Normally, federal judges are randomly assigned to cases. But when [Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates] filed its lawsuit, it said its case was related to two others that Randa already had. Doing that meant the case automatically went to Randa to determine if it should stay with him.
One of the cases that CRG contended was linked to its lawsuit was a challenge to an investigation of Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and groups allied with him. However, CRG filed its suit only after an appeals court had ruled that earlier case be dismissed.
"This was artful to the point of manipulative," said Jeremy Levinson, a Democratic attorney who specializes in campaign finance laws.
CRG attorney Andrew Grossman said in an email to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the two cases "involve some common legal issues and factual background. We followed the court's rules in disclosing related litigation, and any objection to that is ill-informed grousing."....
१८ ऑक्टोबर, २०१४
How Judge Randa got the new anti-John-Doe investigation case.
The Journal Sentinel explains:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१८ टिप्पण्या:
It seems sensible to me to guide new cases towards judges who have worked on something very similar recently. Why make all judges learn all things about everything?
Why make all judges learn all things a
So Walker loses. Nothing else matters.
Funny thing, Walker assigned a completely different law firm and lawyer to defend this case, even though the case shares a lot with prior cases.
I guess they won in the 7th circuit. Walker can't let that happen again so decided a 2 person office should fight it.
Lawfare.
@Mark
What do you think you are talking about? Walker isn't a party to any of these cases.
Is Walker corrupt?
Do boars have tits?
The voters will decide.
It really doesn't matter since all judges are impartial and decide based on the merits of the case. Any judge would make the same ruling based on the facts.
The lefties are out trying to drag this out until after the election they keep hoping to win.
Ann, Walker appointed all the attorneys to defend the GAB and Chisholm as the AG has refused to.
For this case, Walker waited until Monday afternoon to appoint one despite having response required Tuesday.
Very convenient for Walker, refusing to re appoint lawyers to defend the GAB if they successful defend them, and then doing so at such a late date as they cannot file briefs in time.
Nothing like appointing the lawyers to lose the defense of the person investigating you.
Is it illegal for candidates to coordinate their election campaigns with federal judges or did Randa rule that to be considered "free speech" as well?
Democrats don't like it when Republicans take a tactical approach to law to counter the Democrats tactical use of the law. Republicans are just supposed to sit there any take sucker punch after sucker punch and ask for more.
The 'related case' rule is often invoked by lawyers for what they expect will be a tactical advantage. District judges are usually pretty stingy in accepting cases on a 'related' basis. Even when it is invoked to steer a case to a 'friendly' judge on a particular issue, appellate courts rarely focus on it. But it was one of the grounds on which the 2d Circuit vacated the injunction against the NYPD's 'stop and frisk' policy, and then remanded the case for reassignment to a randomly assigned judge.
I don't know Judge Randa, but the 7th Circuit's reversal in the first case is quite likely to be in his mind as he approaches the second.
@Mark
Thanks. I hadn't seen that.
What disarray!
Is there any place that succinctly summarizes all of these cases, where they stand and what they are about? I am not exactly an idiot and I just cannot follow what is going on.
Richard Dolan - What ticked the 2d Circuit off in the stop+frisk case was that the district court judge actively sought out the related case - She suggested to the counsel in the first case that they bring a new case so that she could have the new case, too. Is there any suggestion here that Judge Randa did anything like that?
"The Journal Sentinel explains:"
Is that anything like Vox-splaining?
What disarray!
Disarray implies it is unintentional.
To believe that waiting until the last minute to appoint an attorney wasn't Walker's plan is the pinnacle of naiveness.
@mark, don't understand implied criticism of "For this case, Walker waited until Monday afternoon to appoint one despite having response required Tuesday."
He has a deadline and completes right before the due date? At first blush this seems not only reasonable but pretty common everywhere and in everything. You should turn in homework weeks in advance to make it easier for the prof to grade? Really am missing what you're trying to say, I guess.
So madisonfella, Walker is guilty of using delaying tactics because he got the appointment done before the deadline to get the appointment done? OK...
If you are saying that that does not leave enough time for the lawyer to prep for the case properly, yell at who set the deadline, not at Walker.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा