Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Applying The Weiner Test To The WI Sup Ct Scuffle

Applying The Weiner Test To The WI Sup Ct Scuffle

The facts are murky so far as to the alleged altercation between Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley.

Byron York and Ann Althouse have good round-ups of the competing leaks and press releases, and the highly suspicious involvement of Soros-funded “investigative” journalists in spreading the story.

One thing is clear, however.  Only one of the Justices is asserting that a crime took place.  That Justice is Ann Walsh Bradley, who issued a press release claiming that “”[t]he facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold ….”

Prosser has not alleged that a crime took place, and simply stated that the charges against him will be proven to be false.

Now lets apply the Anthony Weiner test. 

In the hours and days after the photo surfaced of a crotch-shot sent from his Twitter account, Weiner claimed that he was hacked, a criminal offense.  Yet Weiner refused to file a police report or notify various federal agencies that a crime had taken place.  Weiner apparently recognized that lying to the federal government was a crime, and he didn’t want to put himself in that position, so he simply lied to the public, which was not a crime.

Fast forward to Wisconsin.  Justice Ann Walsh Bradley asserts that a serious crime took place, at a minimum a battery. 

Has Bradley pressed charges?  Unlike Weiner, she knows the identity of the alleged perpetrator.  (Actually, Weiner knew there was no perpetrator, but from a public standpoint, he claimed not to know.) 

It has been over a week since the incident, and while reports indicate the chief of the Capitol Police was notified by someone, that is a far cry from pressing charges. 

If Bradley has not pressed charges, why not?  Inquiring minds want to know.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

She has not filed charges because she attacked him first.
Does anyone not think that after what we saw in WI recently that a liberal would not try to go after Prosser?

“He did not exert any pressure, but his hands were around her neck,” the source said.

The source said the act “was in no way playful.”

But another source told the Journal Sentinel that Bradley attacked Prosser.

“She charged him with fists raised,” the source said.”

Nuff said

Prosser “put his hands in a defensive posture,” the source said. “He blocked her.”

In doing so, the source said, he made contact with Bradley’s neck.

[…] Professor Jacobson: Applying the Weiner Test to the Wisconsin Supreme Court: “If Bradley has not pressed charges, why not? Inquiring minds want to […]

Sorry, that argument has no legs. Not everyone who’s been the victim of a crime automatically calls the police. If no harm is done, most people will just brush themselves off and move on. Otherwise you’d have to wonder why, if Bradley attacked Prosser and he defended himself, he didn’t call the police on her. The obvious answer is that he was under no obligation to do so, and saw no need. The same answer could apply to her, if in fact he attacked her.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Milhouse. | June 26, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    True, yet the Weiner test went to the veracity of the account. Weiner was under no obligation to report the alleged hacking, but his failure to do so raised issues of credibility. So too here. Prosser, by contrast, has not claimed that he was a crime victim.

      Cracking a congressman’s twitter account is a serious crime with all sorts of security implications; if Weiner really believed his account had been cracked, and he had nothing to hide, he’d have called the FBI.

      That is very different from the victim of a harmless assault calling the police and making a case out of it; nobody does that. Of all the politicians and celebrities who’ve had pies, glitter, etc. thrown at them, exactly how many have pressed charges? None, as far as I know. It’s just not done, I guess because it makes the complainant look petty. One is supposed to brush it off as “no harm no foul” and not try to have ones assailant punished. And that applies as much to Bradley as to Prosser.

      Nor do I see why you think it makes a difference whether Prosser has “claimed that he was a crime victim”. Assuming that the incident was not totally fabricated, his only plausible defense from the charge leveled against him is that he was the victim of a crime. He’s either a criminal or a victim; there is no other option. And if your premise that an “officer of the court” (i.e. any lawyer) must report any crime of which s/he becomes aware then whoever is the victim of this crime is equally guilty; and so are hundreds of other lawyers who don’t bother reporting minor assaults on themselves.

    ThomasD in reply to Milhouse. | June 26, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    No legs? I think not. Bradley did not “brush [herself] off and move on.” No, she issued a public statement accusing a named individual of commiting a crime.

    She is an officer of the court, no?

    Is she not willing to see her allegations handled by the appropriate authorities? If not, can she at least explain why not?

    Otherwise the argument stands as valid – she is not willing to make the charge because she knows the charge is false.

      dad29 in reply to ThomasD. | June 26, 2011 at 7:09 pm

      Bradley did not “brush [herself] off and move on.” No, she issued a public statement

      It’s not clear that Bradley ‘released the statement.’

      Better bet: it was Abrahamson, Chief Justice and Bitch.

        Milhouse in reply to dad29. | June 26, 2011 at 8:57 pm

        Abrahamson is the alpha bitch in that pack; Bradley may well be the beta. Wouldn’t surprise me.

    spartan in reply to Milhouse. | June 26, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    While true, I would also point out women, especially professional women, are extremely sensitive to this sort of male behaviour. Throw in a sitting female Supreme Court Justice and one would think she would have called in the National Guard to protect her from this alleged behaviour and then file a restraining order against Prosser.

    This is character assassination by unnamed souces. It is an old weapon in the political arsenal.

common tater | June 26, 2011 at 1:07 pm

Evidently, Prosser is guilty because, by existing as a non-liberal male who engages in sober deliberation, academic discussion, heated argument, and spirited dissent with and from some of her points of view, he provoked a good gaia-fearing female judge into having to go at him with her gender discriminated-against little fists which have no possibility of prevailing over senior, liver-spotted male hands in defensive contact with her righteously agitated person.

Also, Prosser has used the B word on occasion. Case closed.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Nev. | June 26, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Sorry, but I did not see your comment at Althouse. There are not many original ideas on the internet.

As long as Geroge Soros’s group is behind the attack, we need to wait and get the facts. He could care less about the truth. The ends justifies the means. His groups set up the lies, the liberal media spreads them and then fails to report the truth when the lie is exposed.

Now that that the libs are all in, I’m almost waiting for Breitbart to come out with the video of the incident.

[…] more at Memeorandum, natch. Also Legal Insurrection, where William Jacobson notes: It has been over a week since the incident, and while reports indicate the chief of the Capitol […]

[…] more at Memeorandum, natch. Also Legal Insurrection, where William Jacobson notes: It has been over a week since the incident, and while reports indicate the chief of the Capitol […]

Other places have noted that Prosser is 5’5″ tall, and that Bradley is taller. Placing hands on her waist is not defensive. Placing hands on her chest is sexual assault. Placing hands on the neck is the last alternative. Was he supposed to let her hit him? If there were 6 of the 7 justices in her office, that’s a meeting. Her asking him to leave seems a little over the top. Perhaps she should have said, “Well, this meeting is over. All of you out!”

Are we going to have cat-fights among the three United States Supreme Court Female Justices?

Doug Wright | June 26, 2011 at 2:29 pm

Doesn’t “Occam’s Razor” apply to this situation? If Bradley doesn’t file charges, she should be hauled up on charges of not reporting a crime. If she does report this as a crime, then Prosser faces the possibility of being tried unless the authorities determine that a crime was not committed. Conversely, if the authorities so determine that a crime was not committed, then Bradley might look like a hysterical person of someone with an axe to grind.

So, it does seem that Bradley, or Prosser, has raises what might have been a mere scrabble into a major event, at least that possibility exists.

Of couse, as Professor J pointed out, there is , now, a possibility that Gov. Walker gets to appoint two persons to the WSC.

Personally, I hope that Bradley screwed the pooch this time and believe she really might have; or maybe that was Prosser.

    Milhouse in reply to Doug Wright. | June 26, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    And if Prosser doesn’t file charges should he “be hauled up on charges of not reporting a crime”? Since when is it a crime not to report a crime, anyway? Sounds like the USSR to me. If every person who’s ever been assaulted made a federal case of it the police and courts would be even more overwhelmed than they are already.

[…] Some good discussions at both Althouse and Legal Insurrection. At the latter, Professor Jacobson points out that only one justice is saying a crime was […]

[…] Complicating all of this is the minor detail that no charges were apparently filed*, and Bradley has only now come out with a rather belated claim accusing Prosser of the choking, while not explaining why she is not […]

Let’s simply look at this from a common sense perspective.

Who would be in a position to be more angry?

The jurist who just won an election, and is on the majority side of a controversial decision?

Or the jurist who is confronted with the fact there’s not a damn thing he/she can do to stop what’s going on?

I know it’s not that simple, but I’d have a very difficult time believing the ‘winners’ on this ruling are picking fights with the ‘losers’. Quite the opposite, to be honest.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to jimg. | June 26, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    I was thinking of that. Why would Prosser be upset in the situation, the majority was voting his way.

      I don’t see how that’s relevant. There are any number of things she could have said or done to provoke him. I don’t think there’s anything to be gained in following this line of reasoning. The only relevant question is whether he did attack her, and the only honest answer I can think of is that there is no public evidence to suggest that he did any such thing. Who exactly is making the allegation, and what, if any, is their reputation for honesty?

      William I have been reading this rather sordid story over at Ann’s blog. I would suggest that perhaps the altercation was caused by Abrahamson’s attempt to delay releasing the decision in the case for political reasons. This explains why Prosser would have justifiably called Abrahamson a bitch (yes I call many women the same, and yes I am a woman who recognizes a bitch when I see one).

      I would suggest that Bradley was furious because she was in the minority, and she was furious with Prosser because he beat that other dumb bitch Kloppy.

Common sense is in very short supply on the left. It’s usually the application of common sense by the right that roots out the lies of the left.

[…] hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold.” That’s a specific allegation of a crime. As William Jacobson has already asked: why hasn’t she filed a criminal […]

Cowboy Curtis | June 26, 2011 at 4:10 pm

I think the real test, applicable to Weiner as well, is the “how do normal people react in a given situation” test, because as much as we all like to believe we’re each a unique little flower in God’s world, the fact is, given any set of circumstances, most people will behave and react in a pretty standard manner.

So, all of that said, which of the following scenario seems more plausible:

1) After a very contentious argument, a male justice on the winning side begins throttling a female justice in front of a room full of Supreme Court justices and nobody calls the authorities because a man choking a woman in her office is no big deal (including the female justices).

2) After a very contentious argument, a female justice on the losing side loses her cool and strikes out at a smaller male justice on the winning side who makes contact with her neck while fending off her blow(s). The authorities aren’t called because no one was hurt and guys don’t call the cops when a woman tosses an ineffectual blow their way, especially when their on the winning side of the case.

Until there is an investigation none of us can no for sure. But, I contend that #1 is profoundly implausible in every court system, board room, office meeting, PTA event, and high school party in America. #2, however, seems perfectly in line with how people in my experience actually behave.

Cowboy Curtis | June 26, 2011 at 4:11 pm

*they’re

[…] Complicating all of this is the minor detail that no charges were apparently filed*, and Bradley has only now come out with a rather belated claim accusing Prosser of the choking, while not explaining why she is not […]

“… Justice … Ann Walsh Bradley, … issued a press release claiming that “”[t]he facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold ….”.
If a colleague asks that I leave his/her office, I would leave. What is to be gained by chocking my colleague?

Cowboy Curtis | June 26, 2011 at 5:18 pm

We don’t know she asked him to leave, we know she now claims to have asked him to leave. Given the smell factor on these allegations (which her calling for a full investigation would easily clear up), I take everything that woman says with a 2 pound grain of salt.
However, even if she did ask him to leave, its a public office, not private property, where Supreme Court justices are arguing a case of critical importance currently before them. Depending on what was being said and discussed (which is a big depending), I’m not sure I’d of left. Given those circumstances, I’m not even sure it would have been responsible to of left.

Justice Prosser said: So Sumi.

Bada-Bing.

Nobody on this forum or any other has raised ‘menopause’!

Duke Powell | June 26, 2011 at 7:18 pm

Don’t know what the law is in Wisconsin, but in Minnesota when a man chokes a woman in an assault its a felony arrest. It is automatic – The woman may not even want to press charges.

    Milhouse in reply to Duke Powell. | June 26, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    And if a woman chokes a man? Or if they’re both men or both women, or one or both are androgynous? What on earth can the assailant’s and victim’s sexes have to do with the matter? Does equal protection of the laws mean nothing?

    Aussie in reply to Duke Powell. | June 28, 2011 at 4:49 am

    I would not think menopause because we women do not get that out of control after menopause has taken effect :)…. However, I am prepared to go for PMT or pre-menstrual tension because it sure sounds like Bradley was behaving in a very aggressive and bitch manner which is symptomatic of PMT 🙂

Like ACE said about Weiner: “Victims call the cops. Perps call a lawyer.

(Democrat operatives looking for political advantage or to stir stuff up call the Make Believe Media and then ask for anonymity.)

teapartydoc | June 27, 2011 at 8:31 am

Nice ploy. Pretend to attack so that you can claim to have been attacked. Anybody here ever seen “Shane”, starring Alan Ladd? In this case Jack Palance turns out to be a girl. Not a very smart one, either.

[…] Complicating all of this is the minor detail that no charges were apparently filed*, and Bradley has only now come out with a rather belated claim accusing Prosser of the choking, while not explaining why she is not […]

A Mindful Webworker | June 27, 2011 at 11:18 am

Hm. I thought it was Mark Twain who said it, but in a quick search all I can find is this article about the three ways to lie, the last of which is to tell the truth, but to tell it so unconvincingly no one will believe you.

Which is what I thought of when I read this:

In an interview, Bradley said: “You can try to spin those facts and try to make it sound like I ran up to him and threw my neck into his hands, but that’s only spin.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal

[…] William A. Jacobson at legalinsurrection.com has introduced an unfortunate meme with his Applying The Weiner Test To The WI Sup Ct Scuffle […]

God, lawyers kill me. Only when two lawyers get in a fight do we have some kind of huge meltdown. This is the real world. People fight and not everybody gets arrested, sued or fired.

Both should go back to their corners and stop crying like little girls. What “crime” was committed that needs a legal remedy? Anyone hurt? No. Was there criminal intent? No.

As a long time police detective and veteran of the street, I would not arrest anyone, charge anyone or even do a report. I might throw cold water on everybody and tell them to go home and sleep it off, but that would be it.

Obviously, the Left is trying to twist this into another way to “get” Prosser. Frankly, that would be a defense for him if he were to be charged. How do we know she didn’t plan it. Lord knows, it would not be the first time a woman claimed a man did harm or set him up so he got arrested.

What I don’t understand is how anyone in that meeting wanted to let the outside world know they act like children. They’re SP’s for God’s sake. You’d think somewhere along the line they would have learned restraint and decency and the ability to argue with resorting to fisticuffs.

What, are they ten years old?

    Aussie in reply to archer52. | June 28, 2011 at 4:52 am

    there is only one lawyer crying like a girl. Her name is Bradley.
    Prosser has been silent. He has not opened up and he has not made allegations of any kind. The witnesses have made comments. It would seem that Abrahamson supports Bradley and others present support Prosser.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend