July 1, 2015

"After much soul-searching, I am filing a civil-rights lawsuit on Wednesday against Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm."

"I fear his retaliation, given what I know of his methods, but the Chisholm campaign against me that began at dawn on Sept. 14, 2011, requires a legal response to discourage the prosecutor’s continued abuse of his office," writes Cindy Archer in The Wall Street Journal (where you can get past the pay-wall by Googling text for your own link). Read the whole thing to see what happened to Archer.
I was targeted because of my politics — in plain violation of the First Amendment and federal civil-rights statutes.
She doesn't mention whether she's suing in federal or state court, but she's citing federal law as the basis for her claims.

I've read Archer's story before, but the presentation of the facts in this new piece highlights some aspects of the invasion of privacy that I had not noticed. The arrival of government agents at her house "was so unexpected and frightening that I ran down from my bedroom without clothes on." I don't know if that means completely naked. The agents "yelled" at her to get dressed. Let into the house, they "barged into the bathroom where my partner was showering," so a second woman was exposed naked. And, in the search: "My deceased mother’s belongings were strewn across the floor."

These are very sympathetic facts. 

220 comments:

1 – 200 of 220   Newer›   Newest»
MadisonMan said...

I'm glad not to see the Lawsuits I hope will fail tag. Push-back against (if I may understate) overbearing Civil Servants is a must.

I hope she ends with a decisive victory.

garage mahal said...

I got a speeding ticket two weeks ago. Think I'll file a suit against the state because I'm positive it's because I signed a recall and don't like Scott Walker. I'M BEING PERSECUTED.

MadisonMan said...

I got a speeding ticket two weeks ago

So did I! Well, 3 weeks ago. In Iowa. I paid it, because, well, I was speeding.

If you weren't actually speeding, I suggest you contest, or at least go before the judge. (That is an interesting thing to do -- I did it with my very first speeding ticket).

Amichel said...

Garage, you just violated the gag order for the secret investigation around your speeding ticket. I hope you're ready for further charges. That would be the proper parallel, would it not?

Mark said...

When they perform search warrants for felony charges, they are thorough just as they are when the search the pot dealer.

Being the subject of a search warrant is no fun. A college roommate in a house of 5 guys lived was reported as a pot dealer. Do you think the cops left the rest of our property undisturbed?

Welcome to the world of search warrants Ms Archer.

What is surprising is how Walker tossed her under the bus the instant it happened.

Unknown said...

Also surprising is that a lesbian couple would find itself the target of such shall we say scrutiny. Not superficially how the affinities might be predicted to lie, eh?

Darrell said...

Brownshirt fanboi garage mahal came when he read what happened.

Unknown said...

Or, prof, do you assume that partner means female? Bruce Hayden talks about his female partners all the time.

Connie said...

I hope she can clear the immunity hurdles, but realize this is probably unlikely. I think the discovery responses from the prosecutors might be pretty interesting. In any event, unchecked government stormtroopers invading your home unannounced at 3 in the morning in a matter with no suggestion of any likelihood of violence----nothing to see here!

garage mahal said...

Archer helped setup the [illegal] off-government email system in the Milwaukee County Courthouse, traded messages/emails [against state law] "I use this private account quite a bit to communicate with SKW and Nardelli. You should be sure you check it throughout the day," she wrote, referring to Walker by his initials and to Walker's then-chief of staff, Tom Nardelli.", was granted immunity for her testimony, then got a job she didn't even apply for, at $114k per year, which is a 31% raise from her predecessor.

She's lucky she isn't sitting in prison. But she's the victim.

LYNNDH said...

As is often (too often but that is a sign of our times) Tar and Feathers. But that is really not enough. This DA really needs the FULL weight of the Law down on him. Pronto!

Big Mike said...

So was Cindy Archer targeted because she was an aide for Gov. Walker? Or because she was a lesbian aide to Gov. Walker and therefore had left the plantation? Judging from the beating that the fellow Gladney got for trying to sell Gadsden flags at a Tea Party rally back in 2009, I take it that Wisconsin Democrats are very unforgiving when one of the groups they regard as "theirs" joins the opposition.

Diamondhead said...

"I got a speeding ticket two weeks ago. Think I'll file a suit against the state because I'm positive it's because I signed a recall and don't like Scott Walker. I'M BEING PERSECUTED."

Scratch a progressive, find a Stalinist

Mark said...

Connie, it wasn't a 3AM visit.

Exaggeration does not help her case.

Big Mike said...

@garage, you ignorant slut, no rational person can doubt that if Archer really had done something illegal that Chisholm would have her sitting in prison. Knowing that Chisholm is involved means that she really isn't guilty of anything (except maybe being gay and supporting a Republican).

Unknown said...

Garner sold illegal cigarettes! He's lucky he's not in prison!

Since you have no brains, garage, let me mansplain that people and things get broken in no-knock raids all the time.

Connie said...

Sorry Mark, there were so many ridiculous warrants served in so many ridiculous ways I may have gotten them mixed up. Doesn't change any of the essential points, that this entire escapade was based upon a seriously flawed interpretation of the law and prosecuted with a vigor usually reserved for Outlaw-type groups, not civil servants. If the DA would pay some similar attention to the rash of murders and car thefts plaguing Milwaukee there may actually be an improvement in the quality of life for all city residents, but this was obviously way more important.

kcom said...

There is no need for a SWAT raid in this scenario. Period.

garage mahal said...

Knowing that Chisholm is involved means that she really isn't guilty of anything (except maybe being gay and supporting a Republican).

You are a really dumb person.

rehajm said...

Archer helped setup the [illegal] off-government email system in the Milwaukee County Courthouse, traded messages/emails [against state law] "I use this private account quite a bit to communicate with SKW and Nardelli. You should be sure you check it throughout the day,"

For those of us who don't live and die with WI politics- has anyone compiled the parallels to what Archer stood accused of doing and what Hillary! has admitted to doing, and the respective legalities thereof?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I don't think that "soul-searching" is the droid she's looking for.

I'd have gone with "serious consideration," being the sort of person who prefers to be taken seriously in this sort of thing.

clint said...

The SWAT raid *is* the punishment.

It's meant to be humiliating, invasive, and terrifying.

And until we start jailing the prosecutors who abuse this, the abuses will continue.

Matthew Sablan said...

As with most cases, I say we now sit back and let the court do the thing it is supposed to do.

Frankly, the fact that this is a fishing expedition that has gone on for five years is enough for me to think it is time to check some balances. Also remember: "The prosecutors’ illegal coordination idea has been roundly rejected by multiple courts, and the state Supreme Court is expected soon to decide whether the stalled investigation must be shut down for good." The law is, as they say, almost settled.

"That’s because the investigation’s gag order prevents the release of information, and, sources tell Wisconsin Watchdog, the prosecutors in many cases failed to inform individuals they were targets of the secret probe" -- Judging by the way this is written, prosecutors were SUPPOSED to inform some people but did not. That's a flagrant violation of someone's rights, to be charging them with a crime and not telling them.

Also, if this is true: "Rather than seek out the perpetrator—whom Mr. Walker’s office had also identified—the district attorney’s crew turned its attention to Mr. Walker and his staff," then this is almost as bad as the fact that Armitage is free but Scooter Libby will forever be a criminal. Chisholm was handed his guy, but decided to earn some points for team blue instead of stopping charity fraud.

"Agents with weapons drawn swarmed through every part of the house." -- That's... really terrible. Like, horrible. This meant that the agents were ready to shoot someone. You don't draw a weapon you don't intend to use. What, exactly, did Chisholm believe his people would find that he thought was worth killing people for?

Matthew Sablan said...

"For those of us who don't live and die with WI politics- has anyone compiled the parallels to what Archer stood accused of doing and what Hillary! has admitted to doing, and the respective legalities thereof?"

-- Hillary did it for the right team.

hawkeyedjb said...

Shorter Garage Mahal:

"Submit. Conform. Obey."

Matthew Sablan said...

"And like her fellow targets, she was told she couldn’t contact her attorney and she could say nothing publicly about being a target of Chisholm’s probe."

-- Wait. They were investigating her and denied her access to a lawyer?

Come on guys. This is civil rights 101.

CWJ said...

Nine minutes from post to comment. Althouse posts on a wide variety of things at all times of day. Even allowing for the possibility that garage gets a ping every time Althouse posts, I'm consistently amazed at how garage reliably elbows his way to the front of the line whenever Althouse posts a Walker related item. What does he do that allows him to drop everyrhing whenever Althouse posts?

Pavlov would be proud.

Unknown said...

What, exactly, did Chisholm believe his people would find that he thought was worth killing people for?


...Lack of total bladder-failing submission to him and his.

madAsHell said...

You are a really dumb person.

Project much??

Matthew Sablan said...

"I have also been subjected to derogatory headlines and made the butt of jokes on talk radio and anti-Walker websites about everything from my personal appearance to my sexual orientation and mental stability."

-- Stay classy, Team Blue.

Curious George said...

"kcom said...
There is no need for a SWAT raid in this scenario. Period."

Sure there was...fear of God. And let us not forget that a Journal-Sentinal Reporter was there to capture all of it. Secret daybreak raid...and a JS Reporter was along for the ride.
Disgusting.


Anonymous said...

Those facts are only "sympathetic" to those who are out of touch and living in ivory towers. SWAT raids as described have been the norm since the days of Reagan, and there is nothing unusual about how this one was conducted.

james conrad said...

"Agents with weapons drawn swarmed through every part of the house." -- That's... really terrible. Like, horrible. This meant that the agents were ready to shoot someone. You don't draw a weapon you don't intend to use. What, exactly, did Chisholm believe his people would find that he thought was worth killing people for?

Actually, I am betting the agents knew that the target was not armed and posed no threat, it was all for show. It's easy to play the heavy when you know there will be no armed opposition.

garage mahal said...

Stay classy, Team Blue.

Archer chose to live on the east side of Madison, the most liberal ward in the state. You guys will believe *anything* that elevates conservative martyrdom.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
Stay classy, Team Blue.

Archer chose to live on the east side of Madison, the most liberal ward in the state. You guys will believe *anything* that elevates conservative martyrdom."

What does that have to do with her being "subjected to derogatory headlines and made the butt of jokes on talk radio and anti-Walker websites about everything from my personal appearance to my sexual orientation and mental stability."

Robert Cook said...

This is becoming a signal scourge of our police state, (I use the term not as hyperbole--the police state is no longer potential, but is materially present and in force): SWAT team home invasions when serving search warrants, even when the persons being served cannot in any rational universe be considered potentially violent or likely to flee. These violent raids include, as Ms. Archer feared, the cruel murder of beloved household pets, along with the gratuitous humiliation and terrorizing of those in the home and the destruction of property.

garage mahal said...

What does that have to do with her being "subjected to derogatory headlines and made the butt of jokes on talk radio and anti-Walker websites about everything from my personal appearance to my sexual orientation and mental stability."

Show us the comments.

tim maguire said...

Garage, sometimes I want ask, "what's your point?" But most of the time I don't care because I know you're a shamelessly biased hypocrite.

Connie said...

OpenID madisonfella said...
Those facts are only "sympathetic" to those who are out of touch and living in ivory towers. SWAT raids as described have been the norm since the days of Reagan, and there is nothing unusual about how this one was conducted.


True when you are talking about searching known affiliates of the Outlaws or the Latin Kings with long criminal histories. Demonstrably false when you are looking for a computer owned by a civil servant with no (real) criminal history and no history of violence.

Unknown said...

Fear of God, that's funny. John Chisholm obviously doesn't believe in a Hell or he would understand that he was already packing for the trip.

As for this being de rigueur for a no knock raid, no-knock raids are permissible on the supposition that a there is key destructible evidence that is more or less trip wired and has to be seized before it can be destroyed, and also it is defended by armed and evil men. That's a pretty big reach for two field hockey players one of whom sent an email.

Do you really think that because you say stupid words, that nobody can understand the distinction here even if they're not sufficiently adept to verbalize them? Really? It may be a pleasure to kill you one day.

If 1 or both of these poor sad bitches have been maimed or killed in this little circus, I suppose you would also say they had it coming? For paper crimes? Tell me this, it's one thing for me and everybody here to tell you that you are scum, but don't you know it already?

Owen said...

Matthew Sablan said: "...."Agents with weapons drawn swarmed through every part of the house." -- That's... really terrible. Like, horrible. This meant that the agents were ready to shoot someone. You don't draw a weapon you don't intend to use. What, exactly, did Chisholm believe his people would find that he thought was worth killing people for?"

Your whole post is spot-on but thsi part is exceptionally so. Chilling. I am trying to imagine being a member of that SWAT team and being briefed on the mission: "We have reason to believe that the occupants may have EMAIL on their HARD DRIVE that will reveal a POLITICAL CRIME involving NO VIOLENCE, NO WEAPONS, NO DRUGS, NO CHILD ABUSE, NO HOSTAGES, NO DANGEROUS FELONS. Accordingly you will wear full body armor and loaded weapons. Once we breach the perimeter you may go weapons hot."

Jesus.

Todd said...

garage mahal said...

Archer chose to live on the east side of Madison, the most liberal ward in the state. You guys will believe *anything* that elevates conservative martyrdom.

7/1/15, 10:15 AM


Democrats NEVER change! This is just the expanded version of "Those blacks deserved it for moving into our neighborhood, don't they know they don't belong here!"

Democrats, conservatives and minorities need not apply!

SteveR said...

"You are a really dumb person."

Pot meet kettle

Unknown said...

Robert Cook 10:20, (sigh) right on.

Owen said...

James Conrad said: "...Actually, I am betting the agents knew that the target was not armed and posed no threat, it was all for show. It's easy to play the heavy when you know there will be no armed opposition."

Whoa. So it's a good idea --it's official policy-- to go weapons hot when you KNOW you are not facing an armed threat?

That all you want to do is SCARE people? That's POLICY? Or if not policy beforehand, these agents' behavior was condoned and none of them disciplined?

Hey, suppose that (contrary to the hypothetical where the agents "knew" --how?-- that "the target was not armed and posed no threat," the subject of the raid did in fact have an old 12 gauge from her grandfather in the back of the broom-closet and went for it after seeing a swarm of strangers break through her door?

Good idea, then, huh?

cubanbob said...

Chisholm is a poster boy for why qualified immunity should be abolished. All public officials should risk personal liability. Something in the constitution speaks to this but our betters ignore the constitution when it suits them.

Funny how Garage confuses Walker's emails with Hillarys.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Archer chose to live on the east side of Madison, the most liberal ward in the state."

-- So, you're saying that she shouldn't have worn such a short skirt? She was asking for it?

Owen said...

Robert Cook at 10:20:

Exactly right.

Original Mike said...

"Archer helped setup the [illegal] off-government email system in the Milwaukee County Courthouse, traded messages/emails [against state law]..."

I've never understood this claim. I would think that doing campaign stuff (which is what I assume they were doing) can not be done on the government email system.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
What does that have to do with her being "subjected to derogatory headlines and made the butt of jokes on talk radio and anti-Walker websites about everything from my personal appearance to my sexual orientation and mental stability."

Show us the comments."

Doesn't answer the question Corky. I guess you can't.

Robert Cook said...

"That all you want to do is SCARE people? That's POLICY?"

Of course! The police don't want citizens to come to expect treatment proportional to the circumstances and the persons involved, or respect for their civil rights. The point is to terrorize and humiliate, to make the point emphatically that we are all, in their eyes, shits, subject to search or arrest at any time for any reason or no reason, with no right to protest their treatment, however arbitrary or brutal.

tim in vermont said...

Archer helped setup the [illegal] off-government email system in the Milwaukee County Courthouse, traded messages/emails [against state law] "I use this private account quite a bit to communicate with SKW and Nardelli. You should be sure you check it throughout the day," - garage


Well, them are some pretty serious charges, you still voting for Hillary?

garage mahal said...

Doesn't answer the question Corky. I guess you can't.

If all these comments were made they should be easy to find. Archer lived among liberal union thugs, when she could easily have lived among hard core conservatives less than a half hour away.

I've never understood this claim. I would think that doing campaign stuff (which is what I assume they were doing) can not be done on the government email system.

They can be done, but they would be subject to open records requests, which is why they set up that router in Walker's office.

Patrick said...

As they say Robert, your low opinion of the Government is not nearly as low as the Government's opinion of you.

Perhaps a larger, more powerful government that controls more aspects of our lives will be less abusive and intrusive.

tim in vermont said...

I've never understood this claim. I would think that doing campaign stuff (which is what I assume they were doing) can not be done on the government email system.

I once worked for a company in a building where most of the people were on a government contract. I was not allowed to make calls on the phone system and had to have a separate network set up. We had to bring in a separate data line from the telco. Not for security reasons, but because I couldn't use any resource that had been paid for for government business.

Original Mike said...

"You don't draw a weapon you don't intend to use. What, exactly, did Chisholm believe his people would find that he thought was worth killing people for?"

SECRET ROUTERS!

tim in vermont said...

They can be done, but they would be subject to open records requests, which is why they set up that router in Walker's office.

So you are scandalized by what Hillary did then, amIright?

Original Mike said...

"They can be done, but they would be subject to open records requests, which is why they set up that router in Walker's office."

Why would you think it appropriate that campaign communications be subject to open record requests?

Kyzernick said...

I hope someday another of these politically motivated no-knock raids happens to someone who is undeserving of such treatment. I hope that poor individual uses a firearm quite adeptly to defend themselves, and after the shots are done ringing out, the entire SWAT team is dead.

Maybe that will give some of these poli-stooge officers a new perspective.

Curious George said...

garage mahal said...

"If all these comments were made they should be easy to find."

Her home address has nothing to do with comments made on the radio or web

"garage mahal said... Archer lived among liberal union thugs, when she could easily have lived among hard core conservatives less than a half hour away."

She lived close to the Capitol you dumbfuck. But this comment is telling to the liberal mindset. I have a blue fister living two doors down in my GOP stronghold neighborhood in Waukesha. I say "hi" when I see him. But when doing some work on a friends house on the East Side I was constantly harassed by locals because I had Rush on the radio, or a Bush bumper sticker on my car. Liberals are the most intolerant thuggish pigs imaginable. You're one of them.

james conrad said...

Whoa. So it's a good idea --it's official policy-- to go weapons hot when you KNOW you are not facing an armed threat?

I doubt it would be official policy but it is fairly common these days, the Gibson guitar raid comes immediately to mind. Contrast with what happened at the Bundy ranch awhile back where both sides were more or less equally armed, the armed govt raiders retreated when the outcome of that confrontation was in doubt.
The bottom line? It's easy to be rough & tough against no opposition, a whole OTHER THING to risk ones life in a raid where the outcome is in doubt.

garage mahal said...

Why would you think it appropriate that campaign communications be subject to open record requests?

They weren't supposed to be working on campaigns, that is against Wisconsin law. They were supposed to be doing county business. Jesus. You either don't get it or you don't care.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...

They weren't supposed to be working on campaigns, that is against Wisconsin law. They were supposed to be doing county business. Jesus. You either don't get it or you don't care."

LOL No charges were ever brought against anyone working on Walkers campaign doing campaign work on county time. Not one. Even though they spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours investigating.

Jesus. You either don't get it or don't care.

Original Mike said...

"They weren't supposed to be working on campaigns, that is against Wisconsin law. They were supposed to be doing county business. Jesus. You either don't get it or you don't care."

I've always found this completely impractical. How can politicians be expected not to do campaign stuff?

cubanbob said...

garage mahal said...
Why would you think it appropriate that campaign communications be subject to open record requests?

They weren't supposed to be working on campaigns, that is against Wisconsin law. They were supposed to be doing county business. Jesus. You either don't get it or you don't care.

7/1/15, 11:01 AM

Your concern is so touching. Why I almost believe you are sincere except when it comes to Hillary! and WI unions and their hired help acting under the color of law.

Original Mike said...

There is a major difference between what garage alleges Walker did and what Hillary did. Garage alleges that Walker did personal business on his private server. Hillary did government business on her private server.

garage mahal said...

Archer bought a house in the most liberal, rabid anti-Walker neighborhood in the state because liberals are intolerant pigs. Okay Champ. She did so because she's gay and knew she *wouldn't* get harassed.

Curious George said...

"Original Mike said...
"They weren't supposed to be working on campaigns, that is against Wisconsin law. They were supposed to be doing county business. Jesus. You either don't get it or you don't care."

I've always found this completely impractical. How can politicians be expected not to do campaign stuff?"

It's not politicians, it's staff that are government employees. It's totally appropriate to not allow government workers to do campaign work while they are getting paid by the government.

Mark said...

I have not heard direct evidence of an actual SWAT team at her door.

Exaggeration, again.

Details matter. You call Garage on every tiny misstatement and yet keep throwing around blatant inaccuracies. Yes, Connie, blame all the poorly fact checked stories from right wing blogs for why you don't have the actual facts of the raid ... like that is something the left did.

Now that Rindfleish has had Gableman's weird request rescinded, Walker campaign needs interference run in regard to John Doe. Like clockwork.

Larry J said...

Asshole liberals like garbage mahal love it when the power of the state is brought against their political opponents. They're too stupid to see the danger that the same power of the state can be used against them, too. The solution is to reign in (and prosecute) rogue prosecutors by abolishing such Gestapo/Stasi tactics.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
Archer bought a house in the most liberal, rabid anti-Walker neighborhood in the state because liberals are intolerant pigs. Okay Champ. She did so because she's gay and knew she *wouldn't* get harassed."

Again, it's the closest neighborhood to the Capitol, and she lived there prior to raid, the harassment started after the raid. Finally, she never claimed neighbors were harassing her.

That's thee strike Corky. Grab some bench.

garage mahal. Failure's poster child.

kcom said...

Honest question, Robert. Are you for or against the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

CWJ said...

"garage wrote -

"They weren't supposed to be working on campaigns, that is against Wisconsin law. They were supposed to be doing county business. Jesus. You either don't get it or you don't care."

Hey, garage. What business are you "supposed to be doing" instead of spending hours commenting on Althouse every timne she posts a Wisconsin political item?

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Garage, you fat cunt. I'm sad that the police didn't find some reason to pump your obese body full of bullets during your traffic stop.

It would do the world an enormous favor to be rid of a tyranny cheerleading Hamas supporter. You failed at education, you failed in your marriage, and you failed at getting Walker recalled.

Go fuck yourself, Bitchtits.

Todd said...

President-Mom-Jeans said...

7/1/15, 11:41 AM


Really? That was a bit much...

Original Mike said...

"Really? That was a bit much..."

He's a money.

Original Mike said...

Moby. Damn auto-correct.

james conrad said...

I hope this lady wins her case and the prosecutor disgraced (like Nifong in NC) as a warning to govt officials to not use govt power as a political weapon against opponents. Otherwise, i am betting Wisc is headed for Bundy ranch type dealios, bad mojo all around.

William Chadwick said...

Besides getting stupider (as, for example, garage mahal) the "liberal" Hive is getting more overtly fascistic. Maybe even the country-club Republican accomodationists will wake up and smell the jackboots.

William Chadwick said...

"Hey, garage. What business are you 'supposed to be doing' instead of spending hours commenting on Althouse every timne she posts a Wisconsin political item?"

As I've said before, it's a wonder garage mahal is able to sit down at a computer as often as he does, what with the Mailed Fist of the State so far up his rectum.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"Really? That was a bit much..."

I disagree. Especially as he was cheerleading that poor woman getting her home invaded by police with weapons drawn.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

garage mahal said...Archer chose to live on the east side of Madison, the most liberal ward in the state.

I'll bet she was wearing a short skirt, too--clearly asking for it.

garage mahal said...

Again, it's the closest neighborhood to the Capitol, and she lived there prior to raid, the harassment started after the raid.

It's the most liberal neighborhood closest to the Capitol. Again, she chose to live there because she knew she would be accepted into the community and wouldn't get harassed. And still lives there as far as I know. She could even chosen to live near Walker voters on the west side....... who are commenting on this very thread.

Robert Cook said...

"Honest question, Robert. Are you for or against the right of the people to keep and bear arms?"

Well, I do think people should be able to own firearms, but I also think it is appropriate--given that they are dangerous implements and meant to be so--that they should be licensed and there should be background checks and waiting periods, and other such impediments to ownership as are already in place to mitigate the availability of deadly weapons to dangerous criminals.

Robert Cook said...

"As they say Robert, your low opinion of the Government is not nearly as low as the Government's opinion of you.

"Perhaps a larger, more powerful government that controls more aspects of our lives will be less abusive and intrusive."


But I don't advocate for a "larger, more powerful government that controls more aspects of our lives." I advocate for a government that serves the people and is responsive and answerable to us. I advocate for a more powerful citizenry that controls more aspects of government.

There is no chance of there being a society of humans that does not have a government, and the larger the society the larger, by necessity, the government. So, the questions is: what kind of government will we have, and who will it serve? To whom must it answer? Who will be the master and who the servant?

garage mahal said...

I'm shocked, SHOCKED Archer didn't live near this tolerant conservative -- "I'm sad that the police didn't find some reason to pump your obese body full of bullets during your traffic stop."

Robert Cook said...

"Asshole liberals like garbage mahal love it when the power of the state is brought against their political opponents. They're too stupid to see the danger that the same power of the state can be used against them, too."

This is true of asshole conservatives, too. It always comes down to who is being served and whose ox is being gored.

Scott said...

I completely agree with Robert Cook. (Dear God.) :-)

Original Mike said...

"Well, I do think people should be able to own firearms, ...

Wow. Kudos.

"...but I also think it is appropriate--given that they are dangerous implements and meant to be so--that they should be licensed..."

The problem with that is evidenced by the topic of this post; the government can not to trusted not to abuse that requirement.

"...to mitigate the availability of deadly weapons to dangerous criminals."

Seriously? Because we all know criminals are law-abiding?

Scott said...

Of course, there is no such thing as an asshole libertarian.

Real American said...

it doesn't matter. nothing will ever happen to Chisolm, other than he'll be forever rewarded by the leftards who hate the idea that someone, somewhere might fucking disagree with them. Anyway, what first amendment? The constitution is whatever the elites decide it is that day. there's no freedom from swat teams and midnight raids if you're conservative. You just have to live with that. better hide what you believe than suffer the consequences of the angry bullies on the left. It's time conservatives just give and stop trying to live a life of freedom according to their values. There's only one value left in this country that matters: GET YOURS.

Original Mike said...

"Who will be the master and who the servant?"

You're naive. The ONLY way to keep the government from becoming the master is to keep it small.

damikesc said...

Shorter garage: "Those darkies could've moved elsewhere if they wanted to go to school with white folks"

I got a speeding ticket two weeks ago.

They busted down your door for a speeding ticket? Seems extreme.

She's lucky she isn't sitting in prison. But she's the victim.

Hell, the Dem frontrunner for President did FAR worse and is championed by the Left. Hard to hold a low-level functionary responsible when you won't hold a possible President to the same standards.

SWAT raids as described have been the norm since the days of Reagan, and there is nothing unusual about how this one was conducted.

They regularly threaten you if you talk to a lawyer? Really? And SWAT raids, apparently, STARTED with Reagan. He has a lot to answer for in allowing Wisconsin to do those things with a law that was on the books before he was in office.

You realize that there is, literally, NO way your side can possibly look like the good guys here...right?

Archer chose to live on the east side of Madison, the most liberal ward in the state.

Then what's your beef with voter ID laws?

I mean, they CHOSE to live there also and those don't require cops to knock your doors down for no valid reason.

So you are scandalized by what Hillary did then, amIright?

For him, they're different. Why? Because FYTW.

She did so because she's gay and knew she *wouldn't* get harassed.

CLEARLY she was wrong. Congrats. What you ACCUSE the right of doing the Left ACTUALLY did.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED Archer didn't live near this tolerant conservative

Conservatives insulted Archer...when?

garage mahal said...

"Asshole liberals like garbage mahal love it when the power of the state is brought against their political opponents

Power of the state:

Judge Neal Nettesheim, of.....wait for it, Waukesha County, who authorized expansion of the John Doe probe that lead to the seizure of Archer's computers. Why isn't she suing him? Because it isn't a serious lawsuit to begin with. It's purpose is to keep the poor conservative martyrdom narrative alive.

Larry Nelson said...

If there isn't now, there should be a Garage Mahal type character on "South Park" used to show the ridiculous and hypocritical knee jerk side of progressive zealots.

damikesc said...

Judge Neal Nettesheim, of.....wait for it, Waukesha County, who authorized expansion of the John Doe probe that lead to the seizure of Archer's computers. Why isn't she suing him?

Because the Judge will say he issued it with the info provided by Chisholm. Why the fuck do you think?

Scott said...

I don't see how a garbage mahal character would work on South Park. You can't satirize a blog persona that's already a self parody -- there is no satiric edge that you can push him over.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

You can get an adequate representation on South Park if you combine the politics of "Aging Liberal Hippy Douche" with the intelligence of "Jakovasaur" and the physique of Sallie Struthers.

Also, Rob Reiner.

gerry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

You can't satirize a blog persona that's already a self parody -- there is no satiric edge that you can push him over.

I know it's easier for simpletons like you to just nod and grunt along with the hive. But you should thank me for at least posting the actual facts of the case, just for the record.

Scott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott said...

You're a card-carrying member of the Cherry Picker's Union, ain't ya.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...

Judge Neal Nettesheim, of.....wait for it, Waukesha County, who authorized expansion of the John Doe probe that lead to the seizure of Archer's computers. Why isn't she suing him? Because it isn't a serious lawsuit to begin with. It's purpose is to keep the poor conservative martyrdom narrative alive."

He was elected as a Waukesha County judge forty years ago...LOL

And she isn't suing because of the probe...Chisholm made the decision to do the raid Shortbus. Nettesheim didn't sign off on the search warrant. He didn't order armed cops to bust in. He had nothing to do with the harassment.

Fail.

Scott said...

The allegation is more important than the charge if you're a progressive tool. Why would you ever want to risk exonerating her? An unproven allegation is a gift that keeps on giving.

Robert Cook said...

"You're naive. The ONLY way to keep the government from becoming the master is to keep it small."

The only way to keep government small is to keep the population of the society small. (Which would solve a lot of other problems, by the way. Are you prepared to enact measures that will insure a small population?) You're naive if you think a nation of hundreds of millions of people can operate with only a vestigial government. You're also blinkered by dogma if you think it is impossible, by definition, for government to work for the people (and to work well).

Given that we cannot keep the population small, and given that government will grow, by necessity, as the population grows, the populace must be proactive in holding their government answerable to them. There is no surefire or problem-free way to insure this can be managed, but...what is the alternative?

garage mahal said...

Why would you ever want to risk exoneraing her? An unproven allegation is a gift that keeps on giving.

Archer was offered immunity from prosecution. And she took it. Because they had her emails. Why am I bothering with you when it's clear you know nothing about the case, nor are you interested in even the most basic aspects of it?

Matthew Sablan said...

"Archer was offered immunity from prosecution."

-- Imagine using this as evidence against a poor minority. The same exact situations, a powerful government, through secret, most likely illegal means, has intimidated her and her family, put a gun literally in her face and threatened to kill her pets. Then, they offer her immunity if she says something bad about someone else. She does so, but even then, the government has nothing on their actual target, despite breaking some laws and waving some guns around.

No one would take this as anything besides someone trying to get the harassment to stop. The fact that the victim is a homosexual conservative is the only reason that the ACLU and people like Garage do not immediately see how evil Chisholm's actions are.

Original Mike said...

"You're naive if you think a nation of hundreds of millions of people can operate with only a vestigial government."

Vestigial. Cute.
Limited is a better word.

"You're also blinkered by dogma if you think it is impossible, by definition, for government to work for the people (and to work well)."

It is not impossible by definition. It is impossible by historical example.

Robert Cook said...

"'...but I also think it is appropriate--given that they are dangerous implements and meant to be so--that they should be licensed...'"

"The problem with that is evidenced by the topic of this post; the government can not to trusted not to abuse that requirement."

The government cannot be trusted...period. It is up to we, the people, to be always suspicious of government and to hold them to our demands and to our oversight.

"'...to mitigate the availability of deadly weapons to dangerous criminals.'"

"Seriously? Because we all know criminals are law-abiding?"

I don't know what you mean by this. Or perhaps you misunderstand my meaning.

Matthew Sablan said...

Garage, here is the most basic part of the case.

After 5 years and burning the rule of law to the ground, they have nothing on Walker. But, hey, they scared some conservatives good, and they probably won't dare participate in civil society again. So, it looks like Team Blue got the win they were after. The actions of those they dislike has been well and effectively chilled, all at a massive cost that they don't have to pay, and in fact, went to lining their own pockets by increasing the demand for their phony baloney jobs.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...

I know it's easier for simpletons like you to just nod and grunt along with the hive. But you should thank me for at least posting the actual facts of the case, just for the record."

The actaul facts of the case...despite millions of dollars and many thousands of man hours...ZERO CHARGES BROUGHT.

Matthew Sablan said...

I'm willing, though, to let the facts be known. Let's destroy the gag order and let due process happen. Checks and balances.

Original Mike said...

"I don't know what you mean by this. Or perhaps you misunderstand my meaning."

Your meaning (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the laws you posit will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I'm saying (the obvious) that criminals will not abide by your laws.

Big Mike said...

After reading about Chisholm's actions, after reading garage's maunderings, what can one conclude except that Wisconsin Democrats do not have any grasp of democracy?

Todd said...

Robert Cook said... [hush]​[hide comment]
The only way to keep government small is to keep the population of the society small. (Which would solve a lot of other problems, by the way. Are you prepared to enact measures that will insure a small population?) You're naive if you think a nation of hundreds of millions of people can operate with only a vestigial government. You're also blinkered by dogma if you think it is impossible, by definition, for government to work for the people (and to work well).

Given that we cannot keep the population small, and given that government will grow, by necessity, as the population grows, the populace must be proactive in holding their government answerable to them. There is no surefire or problem-free way to insure this can be managed, but...what is the alternative?

7/1/15, 12:51 PM


Not quite. The only way to keep government small is to keep it small. Strictly limit the number and types of things it is permitted to do. Restrict or limit the ways in which it can expand. Restrict or limit the ways for modifying (expanding) the scope of government.

The framers made a very nice go of it. Their biggest mistake is not taking into account that future generations would forget exactly how hard it was to pull all of this together. That future generations would appreciate the freedom from control.

Unlike socialism, it is possible to get representative democracy right. We can look back over the last 200 years and see where the system has failed us and where we have failed ourselves, make the appropriate edits to "Democracy version 2.0" and start again. Slaves bad, women vote good, 1st A very good, 2nd A very good, undo the people electing state reps, undo income tax, all good starts. Other minor tweaks could also be done but by and large they did get it right. It is we that came after that screwed most of it up.

tim in vermont said...

garage is an old hand at defending the use of prosecutoral power to attack enemies of Democrats.

Just ask him about Kathleen Willey.

garage mahal said...

Chisholm made the decision to do the raid Shortbus.

Chisholm does not have that power. A judge has to sign off on the warrants.

The actaul facts of the case...despite millions of dollars and many thousands of man hours...ZERO CHARGES BROUGHT.

Except the six convictions of Walker aides, associates, or appointees.

This is embarrassingly easy.

Gahrie said...

there should be background checks and waiting periods, and other such impediments to ownership as are already in place to mitigate the availability of deadly weapons to dangerous criminals.

Because they work so well........

Robert Cook said...

"It is not impossible by definition. It is impossible by historical example."

As I say, you're blinkered by dogma. Our government has worked well for us. It is not true that it never has. The ills of government are not always the ills of government, per se, but often the ills of men (and women) who subvert the people's power over government to their own ends, whether those ends be the self-aggrandizing accumulation of power for its own sake, or whether those ends are to serve the ends of specific persons or factions within society. The ills of our government today are--as they often have been--the ills of a government that has been usurped by the wealthy to use for their own ends, for the greater accumulation of their own wealth. The government "doesn't work" because it is not meant to work...not for us.

garage mahal said...

A visual summary of this thread

Original Mike said...

"the ills of a government that has been usurped by the wealthy to use for their own ends,"

If the government didn't have so much power the wealthy could not use it, could they?

Gahrie said...

Their biggest mistake is not taking into account that future generations would forget exactly how hard it was to pull all of this together. That future generations would appreciate the freedom from control.

Actually, their biggest mistake was adding the Bill or Rights, which fundamentally changed the meaning of the Constitution.

The Constitution was originally written as a grant of powers: This is what the federal government can do. If it wasn't listed, the federal government couldn't do it.

The Bill of Rights changed that to a restriction of powers: If the Constitution doesn't prohibit it, the federal government can do it.

Robert Cook said...

"Your meaning (correct me if I'm wrong) was that the laws you posit will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I'm saying (the obvious) that criminals will not abide by your laws.

Which is why I said that persons who own arms should not be permitted to sell them or give them directly to others, but should be required to sell them back to licensed arms dealers for resale, and that when weapons go missing, the owners of those weapons must report these disappearances within a very short time to the authorities or be fined. This is all in an effort to mitigate (as I said, not prevent, an impossibility) the availability of firearms to dangerous criminals.

Original Mike said...

"Our government has worked well for us."

Sure, in 1787.

Original Mike said...

"Which is why I said that persons who own arms should not be permitted ..."

Right...

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"The Constitution was originally written as a grant of powers: This is what the federal government can do. If it wasn't listed, the federal government couldn't do it.

"The Bill of Rights changed that to a restriction of powers: If the Constitution doesn't prohibit it, the federal government can do it."


No, the Bill of Rights doesn't do this, (see amendments 9 and 10). Those whose aim is to aggrandize the government's power have interpreted it this way...and the people have acquiesced. You can be sure that if there were no Bill of Rights included, the rights enumerated within it would have disappeared much longer ago than they did.

Gahrie said...

No, the Bill of Rights doesn't do this, (see amendments 9 and 10)

Cite one case in the last 100 years that used the 9th or 10th Amendment to restrict the power of the federal government.

Robert Cook said...

"If the government didn't have so much power the wealthy could not use it, could they?"

This is a sophistry; of course the government has power...power that is rightly granted to it--and paid for--by us, to be used on our behalf. Anyone who thinks a society of hundreds of millions of people can function with a weak, vestigial government is simply pulling the wool over their own eyes.

Original Mike said...

"This is a sophistry"

No, it's not. To cite one huge example; if the government didn't have the ability to hand out many billions of dollars through the tax code, the wealthy would have little interest in manipulating it.

Robert Cook said...

"Cite one case in the last 100 years that used the 9th or 10th Amendment to restrict the power of the federal government."

That is a failure of the judiciary to adhere to the Constitution. It is not because the Bill of Rights changed the Constitution from a grant of power to a restriction of powers. Again, without the Bill of Rights, we would never have enjoyed the rights guaranteed to us by it at all. At least we had them--fitfully, incompletely--for a while. They're largely gone now.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
Chisholm made the decision to do the raid Shortbus.

Chisholm does not have that power. A judge has to sign off on the warrants."

Yes, but he doesn't determine the tactics. The behavior. Strike 1

"Except the six convictions of Walker aides, associates, or appointees.

This is embarrassingly easy."

Dude, those are all John Doe I charges, not John Doe II Strike 2

And none of them had anything to do with Walker, or his campaign. Strike 3.

Grab some bench again. You're out of your element Shortbus.

Gahrie said...

Example:

The government has decided that there is a serious disparate impact in housing caused by private home ownership. The best way to rectify this imbalance is to require all private homeowners to turn over a portion of their home to a poor (probably illegal immigrant) family.

Someone sues, citing the Third Amendment. Now under the original Constitution, a Justice would look at the Constitution, say, there is nothing in here that gives the government the power to force you to turn over part of your home, so the government act is unconstitutional. Under the Bill of Rights version of the Constitution, a Justice looks at the Third Amendment and says: "The Third Amendment talks about soldiers. Homeless people aren't soldiers. The government has a legitimate interest in eradicating homelessness. Therefore the government may force you to house a homeless family."

Gahrie said...

Again, without the Bill of Rights, we would never have enjoyed the rights guaranteed to us by it at all.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the historical nature of the Constitution. I recommend more reading of The Federalist Papers, and less of Das Kapital.

Robert Cook said...

"To cite one huge example; if the government didn't have the ability to hand out many billions of dollars through the tax code, the wealthy would have little interest in manipulating it."

In other words, if the government were underfunded and so lacking in power that could not be rightly called a government at all, or only a vestigial one, the wealthy would have no need to manipulate it. They could prey on all of us more directly.

Matthew Sablan said...

I don't see why Cook seems to think the only option besides the corrupt rent seeking we currently have is a government with zero power.

garage mahal said...

Grab some bench again.

Yes. I need a rest after dunking in your face about 20 times in a row.

who-knew said...

I'd ask Garage to correct me if I'm wrong, but given his weak grasp of facts, I wouldn't trust his answer. I thought their were two John Does. One involving Garage's beloved secret routers having to do with campaigning on company time when Walker was Milwaukee County Exec (John Doe 1), and another about the made-up crime of campaign coordination when Walker was governor (John Doe 2). Every approximately accurate accusation of wrongdoing by Archer that Garage throws at her, comes from John Doe 1 and the SWAT raid she is suing about was part of the John Doe 2.

Robert Cook said...

"I recommend more reading of The Federalist Papers, and less of Das Kapital."

These are dissimilar documents. The Federalist Papers are a series of articles debating the nature and possibility of the workings and the rightful powers of a government created by and for the people, (i.e., the wealthy landowners); Das Capital is an analysis of how a particular economic system works.

Original Mike said...

"In other words, if the government were underfunded..."

No, eliminate ALL the "behavioral engineering" from the tax code and then we can talk about the level of taxation.

William Chadwick said...

" don't see why Cook seems to think the only option besides the corrupt rent seeking we currently have is a government with zero power."

It's the false dichotomy, another of the "liberals" favorite fallacious arguments, along with the tu quoque, the argument from pity and the ever-popular Straw Man. (For these and more and a heapin' helpin' of pure stupidity, see almost any comment by garage mahal.)

Cook also adds: "In other words, if the government were underfunded and so lacking in power that could not be rightly called a government at all, or only a vestigial one, the wealthy would have no need to manipulate it. They could prey on all of us more directly." And, pray, how would they do that? By force or fraud? If so, they would simply be gangsters, and we have laws against gangsters who use force and fraud. If you are talking about actions that do not entail force or fraud, could you tell us why you and your goons would have the right to interfere?

(Stand by for the Argumentuum ad Misericordia, or the invocation of some shibboleth beloved by State cultists--the Common Good, etc..)

Original Mike said...

"I don't see why Cook seems to think the only option besides the corrupt rent seeking we currently have is a government with zero power."

He's disingenuous.

Robert Cook said...

"I don't see why Cook seems to think the only option besides the corrupt rent seeking we currently have is a government with zero power."

That is not my view; that is the view--and wish--of those I am debating against. Those who advocate for a small (and ever smaller) government are advocating for a government with zero power. My view is that a government with no power is a fantasy, an impossibility with a society of hundreds of millions of people.

Nonapod said...

To categorize the wealthy as predatory and the poor as their prey seems to indicate a poor understanding of economics. As does casting the role of government as a defender of the poor against the wealthy.

William Chadwick said...

Also: someone wrote about Robert Cook something to the effect that the State doesn't love him as much as he loves it. That's always the pathetic aspect of the State's faithful "Uncle Toms" and useful idiots. They never seem to realize that Big Brother holds them in contempt, too, and that they eventually go into Big Brother's meat grinder along with the rest of us.

Todd said...

Robert Cook said...
"To cite one huge example; if the government didn't have the ability to hand out many billions of dollars through the tax code, the wealthy would have little interest in manipulating it."

In other words, if the government were underfunded and so lacking in power that could not be rightly called a government at all, or only a vestigial one, the wealthy would have no need to manipulate it. They could prey on all of us more directly.

7/1/15, 1:55 PM


OK, that one made me snort out soda!

The government as it is today is way to invasive in all aspects of our lives. It does not need dozens upon dozens of departments related to health.

This chart is a prime example of what is wrong with government today. It does not NEED to be all this: http://www.cchfreedom.org/images/chart-big.jpg

This is not an isolated incident. The government has grown to use (and then some) all of the money it gets. It does not NEED to do all of these things. Any government function should always be done at the most local level in order to a) make it as accountable as possible, b) limit waste, c) minimize costs, d) limit unexpected side affects, and e) minimize the possibility of department / mission creep. It is easy to see if a town or city program is working or not and end it (haha) verses a national program. When has ANY government program been deemed "done" and time to be shut down?

The government should be limited to doing the things it MUST do, not the things it can or wants to do.

Original Mike said...

What Cook doesn't see is that in his unwillingness to give up the dream of a government that manages things the way he thinks they should be managed, he unwittingly supports the corruption that he decries.

William Chadwick said...

"To categorize the wealthy as predatory and the poor as their prey seems to indicate a poor understanding of economics. As does casting the role of government as a defender of the poor against the wealthy."

Not just a poor understand of economics (par for the course with "liberals") but an ignorance of history.

garage mahal said...

I'd ask Garage to correct me if I'm wrong, but given his weak grasp of facts, I wouldn't trust his answer.

You are wrong. Archer has nothing to do with John Doe 2. That's what this lawsuit is about though, to conflate the two, in an attempt to curry support for conservatives involved in John Doe 2.

You're welcome.

Robert Cook said...

"No, eliminate ALL the 'behavioral engineering' from the tax code and then we can talk about the level of taxation."

They are written for the benefit of those with money, not for the benefit of those without it.

You guys fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the government we have; it is a government that works as your ideology wants it, (or, at least as is inevitable the more your ideology informs the workings of the government): for the benefit of the rich and powerful elites, and the rest of us be damned.

Original Mike said...

"Those who advocate for a small (and ever smaller) government ..."

Yeah, cuz that's what's been happening lately. The government has been getting smaller.

Gahrie said...

As does casting the role of government as a defender of the poor against the wealthy."

You have to understand, everything Bolshie Bob knows comes from Das Kapital.

Original Mike said...

"They are written for the benefit of those with money, not for the benefit of those without it"

EXACTLY!

William Chadwick said...

"That is not my view; that is the view--and wish--of those I am debating against. Those who advocate for a small (and ever smaller) government are advocating for a government with zero power."

Again. Straw Man and false dichotomy. Those of us who value liberty want a government with the power (ability) to counter-attack and defend us against people who use force and fraud. It's the Nockian difference between government (the means society uses to defend itself against those who use aggressive force) and the State (the means people use to pick other people's pockets and force their beliefs on other people).

Todd said...

Robert Cook said...

You guys fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the government we have; it is a government that works as your ideology wants it, (or, at least as is inevitable the more your ideology informs the workings of the government): for the benefit of the rich and powerful elites, and the rest of us be damned.

7/1/15, 2:13 PM


Sorry you are wrong. I want it to do as little as possible and be as minimally intrusive as possible. It MUST support the enforcement of contracts (as an example). It MUST protect the property rights of its citizens. It does NOT have to tell me what kind of (or if at all) health insurance I need.

Robert Cook said...

"To categorize the wealthy as predatory and the poor as their prey seems to indicate a poor understanding of economics. As does casting the role of government as a defender of the poor against the wealthy."

To deny the wealthy are predatory and the poor their prey indicates ignorance (or denial) of human nature and of the ages-old perennial parasitic/predatory relationship between the rich and powerful few and the poor and powerless many. The role of government is not written in stone or handed down by god; it is determined by the people who establish the government, or by the few who control it, as the case may be. A government that acts as a defender of the poor against the wealthy is a government that acts for greater majority of society and not just for the minority; in other words, a government that works for the people's benefit.

I don't doubt your view of a desirable (or "realistic" or "proper") government may not agree with mine.

Robert Cook said...

"You have to understand, everything Bolshie Bob knows comes from Das Kapital."

A neat trick...given I have never read it.

Robert Cook said...

"The government should be limited to doing the things it MUST do, not the things it can or wants to do."

Todd, don't assume that your idea of what government "MUST do" is necessarily shared by everyone else. This is the nature of a democracy or democratic republic...there will be disagreements about what is right and necessary and what is not.

Government is not sentient or independent; whatever it does is done in response and service to the influence of of some faction within society or other. This is the crux of the matter: to whom does government answer? Who does it serve?

Gahrie said...

A neat trick...given I have never read it.

So you're saying you channel Marx?

Or just saying what you were told to say by someone who did read Das Kapital?

Todd said...

Robert Cook said... [hush]​[hide comment]

Government is not sentient or independent; whatever it does is done in response and service to the influence of of some faction within society or other. This is the crux of the matter: to whom does government answer? Who does it serve?

7/1/15, 2:34 PM


Exactly and that is why what areas in which it can operate needs to be restricted to the minimum. When 5 (out of 9) people can suddenly "discover" a roll for government where none was before, that is a problem. When some "rights" are determined by plan reading and other "rights" are determined by "inferring intent" by 5 (out of 9), that is a problem.

And sorry but I believe you are mistaken. I believe that there are indeed a small set of responsibility that all can agree that government must do verses what some people "want" government to do.

garage mahal said...

A neat trick...given I have never read it.

And I bet you never read Saul Alinsky!

furious_a said...

a Journal-Sentinal Reporter was there to capture all of it. Secret daybreak raid...and a JS Reporter was along for the ride.

A local Waco TV camera crew accompanying the BATF's Branch Davidian raid team got lost on its way to their Mt. Carmel compound. They stopped to ask a mailman (who happened to be David Koresh's brother-in-law) for directions. The mailman (who later died in the siege-ending fire) got them to talking, gave them directions, then took another route back to the compound to warn Koresh.

tim in vermont said...

To deny the wealthy are predatory and the poor their prey indicates ignorance (or denial) of human nature and of the ages-old perennial parasitic/predatory relationship between the rich and powerful few and the poor and powerless many

Actually, it is just a denial of your world view Robert Cook. Your definition of terms. You guys have no problem for example, with the "invisible hand" of natural selection and evolution which has produced so many teeming ecosystems. But somehow you think that the "invisible hand" of market economics, which has produced such wealth for so many wherever it has been tried is a myth. You guys are foursquare believers in "Intelligent Design" when it comes to economics. You believe that there certainly must be some intelligence behind the economy that you can't see and because you can't see it, it must be nefarious.

You guys are just superstitious and no matter how many times history proves you wrong, you can't get it through your heads. Economic creationists.

Connie said...

Mike, both the WSJ and the Washington Post have reported on the "paramilitary" "early morning raids" that were conducted to search for computers. Not guns or drugs or explosives--computers. I think that gives a pretty good cross section of support for my statements as to how the warrants were executed, as well as a sworn pleading that has now been filed, even if you have no faith in Archer's account of events. And if you doubt her claims, isn't that an additional reason to get rid of the gag orders that accompany John Doe's? If she was lying wouldn't the DA and the cops want to be able (other than through their consistent leaks to the Journal--at least until this case turned against them) to come out and set the record straight? I haven't seen even a leaked denial of the basics of the story about the searches.

Frankly, the idea that the government could come into your home and execute a warrant without allowing you to talk to your attorney or anyone else about what was done or what was found should scare the crap out of you and everyone else, regardless of whether you are left, right, or whatever.

damikesc said...

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the historical nature of the Constitution. I recommend more reading of The Federalist Papers, and less of Das Kapital.

Thing is, I agree with Cook.

Without the Bill of Rights, rest assured, Progressives would've said "Well, it doesn't say we CAN'T do this, so we need to do this". We would've become the UK or Canada (which we are approaching quickly).

The ONLY reason we still possess arms is the Bill of Rights.

Those who advocate for a small (and ever smaller) government are advocating for a government with zero power.

Not NO power.

Strictly limited power.

Without strict limits, their power tends to grow uncontrollably. And then we expect nine lawyers to bail us out.

Hell, I'm STILL livid at Bush for signing McCain-Feingold which he states he thought wasn't Constitutional. Then DO NOT FUCKING SIGN IT.

garage mahal said...

How do we know there were "para-military" raids and denial of lawyer consultations? From the people under gag orders, of course.

Rocketeer said...

A neat trick...given I have never read it.

Well, that certainly explains your facile and incomplete description of Das Kapital as merely "an analysis of how a particular economic system works." In future, I'd suggest reading something before mischaracterizing it to those of us who have.

Original Mike said...

"Hell, I'm STILL livid at Bush for signing McCain-Feingold which he states he thought wasn't Constitutional. Then DO NOT FUCKING SIGN IT."

I'd forgotten that.

Matthew Sablan said...

"How do we know there were "para-military" raids and denial of lawyer consultations? From the people under gag orders, of course."

-- That's why we have a case. To prove it one way or the other. I'll note that the one case where someone breached the gag order and won in Wisconsin's lower courts, no one accused him of lying about the gag order. So, it seems to me, plus their constantly being reported across various mediums without a correction issued from Chisholm or any of the many people who would benefit by popping an easily disproven lie, that I'm fairly comfortable saying there was a gag order, it was illegal and unconstitutional to boot.

Gahrie said...

Without the Bill of Rights, rest assured, Progressives would've said "Well, it doesn't say we CAN'T do this, so we need to do this"

The whole "Well, it doesn't say we CAN'T do this, so we need to do this" idea is an outcome of the Bill of Rights.

Before we passed the Bill of Rights, when the Progressives said "well it doesn't say we can't do this" the response would have been:

"Wrong question. The Constitution doesn't say we can do it, so we can't."

garage mahal said...

So, it seems to me, plus their constantly being reported across various mediums without a correction issued from Chisholm or any of the many people who would benefit by popping an easily disproven lie, that I'm fairly comfortable saying there was a gag order, it was illegal and unconstitutional to boot.

Chisholm can't talk about the investigation. But O'Keefe is singing like a bird. I agree, re-open John Doe 2 and let the public know everything. Of course, neither Walker, or O'Keefe, will let that happen./

Original Mike said...

"This is the crux of the matter: to whom does government answer? Who does it serve?"

The answer is as old as the hills.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Chisholm can't talk about the investigation."

-- There have been various leaks to newspapers regarding the investigation, the majority if not all of them, beneficial to him. In fact, he HAS spoken about the investigations. So, he CAN talk about them.

Curious George said...

"Every approximately accurate accusation of wrongdoing by Archer that Garage throws at her, comes from John Doe 1 and the SWAT raid she is suing about was part of the John Doe 2."

You are correct, sir.

garage mahal said...

Open ALL the files and let the public see everything.

Rusty said...

To deny the wealthy are predatory and the poor their prey indicates ignorance (or denial) of human nature and of the ages-old perennial parasitic/predatory relationship between the rich and powerful few and the poor and powerless many

This is a typical Marxist view of the relationship between people and wealth. It fits neatly with the perceived injustices of a neoindustrial Great Britain, but rapidly falls apart in a post industrial western market based economies. The first view assumes that the positions of the wealthy and the poor are fixed with no avenue to move up or down. This, of course, we know is false.
What we are faced with today is a post modern political class who manipulate their power to push markets for their own political and monetary advantage. Nothing is more illustrative of this than the recent housing crisis. Lending institutions were threatened with crippling law suits unless they loaned money to people who simply didn't qualify as borrowers.

garage mahal said...

You are correct, sir.

Archer is not part of John Doe 2. She isn't suing over anything related to John Doe 2. Her house was raided in 2011.

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, O'Keefe has every right to speak about abuse of power by the government. If anything, this is why we have whistle blower protections. Citizens should not be denigrated for speaking out about abuses of power.

Also, "It does seem to me that an order saying you can't talk about your own involvement is a classic gag order and probably unconstitutional per se," Easterbrook observed while questioning Joseph Russell, the attorney representing special prosecutor Francis Schmitz. In fact, he added, such an order would seem to be "screamingly unconstitutional" and the "kind of thing the Supreme Court has reversed in one-paragraph summary opinions."

There seems to be no question about if there WERE or WERE NOT gag orders. The Doe Ruling prefers to refer to them as "Secrecy Orders" ("The subpoenas indicated that their recipients were subject to a Secrecy Order, and that their contents and existence could not be disclosed other than to counsel, under penalty of perjury.")

Of course, the goal of the raids was met: "The current John Doe investigation has devastated O‘Keefe‘s ability to undertake issue advocacy with WCFG. 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."

Matthew Sablan said...

"Open ALL the files and let the public see everything."

-- We only need to see the government's records. We don't need the clubs or private citizens' data exposed for activists to use to beat them with, as we've seen done with Proposition 8 and other places.

Citizens deserve privacy in their private lives; government enforcers do not deserve it in their official capacity..

Matthew Sablan said...

Whoa, wait. The legal reasoning is that the clubs say things that supported Walker, so therefore, they are part of Walker's campaign? THAT'S the link that got no-knock raids, stolen property and guns in people's faces?

garage mahal said...

THAT'S the link that got no-knock raids, stolen property and guns in people's faces?

I'm not sure how you know this happened. All those records are sealed. Who's house? Who's property? Who's faces had guns pointed at them?

Matthew Sablan said...

If you read the Doe Ruling, it says the raids were armed. If we look at Archer's statements, we also see that people had guns pointed at them. The ruling is not sealed, and it is written by the court, so unless you assume that the court is in a conspiracy to lie in a way that could be easily disproven by the losing party, you're going to have to accept it is true.

There's no question that the government took documents and electronics from these people, in what appears to be an unconstitutional manner. Their property was taken, at gun point, by the government.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Deputies executed the search warrants, seizing business papers, computer equipment, phones, and other devices, while their targets were restrained under police supervision and denied the ability to contact their attorneys."

-- Armed people restrain citizens, taking their stuff and denying them basic constitutional rights, all while refusing to be held accountable -- that's not healthy for democracy.

The John Doe process may have had some use at some point in time. Under a less corrupt system, maybe it could even be good.

It is of no use to anyone any more. It needs to be abolished.

garage mahal said...

If you read the Doe Ruling, it says the raids were armed

I think you're referring to JD1, not JD2.

Rick said...

For years garage has cited an investigation as proof Walker did something shady. Now Chisholm is the subject of scrutiny and he's immediately pretending it's political.


It says something such toady behavior isn't beneath him. I wouldn't believe any adult could act as he does if I didn't personally witness it.

damikesc said...

Before we passed the Bill of Rights, when the Progressives said "well it doesn't say we can't do this" the response would have been:

"Wrong question. The Constitution doesn't say we can do it, so we can't."


It's a nice thought --- but these are Progressives. Rest assured they'd have gone with what I said they'd have said without a qualm. They are very "rule-oriented".

Remember, they just found a well-hidden right to gay marriage just last week.

All those records are sealed. Who's house? Who's property? Who's faces had guns pointed at them?

Then have the prosecutor turn over all files involving his office only. A fishing expedition on citizens should never be allowed.

damikesc said...

There's no question that the government took documents and electronics from these people, in what appears to be an unconstitutional manner. Their property was taken, at gun point, by the government.

We should be glad they didn't use civil forfeiture laws...

Matthew Sablan said...

Wait. Are we really acting under the impression that the way the raids were handled are radically different, despite the description in the ruling and the one from Archer?

Rick said...

All those records are sealed. Who's house? Who's property? Who's faces had guns pointed at them?

Jesus, he doesn't know the first thing about it even though it's been his entire life for most of a decade.

This makes me wonder what he put aside to focus on this. What could have been just a little less important than repeatedly making a fool of himself over Walker?

Matthew Sablan said...

Also, side note, if you read page 4, it is clear which of these we're talking about. Only deliberate ignorance/laziness could be unsure what we're talking about.

garage mahal said...

Jesus, he doesn't know the first thing about it even though it's been his entire life for most of a decade.

Tell me who, then. I'll wait for you.

Terry said...

Rusty wrote:
"What we are faced with today is a post modern political class who manipulate their power to push markets for their own political and monetary advantage."
Check out Federalist 10 sometime, Rusty. It's about how to avoid or mitigate factionalism in a republic. Madison defined factionalism as a narrow democratic majority using its power to dictate government policy to the whole. Madison taught that the best way to do this was to have a federal government with a limited reach into intra-state politics. Progressives have spent the last century dismantling every barrier Madison proposed to separate the federal government from the lives of the citizens of states.

Tom said...

Ann

I have a question of fact and law. Is she suing him in his personal capacity? If (or, more likely, when) he loses, does it come out of his hide, or are the Wisconsin taxpayers on the hook? Who pays for his legal defense?

Terry said...

Garage Mahal wrote:
"Tell me who, then. I'll wait for you."
Garage needs this info so he knows where to move the goal posts.
I'll help him out:
"It's SOP for the cops!"
"The victims might have been armed!"
"The cops were never going to shoot anyone!"
"These so-called victims were double-plus ungood!"


garage mahal said...

Wait. Are we really acting under the impression that the way the raids were handled are radically different, despite the description in the ruling and the one from Archer?

O'Keefe and the club have not provided evidence or witnesses proving their assertion in the case that authorities made strong-armed raids on conservatives' homes, an attorney for Chisholm in the case wrote.

"To (prosecutors') knowledge, the only 'evidence' in the record referencing these 'raids' comes from plaintiff O'Keefe's declaration," Douglas Knott, an attorney for Chisholm, writes. "...Regardless of the veracity of O'Keefe's claim, or the reliability of its unidentified sources, it is clear that these unidentified 'raided' homes did not include his own."


I don't know exactly what, if any, official docs Randa looked at. I can tell you that his decision was thrown out by the 7th District.

Rick said...

"The victims might have been armed!"

It's the all purpose excuse.

Titus said...

i don't know anything about this case and don't give a shit. I find Wisconsin politics, and most politics, boring as hell...at less there is sex involved. Sex if fun! But, I did read about a pube women with a partner in the house.

Was any carpet munching going on or perhaps beaver bumping during the time of this raid?

i would be interested if there is any lesbian sex attached to this story.

Titus said...

Also, were any nipple clamps or huge black dildos taken from the scene and now held in evidence?

Terry said...

From Garage's linked story:
"Prosecutors responded that if sheriff's deputies had acted improperly in the raid of the homes, that was a matter to be taken up by the targets of the raids with the deputies, not prosecutors."

The old non-denial denial. You did notice that the the "Chisholm attorney" you quote is nameless, didn't you? And that he did not deny that the guns-drawn event occurred?

Gabriel said...

See now garage mahal maintaining simultaneously that the victims deserved the raids, and that there's no evidence the raids ever happened.

Despite contemporaneous newspaper accounts already linked to, by Ann and others, and garage mahal's contemporaneous comments...

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 220   Newer› Newest»