanna said...

No furniture was broken, no flesh was bruised, no blood flowed - yet some soft, fish belly white people were shocked.

I've been told over and over again that the WI protests were "non-violent" and "peaceful", but worse than this (Bradley/Prosser allegations) happened then.

I find Wisconsin media's definitions of "violent" and "peaceful" to be opportunistic and disturbing.

Carol_Herman said...

Once, when the Mets were in the toilet, they hired Casey Stengel.

As the new manager he watched them in practice.

And, then he shouted out: "Isn't there anyone here who can play this game?"

Seems you can bend laws any which way in Wisconsin, to fit your point of view.

If I didn't know that PRAVDA was a big fail, even when it had no competition ... I wouldn't think that we're we're not watching idiots who were told they could advance ... even though you'd think most of them failed their Bar exams.

Do you just hire other people to take those tests?

Can you really force the left's views down people's throats?

How come Bradley's not afraid she can lose?

Maybe, it's just a matter of time ... before she dons the neck brace.

Abrahamson will say age robbed her of vision. And, she's only able to use Braille, now. She didn't see a thing. When she heard Prosser was squeezing a neck, she thought he was exposing himself. But she couldn't find her glasses.

Have all the law books been stolen out of Wisconsin?

Mike said...

We need to have Ann tell us if there is a Wisconsin statute akin to Title 18 USCA Sec. 1000---it'a felony to make a false statement to a federal agent/agency/officer.

If there is such a statute, then both Bradley and Prosser ought to be careful about that they say to POH LEEZ. And if it all plays out that one of them has to go, Governor Walker would be only too h appy to get the "right" sort of judge in there.

JoeNik said...

Is there a Separation of Powers issue here? It seems odd to have an executive branch official (the Dane County Sheriff) investigate the private discussions of Supreme Court Justices.

Is the Wisconsin Judicial Commission overseen by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin? Can they discipline a Justice without him/her having a right of appeal to the Court? I would think that this mess would end up having to be decided by the Justices ultimately.

SukieTawdry said...

Maybe it's because Dane County Sheriff Mahoney appeared twice in this reelection ad on Chief Justice Abrahamson's behalf.

In the comments over at Prof. Jacobson's is a link to a second ad and it's even better as it also features our old friend Maryann Sumi. Kloppenburg, Sumi, Bradley, Abrahamson--gad what a gaggle.

As an aside, Abrahamson seems to be one of Barack Obama's empathetic justices (and a wise Jewess, perhaps?), the very type I hold in contempt. Her ad is all about how Shirley works with homeowners to come up with solutions to avoid foreclosure and protects consumers from abuse. "Shirley stands up for all of us." "She protected Wisconsin families." Shirley herself says, "The best thing a judge can do is help people. That's what I do."

Not that I'd be surprised, but does the Wisconsin constitution have a different mandate for its Supreme Court than the rest of the states? I mean, what is this shit?

And to think Clinton considered her for SCOTUS. Bader Ginsburg never looked so good.

Revenant said...

"Wouldn't Bradley have bruises on her neck if Prosser had choked her?"

Perhaps she does.

It is impossible that she has such bruises and has not mentioned it to the press.

Carol_Herman said...

The court closes on Tuesday.

Is it Tuesday yet?

It also seems from a comment on your other thread, that at MSNBC ... two democrapic Wisconsin clowns were interviewed ... And, the "gist" is that "if there was pressure to pass the law by the Supreme's, then it must be revoked."

Maybe, In Wisconsin real law books are like Yellow Pages. Yellow Pages are no longer issued. They are a thing of the past.

Bradley's best hope, meanwhile, is that through the lazy assed press ... this turns into nothing more than "he said/she said." Except Prosser doesn't say anything.

IF this whole thing is a charade to deny voters their choice of victor, where Prosser won. And, then proved this win to be a significant margin Klopper's caper couldn't polish off ...

The court just goes off and closes its doors for the summer.

By August 1st Prosser will have to be sworn in, in a bunker.

While I can't think that too many lawyers and judges are very happy to see this sorry story exposed.

You know, it's just NOT democracy, if you foil the will of the people by other means.

Methadras said...

Did he give her a noogie?

Anonymous said...

"Go up to a judge and put him/her in a chokehold, and see what happens. In Wisc it is a felony."

Not if you don't file a complaint. And Judge Bradley didn't file a complaint because if she makes false statements to the police that's a crime she can be prosecuted for.

Instead, she makes her charges by secretly meeting with George Soros' crew and staying "anonymous."

The only reason she hasn't been prosecuted thusfar is that Judge Prosser declined to press charges against her and instead file a professional complaint with the Wisconsin bar.

Judge Bradley charged Judge Prosser and tried to physically throw him out of an office owned by the people of the state of Wisconsin and Judge Prosser defended himself against her aggressive attack. Two eyewitnesses who were in the room at the time and who are also Supreme Court justices. They have recounted their eyewitness testimony concerning Judge Bradley's attack on Judge Prosser to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which reported it two days ago.

It will take a few more days, but Judge Bradley is going to be charged for her assault on Judge Prosser and she's going to be arrested and then booked and her mugshot is going to be a public record.

At that time, she must resign her seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and if she refuses to do so she should be impeached.

She has brought scorn and ridicule onto the Wisconsin Supreme Court by her false allegations and coordination of her smear campaign against Judge Prosser with the George Soros-funded Wisconsin Center for Yellow Journalism.

Judge Bradley is unethical and has brought into serious question the impartiality of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

She should be disbarred.

AllenS said...

E.M. Davis said...
Reading Carol Herman's comments is like narrating a game of pinball.

Too funny. Ha!

Dusty said...

Maguro said...

What's interesting is that the commission's investigation - requested by Prosser - was authorized on Friday.

Lueders' story was published on Saturday, was it not?

I'd been wondering why someone leaked the story to Lueders almost 2 weeks after the fact...perhaps this is why. Maybe Bradley wanted to get "her side of the story" out through a friendly outlet before the commission's investigation became public knowledge.

Wouldn't it be just as plausible for Prosser to have requested the investigation after being contacted by Lueders for comment on the story? The story came out Saturday morning and it had to have taken some time for Lueders to do the 'leg work'. That would mean he did his interviews and collected his sources' comments Friday (or even Thursday) and a Prosser response on Friday. So, Prosser, knowing that the accusation by Bradley was being pursued, at least on the public level if not the legal level, promptly submitted the request for investigation.

That makes more sense, I think, than Prosser's request prompting sources to leak the story to Lueders.

Knowing the tenor of the actual request by Prosser would give some insight to which cause/effect is more likely. I presume it is a formal request and, as such, is in writing.

rhhardin said...

I'd assume that investigating was a way of burying the story.

rhhardin said...

If somebody who knows how to investigate investigates, the truth will come out pretty fast.

It's hard to keep a fabricated story straight with a skilled interviewer.

Saint Croix said...

When I was a prosecutor we saw cases like this all the time. They would always come on Thursdays, which is the day we would hear cases where there was no police officer, and the people involved had sworn out complaints (usually against each other). We called it Love Court.

I remember one case that was like a Family Feud. We had so many damn defendants we didn’t have enough chairs. Judge got so pissed he found them all guilty. And every single one of them was shocked. He put ‘em in jail for the day (they were yelling in the court room). And when they came out, they all went home with a criminal record.

Ann Walsh Bradley reminds me of those defendants. Angry and self-righteous, absolutely sure that she is in the right and that person who tried to strangle her should be punished. She probably has no memory of jumping out of her chair and running up to him with her fists clenched. “I was just escorting him from my office.” She’s oblivious to her own anger. All she remembers Is that Republican bastard who called her good friend a bitch. How dare he! And even though she’s literally been plotting to remove him from office, she feels that her own motivations are completely transparent and honest. “I wasn’t doing anything and he started strangling me for no reason!” That’s her story and she’s sticking to it.

“Did you shove him out of your office?”

“No. No. There might have been a push. He’s a lying bastard!”

“Ma’am, if you can’t control yourself, I’m going to have to hold you in contempt of court.”

“He’s the one in contempt of court!”

Saint Croix said...

Hugo Black got so mad at Felix Frankfurter one time (and who wouldn't!) that he attacked him in chambers. The rest of the Supreme Court had to pull him off.

Now you can make a big deal about that. Or you can blow it off and it becomes a minor amusing footnote to a great career. It's up to you.

Fen said...

Libtard: Go up to a judge and put him/her in a chokehold, and see what happens.

Don't ya just love how incidental contact = putting her in a chokehold?

The Left has no shame.

Anonymous said...

Lueders gave a radio interview on Monday morning where he described some of the process of reporting the story.

Here's the link: http://slysoffice.blogspot.com/2011/06/bill-lueders-stunning-allegations.html

It is 18 1/2 minutes long.

Seeing Red said...

If Prosser was sitting and Tawanna was standing, doesn't that suggest she loomed over him?

He tried to strangle her while sitting down?

How dumb is that?

Seeing Red said...

She probably has no memory of jumping out of her chair and running up to him with her fists clenched.

OJ doesn't remember nuthin.

Nicole's body turned into a pez dispenser, tho.

Geez, a blind fury over arguing when to release the opinion.

So much for "judicial temperment."

gerry said...

Prosser can't even choke his chicken anymore, much less Bradley. The idea that he throttled her hideous, jiggly-skinned neck in front of most of the other justices is just absurd.

My eyes are now permanently scarred.

damikesc said...

I hope the destruction of any ability for opposing justices to speak at all was worth it.

roesch-voltaire said...

In a conference here in Vancouver with engineers, the question asked is why didn't Prosser leave Bradley's office when she asked him to? Seems he has some kind of passive/aggressive behavior towards women on the court. Before commenting further, I am glad to read that two investigations are on the way so this can be brought forward to Judge Judy.

Michael said...

Garage There was no "chokehold.". Really. Do you believe that five witnesses would have remained silent after someone in their group was put in a "chokehol" by another? You really believe that? Seriously? Now i dont live in your lunatic state so maybe this kind of thing is commonplace but in
the rest of the world to believe such a thing would defy common sense.

Brennan said...

Thanks detroitexile.

VanderDouchen said...


You and your minions have definitely taken a different tact in this conversation. It's transparent and childish, but different from the past, nonetheless. Where do the talking points come from? You are all on the same sheet of music (again), just playing a different style. I think it is cute that you don't think it can be seen.

WV: mantric:

The reds began their mantric recounting of events that day.

Anonymous said...

In a conference here in Vancouver with engineers, the question asked is why didn't Prosser leave Bradley's office when she asked him to?

Vancouver, you say? I'm surprised those losers left the conference hotel standing after choking in the finals.

In answer to your question, I would presume it was because for some good reason he believed he had every right to be there. Why do you think he didn't leave?

Velocon said...

The Dane County kangaroo court fix is in! Sheriff Dave Mahoney appeared in a campaign ad for Justice Abrahamson, entitled "Help" ('Our Chief, she knows how to help the common person;' also appearing in ad is Judge Sumi-barf), and refused to allow his sheriffs to protect the Legislature & Governor from the leftist mobs saying he would not let them be "palace guards." He is a nakedly partisan hack who has no business investigating the Bradley-Prosser incident, and any conclusions from this investigation are necessarily tainted by his partisan conflict. If Mahoney had any integrity he would recuse himself, but he won't as the The Dane County Fix won't work if he does.

Carol_Herman said...

The timeline where Prosser went to the Judiciary Committee to file a complaint, came after he got Loo-der's call, requesting him to comment. I can buy that.

Bradley's biggest mistake was never to be seen in a neck brace.

And, yes. It's NOT Bradley's office! It's the State's office. And, building. And, Bradley sits in it, like the other justices, because she was elected to serve.

This reminds me when the Capitol Rotunda was attacked by leftists. Who, to circumvent the doors being shut, entered the building through windows opened by democrapic assembly persons.

Wasn't much of a leap. The windows are down on the ground floor. And, opened wide enough, the invaders also carried in pizza boxes.

When George Soros spends money he spares no expense.

When the Internet hits the jackpot, we get updates on this story, here.

And, updates that "Weiner is inserting himself."

Probably means the "game book of politics" hasn't been updated with other possible outcomes, yet.

WineSlob said...

Mahoney Will Give us Some Baloney
That his Investigation is Not Totally Phony
He's a Walsh-Bradley Stooge
An Abrahamson Dude
A Corrupt Leftie Madison Crony.

Anonymous said...

The WI SC version of Wayne Brady: "Is Wayne Brady gonna hafta put his hands on a bitches neck in a non-playful manner?"

Saint Croix said...

Have I got this timeline right?

There's some sort of physical scuffle in Bradley's office. The whole frickin' Supreme Court is there to witness it (minus one guy).

Two days later, somebody (i.e. Bradley) calls the cops. Tubbs investigates the complaint and talks to all the judges who are witnesses. He decides to do nothing.

Two weeks later, somebody (i.e. Bradley) tells a reporter that Prosser tried to strangle her.

The reporter calls up Prosser and asks him some questions about it.

Prosser files an official request to have the whole incident investigated.

If that's how it went down, then one can assume nobody else on the Court is backing up Bradley's story. Including her ally the Chief Justice. When talking to the cops, they said no crime. So the cops did nothing.

Strangling = crime.

Minor physical skirmish = no crime.

Bradley's inability to see the difference, and her desire for vengeance, speaks volumes about her flaws as a jurist.

I mean, the frickin' cops talk to everybody on the court, and decide to do nothing. And she goes to the press and calls her fellow jurist a strangler?

Abrahamson must be ready to strangle Bradley herself right about now. The whole Court is a laughingstock. And this reflects horribly on Abrahamson and her lack of leadership.

Brennan said...

The Lueders interview with Sly in the Morning is worthless. Sly doesn't inquire about Lueders' sources at all. But he does ask about Ed Morrisey's sources for a Hotair.com piece. Yes, really.

Lueders story is simple. He's not sharing his sources. He believes they are credible. He's added a fourth anonymous source to his sourcing.

Lueders' story is nothing with Bradley's on the record statement in the MJS.

Also, this was Lueders first assignment with the Wiscon...George Soros stooge journalism operation. That operation is also a family endeavor.

Carol_Herman said...

Given that the Supreme Court closes soon. Tuesday, today. Or Tuesday, next week. No investigation will get to be done, unless the "investigators" get travel expenses to pretty nice places.

Probably, what's more interesting, as soon as Alhouse popped out about 400 comments on one of these threads, dealing with this topic ... Is that there are "professionals" watching to see if they have to "act." Of if this whole story fades away.

"He said/She said." Is the left's meme, now. It's not "Investigate! Investigate! Investigate!"

let alone you just can't unseat an elected official.

But the charge that Prosser is "noted for losing his temper" seems to be a meme set against cast. (You just don't put Mr. Peepers into a role that requires an actor to go all Lee J. Cobb on ya.)

For the next act, where the curtain hasn't gone up, yet, I'll take a bet that Crooks, Abrhamson, and Bradley are no-shows. Both at Prosser's August 1st swearing in. And, at any party anyone might want to throw for him to celebrate. He'd be wise not to invite the press. Because all they'd do is claim he got so drunk he fell into the punch bowl.

Or? Perhaps he took a swing at Bradley, again?

Perhaps what this story needs are bobble heads? Prosser's could be sold nationally. Bradley's? Only local.

There's no upside in any real investigation for Bradley.

Perhaps, she can say, though, that a loose spring in her chair, suddenly popped up. And, stuck her in the ass. Which sent her flying. And, that's when Prosser did the choke hold. If he didn't ... she'd have flown all the way up to the chandelier.

You know, if those women really want to lock Prosser out, they can hold their meetings in the ladies room. He's never gonna be given a key. And, they can write notes on the paper provided in the paper dispenser. Win. Win.

Who votes for this story going nowhere?

What can we do to help it "getting inserted" again? And, again?

Anonymous said...

Anatomy of a Democrat Hate Crime:

Wisconsin Policy Research Institute: "According to one witness, Bradley charged toward Prosser, shaking her clenched fist in his face. Another source says they were “literally nose to nose.” Prosser then put his hands up to push her away."

"During the Wednesday meeting, Bradley urged the justices present to take a vote on whether Prosser should be forced into anger-management counseling."

The other justices balked, wondering whether they even had the authority to order Prosser into any type of counseling. Some thought it would be “demeaning” to Prosser to have to go to counseling when he had done nothing wrong. In the end, Bradley realized she didn’t have enough justices on her side and no vote was taken.

To date, Bradley has not filed any kind of charges against Prosser. Instead, the story was leaked to the George Soros–funded Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

"... sources unanimously believed that it was Shirley Abrahamson who has been the impetus behind the story, managing the press operation from behind the scenes. Justices had been working together regularly since the incident without any signs of rancor until Abrahamson decided to make this an issue, sources believe."

As they say, read the whole thing here.

Michael The Magnificent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
damikesc said...

NRO and its reporting certainly makes a case that Bradley and Abramson need to leave.

Carol_Herman said...

Wonderful Internet. What with links and all.

I linked to Professor Jacobsen's blog. Which led to a link to Jonathan Turney's blog. Which had an email from March. Written by Justice Roggensack (sp?) Outlining her anger at Abrhamson for letting the dysfunction at conference remain intact.

That's where you'll find the first mention that the court needed to hire someone to do anger management classes. It wasn't directed at Prosser! Prosser was just a victim. So, I'll copy and paste the email from March that has left the courthouse ... And, can be found on the Internet:

"Prosser insists that Abrahamson was working against him politically as well as other court conservatives. He said that he “probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely warranted. . . . They (Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley) are masters at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements. This is bullying and abuse of very, very long standing.”

Bradley recounted the confrontation in an email: “In a fit of temper, you were screaming at the chief; calling her a ‘bitch,’ threatening her with ‘. . . I will destroy you’; and describing the means of destruction as a war against her ‘and it won’t be a ground war.’”
Bradley’s email led another justice to criticize her for airing the issue to a wider audience. Justice Patience Roggensack wrote to Bradley, stating

“You were trying to make David look bad in the eyes of others, as a person who uses language that we all find offensive – and I include David in that ‘we,’  . . .Do you think that copying others on your e-mail increased the collegiality of the court or decreased it?

You are a very active participant in the dysfunctional way we carry-on. (As am I.) You often goad other justices by pushing and pushing in conference in a way that is simply rude and completely nonproductive. That is what happened when David lost his cool. He is not a man who attacks others without provocation. Until you realize that you are an active part of the provocation, not much will change. Perhaps a third party will help you realize that you are not part of the solution; you are part of the problem.”

Carol_Herman said...

Given that Roggensack's unhappiness with Bradley has been published. (As I said, thru Jonathan Turney's blog) ...

Bradley and Abrahamson aren't going to be able to withstand the findings that will come about from any investigaton!

I say this because Roggensack has more clout as a sitting justice ... than the putz's in Dane County ... who heads up the sheriff's office. And, the police.

It's just a question of whose ass is most exposed.

Since Professor Jacobson judges that one of these less than stellar justices will be forced out ... I'll bet it's Bradley.

Prosser's cool.

Maybe, he lost his temper?

But he's playing with a home court advantage.

Bradley doesn't have enough friends on the Wisconsin Supreme Court to un-bend her out-of-shape neck. Not this time.

Brennan said...

What kind of crazy person does it take to think you could just take a vote to force another person into anger management?

Power drunk they are.

Freeman Hunt said...

I notice that all the stories slant against Prosser for no good reason.

Carol_Herman said...

Well, the laundry line is now full of the dirty laundry being hung out to dry.

Back in March, before the election that Prosser won, there was an attempt by Bradley to sully his name. And, she's the first one who "called the press."

She did this via email. Where she reiterated a scene that happened in conference. Where Prosser was goated to lose his temper.

The first act was Bradley's attempt to smear Prosser, going public. VIRAL.

And, another justice, Roggensack, countered Bradley's piece with an "internal memo" of her own ... showing how Prosser was goated. And, recommending to Abrahamson that she was dysfunctional. And, the real cause that there continued to be so much dysfunction among Wisconsin's Supreme Court Justices.

That's where the first recommendation of "perhaps an anger management course should be offered to Bradley" first posed itself.

Not to be taken lightly.

Bradley is still trying to run her complaints up Prosser's ass. But in such a public fashion, now ... that the entire political back benchers have "noticed."

The knives are out.

Hard to investigate this story now so that it just fades away.

It's also probable that Abrahamson has seen her own reputation flying out the window, here?

With all the contempt she may have for people who don't share her leftist agenda ... She probably knows she can't quite come out swinging against Prosser.

Going to the media?

We live in an Internet world.

It's a wonderful thing to see this topic still attracts posters!

Do you know why?

There are just too many people who put up with PC crap just to get a paycheck. That's the anger under it all! The nerve that twits who benefited by undeserved promotions ... has set off the firecracker.

Ahead? Fireworks, perhaps, better than the 4th of July.

Anonymous said...

Dave was diss'n Shirley
So Annie took offence
Then she flew East, he shoved West
And one flew over the cuckoo's nest

mariner said...

I'd been wondering why someone leaked the story to Lueders almost 2 weeks after the fact...perhaps this is why. Maybe Bradley wanted to get "her side of the story" out through a friendly outlet before the commission's investigation became public knowledge.

I think you nailed it.

We all know that when the facts come out they will not get nearly the exposure the original nonsense did.

mariner said...


I appreciate your passion, but I think you're hallucinating if you believe the "investigation" will result in either Abrahamson or Bradley either formally charged or forced to resign.