In his 26-page decision [PDF], U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa in Milwaukee told prosecutors to immediately stop the long-running, five-county probe into possible illegal coordination between Walker's campaign, the Wisconsin Club for Growth and a host of others during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections."Circumvent" is a funny word there. The assumption should be that we are free except to the extent that the government has validly restricted us. A bigger question is whether the campaign finance statutory law that we do have is valid, given free speech rights.
"The (Wisconsin Club for Growth and its treasurer) have found a way to circumvent campaign finance laws, and that circumvention should not and cannot be condemned or restricted. Instead, it should be recognized as promoting political speech, an activity that is 'ingrained in our culture,'" Randa wrote, quoting from a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, a Democrat, launched the probe in mid-2012, shortly after the conclusion of the recall elections sparked by Act 10.... John Doe probes are overseen by judges and allow prosecutors to compel people to produce documents and give testimony, as well as bar them from talking publicly about the investigation....And here's the news of the emergency appeal to the 7th Circuit.
Randa wrote of the urgency of the case, because prosecutors essentially shut down Wisconsin Club for Growth's right to free speech during an election year....
[Eric O'Keefe, director of the Club for Growth] estimates the Wisconsin Club for Growth has lost $2 million in fundraising that would have been committed to issue advocacy, Randa wrote.
E. Michael McCann, the former Democratic district attorney in Milwaukee County for nearly four decades, said he had never seen a federal judge intervene so forcefully to smack down a state prosecutor in the midst of an investigation.ADDED: I'm reading the opinion now. Let me quote this on the subject of WCFG's lost fundraising:
"It's definitely an extraordinary case. There's no doubt about that," McCann said.
The current John Doe investigation has devastated O'Keefe's ability to undertake issue advocacy with WCFG. O’Keefe Dec., ¶ 40. O’Keefe lost most of his fundraising abilities for the Club immediately because: (1) it would be unethical to raise money without disclosing that he is a target in a criminal investigation; (2) it would be unwise for prospects to invest the time required for them to independently evaluate any risks; (3) the secrecy order purports to bar O’Keefe from disclosing the facts of the investigation and the reasons he believes that WCFG is not guilty of any crimes; and (4) O’Keefe cannot assure donors that their information will remain confidential as prosecutors have targeted that information directly. As a result, O’Keefe estimates that the Club has lost $2 million in fundraising that would have been committed to issue advocacy. Id., ¶ 49.ALSO: Above, I reacted to the word "circumvent." As I'm reading the case, I see that in context, the word comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Citizens United, which Judge Randa quoted (at p. 22):
"Political speech is so ingrained in our culture that speakers find ways to circumvent campaign finance laws. Our Nation‘s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights." Citizens United at 364.So the Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the idea that citizens must figure out how to "circumvent" complicated law in order to speak. Free speech has to mean much more than what's left after hard-to-understand restrictions scare the bejeesus out of you.
So now I see the satirical tone in Judge Randa's use of the word circumvent:
The plaintiffs have found a way to circumvent campaign finance laws, and that circumvention should not and cannot be condemned or restricted.The point there is that even with those onerous laws in the way of free speech, the plaintiffs figured out how to speak without violating those laws. They should be celebrating for getting through the legalistic minefield. They have a lot more courage than most of us. The next sentence in Randa's opinion drives home the point:
Instead, it should be recognized as promoting political speech, an activity that is "ingrained in our culture." Id.AND: Rick Hasen (at Election Law Blog) also fixes on the verb "circumvent." Here's where Hasen goes with it:
But I am concerned about the broader implications of this case if it is allowed to stand, particularly the judge’s virtual celebration of coordination and circumvention of campaign finance laws.As you can see above, I think the Supreme Court essentially celebrates circumvention and that Randa is taking his cue from the Supreme Court. I don't think sly/dry/satirical writing necessarily works in judicial opinions. If I have to ponder it and Rick Hasen doesn't even get it, the point is not clear enough.
... I do think this ruling breaks new ground and goes much further than even Citizens United and McCutcheon. While the Supreme Court is willing to tolerate circumvention of rules in the name of the First Amendment, this ruling celebrates it.
UPDATE: The 7th Circuit grants a stay.
Posts
79 comments:
I don't get the use of the word circumvent. Shouldn't carefully reading a law and then making sure you don't violate it be called OBEYING the law?
And just when they were about to uncover the secret routers! What bad luck.
This appears to me, the little that i have read on this case, a clear abuse of power, the DA should be jailed, end of story.
Walker's side scores first.
Looking forward to the screams of rightwing activist judges when the kos kids don't like the result.
What happened to "It's the law of the land!"
Perhaps someone can come and explain to us all about SECRET ROUTERS! and how they will fit into the appeal against this epic benchslap.
Mr. Prosecutor, may we not drop this? We know the Club for Growth spent money on the recall. Let us not assassinate this group further, Mr. Prosecutor. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
Do any of you legal eagles have a best guess as to when the 7th circuit will issue a ruling on the emergency appeal by Chisholm et al?
""Circumvent" is a funny word there. The assumption should be that we are free except to the extent that the government has validly restricted us. A bigger question is whether the campaign finance statutory law that we do have is valid, given free speech rights."
You gotta believe that it was political speech that the Founders sought to protect. Yet today politicians think the government should decide who can't say what and when they can't say it, all in the name of "free speech". It's so fucked up.
When it comes to Amendments, the Wisconsin Democrats could not count to one.
Ann, just curious about your opinion of this part of the decision:
"the government does not have a right to pursue the possibility of corruption, only that which evinces a quid pro quo corruption. Defendants‘ view that the subject coordination could result in quid pro quo corruption is ―speculation‖ that ―cannot justify . . . substantial intrusion on First Amendment rights.‖ McCutcheon at 1456. For it is not the extent of the coordination that matters, it is whether the issue advocacy money is used for express advocacy, and the clearest evidence of whether or not it is used for express advocacy is the type of speech produced by the money used to produce it. ―The First Amendment protects the resulting speech.‖ Citizens United at 351 (emphasis added). As it relates to the facts of this case, no investigation, much less a secret one, is required to discover any abuse of Chapter 11 of the Wisconsin Statutes."
Some (i.e. Jack Craver - who you know) are arguing that Randa has ruled "explicit coordination between a campaign and an outside group is protected." However, Randa seems simply to be saying the State has no legal grounds for investigating co-ordination unless it applies to express advocacy. It cannot investigate issue advocacy because there is no prospect of quid pro quo favors for contributions with issue advocacy. Randa quotes liberally from Supreme Court decisions to support this opinion.
I'm not a lawyer, but - trying to look at this as objectively as I can - this sounds right to me, and Judge Randa obviously doesn't think he's breaking new legal ground.
What say you?
Shorter Oft-overturned Judge Randa:
So, uh, it looks to me like Walker & Co are circumventing the law. Besides, it ain't really corruption if outside groups agree with the people they're laundering money to! And also, destroy all the evidence collected in this court-authorized investigation.
Welcome to Wiskochsin. What an embarrassment this state has become.
Probably stuffing his face and sobbing in a corner somewhere.
The Milwaukee DA's should be tarred and feathered for this nonsense. I wonder how much it all cost.
I can't wait to hear Garage screaming that this is a perfectly legit prosecution against the evil Republicans in Wisconsin. Even though it's been going on for two years, they need more time!
Benghazi?
Not so much.
This was announced yesterday.
On the one hand, I'm all for rooting out corruption, and I understand that it's hidden pretty carefully sometimes.
On the other hand, some fishing expeditions go on for an overly long amount of time, and prosecutorial abuse isn't hard to imagine -- especially for an elected DA.
Is there any compelling evidence that the Club for Growth behaved in a way different than any other advocacy group or in a way that is statutorily prohibited?
The most amazing aspect of this from the outside is how a seemingly secret fishing-expedition investigation can be launched and the investigated party is not allowed to comment on it publicly, inviting abuse. Further, the investigators don't have to come up with anything to keep the investigated shut up.
If I've got that wrong I am happy to be enlightened.
There there fatty, let it all out. Have a good cry. Some talking points will be released for you soon. Maybe this will just fire people up for Mary Burke's campaign, I hear it's setting the world on fire.
To quote South Park, "Your tears of unfathomable sadness are delicious."
"Besides, it ain't really corruption if outside groups agree with the people they're laundering money to!"
What is "laundering money to" supposed to mean?
If someone spends his own money to push issues (or even candidates) that he likes, is he supposed to be seen as giving money to that candidate in a manner that is similar to a bribe?
When all those Hollywood people express their support for, say, Obama, putting their goodwill behind him as a candidate, should we say they are they are "laundering money to" him?
It sounds to me like you want to see speech as a crime and political activity as something that so scary and risky to do that it will be ceded to the professional campaigns.
Coordinating massive violations of first amendment rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Almost sounds like the type of actions and abuse of office that should get someone disbarred. I know, crazy talk.
Ann Althouse (speaking to garage): "It sounds to me like you want to see speech as a crime..."
garage is a leftist.
And leftists always, inevitably, invariably attempt to criminalize speech.
It's who they are.
A secret prosecution? Someone's investigating me and I can't tell people I'm being investigated? What the hell is this? It sounds like it's tailor-made to enable the Government to shut up anyone they want by executive order.
Yes, this is someone circumventing the law alright. The prosecution is circumventing the law - the law based on the First Amendment.
The Milwaukee DA's should be tarred and feathered for this nonsense.
And the Republican judge who authorized the investigation, the Republican special prosecutor, and the 3 Republican County DAs involved in the case? Under what legal authority does a federal judge have to kill a court-authorized state investigation and order the immediate destruction of evidence?
Haha, just kidding, internet lawyer. You wouldn't have the slightest idea. Actually, on second thought, you might fit right in Wisconsin.
"Ann Althouse said...
What is "laundering money to" supposed to mean?"
That's the PBR talking.
It sounds to me like you want to see speech as a crime and political activity as something that so scary and risky to do that it will be ceded to the professional campaigns.
The Professor gets this exactly right, although I would extend this to Progressive in general, not simply the ignorant unreadable progmenters on this blog. ANY political speech that is outside their ever-shifting "comfort zone" should be illegal or at least regulated. With the Mozilla and Sterling episodes of recent weeks it is clear that the public speech police are perfectly happy to make the private political too.
That's scarier than any "secret router" will ever be.
The word circumvent implies deception and being sneaky. That's garbage! The laws were followed and not broken!
Under the court's logic, if you haven't murdered anyone, you've circumvented the laws outlawing murder.
Strange language, indeed.
Of course garage wants to see speech as crime. It's baked into his sick little cake.
@LarryK
Good question, and I'm still reading the opinion. Will try to give a solid answer.
Garage hasn't conceded John Doe I...despite years of investigation, millions of dollars spent, and nothing found against Walker.
I envision him as Captain Queeg...substitute "Routers" for strawberries.
I agree with LarryK. The dichotomy between "issue advocacy" and support for a specific politician in this case if particularly interesting.
Garage flings out the term "money laundering" when it comes to issue advocacy that supports Walker's policies, but what do you call all the resourced dedicated to recalling Walker?
When anti-Walker groups were advocating "sick-outs", how much did those (paid) days off cost the state? Were the people directly or indirectly advocating those actions defrauding the State of Wisconsin? If so, could they be prosecuted under, say, RICO laws?
Garage, what do you estimate your speech cost the State of Wisconsin? Are you going to voluntarily remunerate the State, or will a prosecutor have to go after you? You're pretty high-profile here, and Althouse is a fairly influential outlet. I suggest you don't underestimate.
When all those Hollywood people express their support for, say, Obama, putting their goodwill behind him as a candidate, should we say they are they are "laundering money to" him?
Not sure what this has to do with outside groups coordinating with campaigns, which is illegal. It's obvious they have the goods on CFG and Walker's campaign. Do you have any idea what the basis for Randa's decision even is? He didn't even address what the GAB's interpretation of the law was! [the basis of the entire case]. Just embarrassing.
What exactly does a "Judicial Assistant" do? Is it the type of job that has a close working relationship with the judge? Should a judge recuse himself if the attorney in a case is the spouse of his judicial assistant?
If someone spends his own money to push issues (or even candidates) that he likes, is he supposed to be seen as giving money to that candidate in a manner that is similar to a bribe?
That depends. Did the politicians then attempt to hand over $100,000 of public funds to the group that helped get them elected?
"Not sure what this has to do with outside groups coordinating with campaigns…"
I'm challenging you to think about deeper principles, but I suspect you're focused on what helps your side and you're cranked up on blood lust.
Do you have any capacity to think independently about freedom or is it all only and always whether your side gets power?
Mark, have you read Rivkin's initial brief on behalf of Eric O'Keefe and the WCFG, asking for an injunction and payments for damages? He presents extensive evidence on the co-ordination going on in plain sight between Democrats, unions, and third party groups during the entire recall process. The fact that the Milwaukee DA office chose only to go after groups on the right is the basis for their Fourth Amendment claims....which I expect them to end up winning too.
" What an embarrassment this state has become."
Yes, it's almost as bad as Austin County Texas where Ronnie Earle ran wild for years, indicting ham sandwiches right and left. Mostly right.
"A bigger question is whether the campaign finance statutory law that we do have is valid, given free speech rights."
Clearly not (IMHO). It was a big problem I had with voting for John McCain.
"Do you have any capacity to think independently about freedom or is it all only and always whether your side gets power?"
No Next question.
Washington Monthly used to have some commenters worth debating and I used to do so. Then they got mad because I did not support single payer way back in 2006 and started to delete all my comments.
I'm sure garage would think that a good idea. That way he can come to libertarian blogs like here and ChicagoBoyz and make noise with no fear of deletion.
It would appear that the judge found the investigation to be politically motivated and, at least partially, intended to limit fundraising, hence political expression, by the Club for Growth.
Oh those Democrats.
"garage mahal said...
Not sure what this has to do with outside groups coordinating with campaigns, which is illegal. It's obvious they have the goods on CFG and Walker's campaign."
Obvious? Yes, by the number of charges brought (zero) it's very clear. Just like John Doe I.
I trust that was a rhetorical question.
garage: "What an embarrassment this state has become."
What with the legislative walkouts, capitol occupation, whiney recalls, bogus investigations, etc., garage has finally expressed a sentiment most of us can agree with.
"Under what legal authority does a federal judge have to kill a court-authorized state investigation ...?"
That would be the US Constitution, garage, more particularly here, the First Amendment.
We know that with the minions of the left its status is just slightly higher than flypaper, but it is still the revered law of the land to some of us.
Do you have any capacity to think independently about freedom or is it all only and always whether your side gets power?
I've said on numerous occasions in this blog space that these 501c4 groups should be abolished on both sides. In fact, I think liberal Super PACs are more disgusting than conservative PACs because at least conservative aren't talking out of both sides of their mouths. But that's a different discussion.
There's one simple thing garage mahal could do all by himself to make Wisconsin marginally less embarrassing: move to another state. Of course, that would make some other state marginally more embarrassing, but if it was Illinois or New Jersey or California no one would notice.
Having read the decision, I think the judge's First Amendment analysis is clearly right, in terms of the protection afforded issue advocacy. What was missing, and what I think may be the line of attack on appeal, is any discussion of the caselaw holding that a federal court will almost never interfere with an ongoing state criminal investigation. (The same is true with respect to ongoing federal criminal investigations too.) Coupled with that problem is the fact that a state judge has already quashed some of the subpoenas issued in the John Doe investigation, suggesting that there were adequate state law remedies. Those concerns, essentially focused on federalism issues, are never mentioned in the decision.
I don't know whether the state defendants argued those points (I assume that they did), and find the lack of any discussion about them very puzzling. Perhaps the judge made it clear on the record or elsewhere that he discounted those procedural arguments because of the immediate infringement on First Amendment rights that resulted from the continuation of a state criminal investigation for which the satte defendants could proffer no legitimate (meaning Constitutionally acceptable) theory of potential criminality. But the omission of any discussion of those issues was certainly very odd.
"Did the politicians then attempt to hand over $100,000 of public funds to the group that helped get them elected?"
The way to reduce the influence of money in politics is not to muzzle free speech. Rather, it is to reduce the ability of politician's to hand out favors. And the best place to start is with the tax code.
Circuit Court of Appeals just stayed the return and destruction of evidence. They will no doubt be weighing in.
I've said on numerous occasions in this blog space that these 501c4 groups should be abolished on both sides. In fact, I think liberal Super PACs are more disgusting than conservative PACs because at least conservative aren't talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Translation: We on the Left do not need the 501c4 groups. Why? Because we have the intelligentsia, the academics, the unions, the MSM and the entertainment industry all safely in our pockets. So of course we want to "abolish" both groups because it will cost the Left very little and would probably hurt the Right more, especially those Tea Baggers, who need to be shut up before they cause more trouble for us on our glorious march toward complete socialism.
Under what legal authority does a federal judge have to kill a court-authorized state investigation and order the immediate destruction of evidence?
The first part of your question is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the bane of tyrants, both petty and major. The second part is the Court's inherent authority under Article III. The prosecution has been ordered to return all originals to the Plaintiffs, and destroy all copies. The originals aren't going to be destroyed unless the Plaintiffs choose to do so, Tt is their property.
"I've said on numerous occasions in this blog space that these 501c4 groups should be abolished on both sides"
Including unions ? That's what it's all about, you know. The whole Walker recall was about unions, specifically public employee unions. How much did the unions bring in those semitrailers they had parked by the capitol ?
These laws are designed to restrict speech. The politicians and their academic and institutional bedfellows do not like the competition. The jurisprudence on the subject went off the rails decades ago, and the Supreme Court seems to lack the ability or will to get back to fundamentals.
The Garage Mahal approach says it best: "I've said on numerous occasions in this blog space that these 501c4 groups should be abolished on both sides."
Yes. Let's prohibit all citizens of any stripe from organizing to speak about public issues. That's the new statist tone for American Democracy. Give the pulpit to the incumbents and the institutional mass media. The individual has already been muzzled by the maze of regulations and the heavy penalties. Now we just have to keep them from organizing.
It's getting close, Garage. Your government dominated utopia is only a few steps away.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/halt-to-john-doe-probe-lifts-obstacle-to-scott-walker-re-election-bid-b99264574z1-258293621.html?ipad=y
7th Circuit blocks destruction of evidence.
""In my heart, I believe [Randa's ruling will] inevitably lead to more corruption," McCann said."
That's rich, coming from someone who's using this "investigation" to shut down the other side's ability to raise funds.
When Randa puts this in...
It is a recognition that maximizing First Amendment freedom is a better way to deal with political corruption than allowing the seemingly corruptible to do so. As other histories tell us, attempts to purify the public square lead to places like the Guillotine and the Gulag.
...he's really not being very coy about his opinion of the investigation and where efforts like this would ultimately lead -- Reign of Terror of the 1790s or the Moscow Show Trials of the 1930s, take your pick. Calling John Chisholm a Robespierre wanna-be hammers home Randa's disdain for the effort. Whether the 7th Circuit or the Supreme Court will want to be that blunt remains to be seen.
It sounds to me like you want to see speech as a crime and political activity as something that so scary and risky to do that it will be ceded to the professional campaigns.
Only as it pertains to one side, Althouse, only one side.
Larry K said:
"Some (i.e. Jack Craver - who you know) are arguing that Randa has ruled "explicit coordination between a campaign and an outside group is protected." However, Randa seems simply to be saying the State has no legal grounds for investigating co-ordination unless it applies to express advocacy. It cannot investigate issue advocacy because there is no prospect of quid pro quo favors for contributions with issue advocacy. Randa quotes liberally from Supreme Court decisions to support this opinion. I'm not a lawyer, but - trying to look at this as objectively as I can - this sounds right to me, and Judge Randa obviously doesn't think he's breaking new legal ground."
I think Randa said that the First Amendment protects explicit coordination over issue ads, and since these were issue ads, it doesn't matter whether there was coordination. If that's all the investigation is over, then it must stop. I think Randa is putting together some points from the recent Supreme Court cases and applying them, but the result does seem to be something new. I'm not an expert in this area that I find dishearteningly complex (the complexity is itself a First Amendment problem), but that's as close as I can get to answering right now.
RecChief: "nly as it pertains to one side, Althouse, only one side."
Spot on.
So the celebrations were a bit premature.
What effect would re-normalizing the number of Representatives have on campaign finance? I've a fantasy that one representative per 30,000 would prohibitively raise the cost of buying our government. Then, again, there would be other consequences. Costly, too.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
"With backing from one of the state's most influential Republican donors, United Sportsmen's foundation won a $500,000 grant in August to teach hunting and fishing that was specifically tailored to the group. The political organization had scant experience with the kind of training called for in the grant.... The liberal group One Wisconsin Now filed an ethics complaint with the state Government Accountability Board ...
We can either make a futile attempt to stamp out corruption with heavy handed laws that trample on free speech and don't work, or we can just stop handing out taxpayer money for non-essential purposes.
Meh, the crits were right: there is no "law," only politics. Here, a Republican federal judge shuts down a Democratic prosecutor.
BTW, my only politics are mostly Republican: what I don't like is the hypocritical lawprofs who pretend that they do something other politics in an artificial grammar.
t's getting close, Garage. Your government dominated utopia is only a few steps away?
In this case, a federal judge interfered with a court-authorized state investigation, and ordered destruction of evidence before a appeal is even considered, and you're accusing me of wanting a government dominated utopia? You've come a long way baby!
garage: So, uh, it looks to me like Walker & Co are circumventing the law
So what? Its never mattered to you when your "tribe" did it, so why should we listen to you whine now?
"It sounds to me like you want to see speech as a crime and political activity as something that so scary and risky to do that it will be ceded to the professional campaigns."
Not quite. When is it perfectly legal for a corporation to spend unlimited amounts of money directly promoting a candidate for office? When that corporation owns a newspaper.
"this area that I find dishearteningly complex (the complexity is itself a First Amendment problem), "
Exactly. It's ridiculous, not to mention hubris, to think we can "improve" the concept of free speech with a complex web of laws administered by partisans.
The best way to ensure free speech is to stop prohibiting speech.
Garage keeps talking about "destruction of evidence". Ann, did the judge do so or did he order the destruction of copies?
garage mahal said...
In this case, a federal judge interfered with a court-authorized state investigation, and ordered destruction of evidence before a appeal is even considered, and you're accusing me of wanting a government dominated utopia? You've come a long way baby!
Back to Civics 101 for you, Garage. Separation of Powers. Checks and Balances. Federalism. The Constitution.
The whole problem is the "court authorized state investigation." You have two branches of a state government working together in a way that powerfully impedes the 1st Amendment rights of a citizen. This is what the First Amendment is for, and why the Federal court is there to enforce it.
I find the entire concept of secret investigations by the govt totally over the line, i wonder where this comes from. Is Wisc the only state that permits this?
Jupiter said...
"It sounds to me like you want to see speech as a crime and political activity as something that so scary and risky to do that it will be ceded to the professional campaigns."
Not quite. When is it perfectly legal for a corporation to spend unlimited amounts of money directly promoting a candidate for office? When that corporation owns a newspaper.
No. When that corporation is SEIU.
Wow. First Amendment protections in Wisconsin.
That means it could happen anywhere anyone is willing to fight anti-free speech garage mahals and the whole entourage of liberal-fascist anti-liberty toadies.
Oh, and that UAW-Volkswagen union thing collapsed, too.
Garage's head would explode if it had anything in it.
It sounds to me like you want to see speech as a crime and political activity as something that so scary and risky to do that it will be ceded to the professional campaigns.
Ann, this is to true. Garage and his ilk hate free speech because they hate truth. Contemporary liberalism is failure, is negative, is dedicated to concentrating power with an elite at the expense of liberty for the majority that the elite hates and fears. And they hate and fear free speech for the same reason, just like garage.
LMAO.
Forget it, Linus. The Great Pumpkin ain't coming.
Garage Mahal finds out the John Doe investigation into Wisconsin conservative groups has been halted by a federal judge.
The "Downfall" parody writes itself!
" Wiskochsin. What an embarrassment this state has become."
Well parts of it anyway, and not in the way you think.
Isn't a name for a political group like "One Wisconsin" sort of eliminationist?
The "Downfall" parody writes itself!
Except the 7th Circuit just stayed the entire order. Doh!
"Wiskochsin."
Are you really not embarrassed to identify yourself as a mindless follower of Harry Reid, of all people?
In this case, a federal judge interfered with a court-authorized state investigation, and ordered destruction of evidence before a appeal is even considered, and you're accusing me of wanting a government dominated utopia? You've come a long way baby!
Federal courts are not permitted to overturn a state law?
You really want to make that argument?
If a law itself is unconstitutional, an investigation under that law is ALSO unconstitutional.
As a lawyer from outside of Wisconsin, I still look at Wisconsin's John Doe Investigations law and, in my best legalese, think: "WTF."
@garage mahal, 9:02:
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Nice try, Linus.
Post a Comment