May 19, 2015

Eric O’Keefe on the Supreme Court's denial of cert. in the John Doe investigation case.

In the email:
Spring Green, Wisconsin (May 18, 2015) — Eric O’Keefe, a director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth and co-petitioner with the Club in the case O’Keefe v. Chisholm, issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision today declining to hear their appeal:

“The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear our claims does not change the fact that the only court to review the John Doe investigation found it to be an abuse of civil liberties and First Amendment rights. The appeals court said that any attempt to hold John Chisholm and his associates accountable should proceed in state courts, and that's exactly what I expect to happen.”

22 comments:

traditionalguy said...

O'Keefe must read Althouse.

Ann Althouse said...

I'm sure the press release was widely distributed!

garage mahal said...

“The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear our claims does not change the fact that the only court to review the John Doe investigation found it to be an abuse of civil liberties and First Amendment rights.

Haha. Lie much?

Unknown said...

Sure you do.

damikesc said...

How is it not Mahal?

Ann Althouse said...

I think "only court to review" means the only court to reach the substantive merits as opposed to a threshold jurisdictional matter.

Ann Althouse said...

With "review" meaning looking at the claims of rights violations.

Mark said...

Looks like they agree that Randa overstepped by demanding the destruction of evidence.

That probably won't stop the Walkerbots from talking about how they won in Federal Court/Randa.

Bob Ellison said...

What a strange case! The SCOTUS denial of cert. seems proper, but you gotta know a little about law to understand it.

There should be marches in the streets about this. How does anyone defend the policeman's right to bust down a door in the middle of the night and tell the bustee she can't even tell her lawyer about it?

That's blatantly stupid. That's blatantly un-American. It's fascist.

damikesc said...


There should be marches in the streets about this. How does anyone defend the policeman's right to bust down a door in the middle of the night and tell the bustee she can't even tell her lawyer about it?

That's blatantly stupid. That's blatantly un-American. It's fascist.


...but she's conservative. The Constitution doesn't REALLY apply to them.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Bob Ellison said...

How does anyone defend the policeman's right to bust down a door in the middle of the night and tell the bustee she can't even tell her lawyer about it?

I could see the need for that in a case where the police can show that the lawyer was engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the person whose house was being searched. However, in such a case the court should appoint an attorney to advise the person, who must accompany the police at the time of the raid and advise the person of their rights, and how they can appeal the gag order, etc. Also, any such gag order must be short term (24 or 48 hours) and must expire as soon as news of the raid has been reported in the press.

The only valid purpose of the gag order is to prevent co-conspirators from destroying evidence that you believe the current search will lead you to. Once the element of surprise is gone the gag order must be lifted.

garage mahal said...

The appeals court said that any attempt to hold John Chisholm and his associates accountable should proceed in state courts


Here is what that appeals court said:

"What we have said shows not only that an injunction was an abuse of discretion but also that (as prosecutors) all defendants possess qualified immunity from liability in damages," wrote Judge Frank Easterbrook in the decision.

Bob Ellison said...

Ignorance is Bliss, you make good points.

But if and when a policeman breaks through my door and gags me, and if and when I break out of his grasp, I'm gonna run out into the front yard and yell "Rape! Rape!"

Bob Ellison said...

Nifong was jailed for less.

damikesc said...

We need to bring back tar and feathers. And to remove the concept of official immunity. If you break laws doing your job, then you're just a criminal.

Mike said...

Garage are you sure that was the entirety of their opinion? Seems a little thin on substance.

Ann Althouse said...

Qualified immunity ≠ a decision on the merits.

Kyzernick said...

Cop busts into my house, he's dead. So're the next three or four.

The landmines in the lawn will take out the rest.

Fuck a police state with no-knock midnight raids and other fascist bull. Wanna arrest me? Come with a warrant. Wanna die trying? Bust thru my door at midnight.

Kyzernick said...

Y'all are puss up in Cheeseland. Chicago ought to sell you some backbone in exchange for some money to deal with our overinflated blue state pensions.

RonF said...

So where does that leave the status of the "John Doe" case(s?) against Gov. Walker?

Birkel said...

There is no John Doe case against Governor Walker.

Aussie Pundit said...

so is this good or bad for those opposed to the John Doe? Or neither? seems like neither.