Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Is anything ever “over” in Wisconsin?

Is anything ever “over” in Wisconsin?

As previously posted, it appears that there were sufficient recall petition signatures submitted to hold recall elections as to Gov. Scott Walker, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, and several Republican state Senators.

One of those state Senators, Pam Galloway, unexpectedly announced yesterday she was resigning and would not run in the recall election due to family health issues.  The resignation puts the state Senate into a deadlock between Republicans and Democrats.

It is worth noting that Galloway has been the subject of really nasty attacks from an AFSCME union official who called her a “pig” and warned “We’re coming after you.”  Badger Pundit has the details, including this audio of Charlie Sykes interviewing the perp:

Based on the conduct of this AFSCME official, it is obvious that Wisconsin will go through yet another campaign season for people who are in the middle of their terms with all the intimidation and threats we saw last year.

As if reliving that nightmare were not enough, Wisconsin will relive the Ann Walsh Bradley – David Prosser battle.

Yesterday a court-appointed special prosecutor found “probable cause” that Justice David Prosser violated various general ethics requirements (h/t Patricia via Althouse):

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed formal ethics allegations Friday against state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser for a June incident in which he placed his hands on the neck of Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.

The commission asked the high court to send the case to a panel of three appeals court judges to consider whether Prosser violated three ethics rules. The panel’s findings would then be sent to the high court, the only body that could make a binding ruling against Prosser.

Read the Complaint.  The Complaint makes no mention of the evidence from the criminal investigation, which found no probable cause of  a crime, including statements from other Justices in the room that Justice Ann Walsh Bradley charged at Prosser, shook her partially opened fist just inches from his face, that he raised his hands in self defense, and that he never placed any pressure when his hands touched her neck.  Instead, the complaint quotes Bradley alone as to the details of the confrontation, only mentioning out of context Prosser’s acknowledgment that his hands touched her neck.

The Complaint is a sad joke, a sick indictment of a sick system in Wisconsin.

Bradley should be the one charged with ethics violations not just for her conduct but for falsely describing what Prosser did as a “chokehold.”

So, in the midst of recall elections of conservative elected officials in which liberal activists already have exhibited gross intimidation, Wisconsin will go through a farce of an ethics investigation of a conservative Supreme Court Justice who defended himself against physically threatening conduct by a liberal Justice.

Wisconsin, you have a problem.

Update:  H/t to commenter, Prosser Investigation Led by Democrat With Ties to Abrahamson who also signed the anti-Walker recall petition.  I didn’t know this when I did the post, but it confirms everything I wrote.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



The Journal-Sentinel in Milwaukee can’t figure out why Wisconsin is losing private sector jobs. With our political climate, why would any business want to come here?

MacsenMcBain | March 17, 2012 at 9:50 am

Maybe we can offer Wisconsin for sale to Canada…

There doesn’t have to be a crime. It’s an ETHICS charge. It’s the preferred weapon of the Liberals and Statists to use against judges whom have done absolutely NOTHING wrong but that the Left wants to SMEAR, because they don’t like the politics of that judge.

Take it from someone who has been on the receiving end of one. If a criminal charge is dismissed with prejudice the ethics committees will STILL use it against you if they don’t like your politics.

There is an advantage to this, though. If Prosser wins, and then sues the Ethics Commission for acting in bad faith outside of their official duties, he has a shot at getting them disbarred and recovering his costs. I would also suggest that he sue them Federally for RICO violations (because then he can get Treble damages). It’s a high bar to meet, but it should give ALL sorts of fun discovery into exactly what the Ethics Commission was thinking.

I strongly suggest that Prosser ALSO file ethics charges against both Justice Bradley for her lies to the public about the incident and the Independent prosecutor for his lack of independence (showing his donations to the “recall walker” campaign. If they’re going to attempt to smear him publically again, it’s time to fight fire with fire.

Wish-consin is an excellent bellwether for the nation, showing us the Collectivists’ tactics in the near future.

As we all should know by now, there is no lie they will hesitate to tell, nothing you or I do they will not distort, and very few laws they will not flagrantly break and expect to walk away from.

Watch how they roll. Begin to think of effective ways to counter them.

Be a Breitbart.

    My impression used to be that Wisconsin was a model Democrat state: some extremists in Madison, some urban problems in Milwaukee, but overall control by liberals who were basically decent, honorable folks even though I disagreed with their political views.

    I wondered why Bill focuses on WI so much, but his efforts have turned out to be eye-opening. Consider not just the revelations about WI but the implications about other “nice” Democrat areas.

      Ragspierre in reply to gs. | March 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm

      We know that Collectivists are “better” than we are…because they tell us, and fully believe it in their deluded lil’ heads.

      From that delusion of goodness, they have successfully rationalized any conduct the commit as “good”, too.

      It really is that simple.

      From a NYT op-ed…
      “There is no answer to that question once you step outside of the liberal calculus in which all persons, no matter what their moral status as you see it, are weighed in an equal balance. Rather than relaxing or soft-pedaling your convictions about what is right and wrong, stay with them, and treat people you see as morally different differently. Condemn Limbaugh and say that Schultz and Maher may have gone a bit too far but that they’re basically O.K.

      If you do that you will not be displaying a double standard; you will be affirming a single standard, and moreover it will be a moral one because you will be going with what you think is good rather than what you think is fair. “Fair” is a weak virtue; it is not even a virtue at all because it insists on a withdrawal from moral judgment.”

      We have to understand this.

        Well said and true. Crony-capitalist collectivism is today’s most dangerous internal threat.

        Nevertheless, eternal vigilance will remain the price of liberty even with a conservative government.

    Precisely my thought.
    I have first-hand experience of another context in which they lie without hesitation: Jury Selection. I tried jury cases for over 40 years and had dozens of examples of liberal-oriented jurors lying about “oh yes, I have had bad experiences with companies like the defendant, but both sides are equal in my eyes and I can be perfectly fair.” On the other hand, conservative prospective jurors will admit to a bias and then also admit, “yes, I think I have to say that the defendant would start out a little ahead in my mind, even though I will try to be fair.” The liberal, agenda-driven juror stays on, the conservative juror gets bounced for cause. That’s just the way they roll.

Typical. The neo-bolsheviks are once again employing their usual tactics of intimidation and persecution.

Sorry, but it’s rather difficult to imagine any situation where your hands would be found around a co-workers neck, even if the co-worker was getting in your face.

    Sherlock in reply to Zachriel. | March 17, 2012 at 11:18 am

    My understanding is that she was charging into his space. he put up his hands in defense– in other words her neck ran into his hands.

      Zachriel in reply to Sherlock. | March 18, 2012 at 8:57 am

      Charging, but not making contact. They were heatedly arguing, so she approached him while gesticulating. It’s still hard to imagine, in a work environment, any reason for a man to make first contact especially around someone’s neck.

        William A. Jacobson in reply to Zachriel. | March 18, 2012 at 10:06 am

        From the police investigagtion:

        From Bradley Interview: “Justice Bradley did not recall Justice Prosser squeezing or applying pressure around her neck.”

        From Roggensack Interview: “Justice Roggensack said Justice Bradley mentioned [at a meeting two days later] how Justice Prosser had her in a chokehold, and Justice Roggensack responded by saying he did not have her in a chokehold at any point. Justice Bradley responded to her by saying “that’s because you stopped him.” Justice Roggensack told Justice Bradley that she did not stop him from anything, and added, “I stopped you from hitting him.””

        From Roggensack interview: “Justice Roggensack said if she had not got in between the two of them, she believes Justice Bradley would have “smacked him in the face with her fist .””

          Prosser admits he had his fingers on both sides of her neck. Roggensack’s comment concerning Bradley was *after* Prosser had already put his hands on Bradley’s neck. Roggensack said she would have given them both F’s for behavior, but the fact is that Prosser initiated physical contact. Even if Bradley was goading Prosser, again, there’s just no way to imagine a reasonable workplace scenario where he would end up with his hands around her neck.

          Prosser, Male, 5’10”, 170 lbs
          Bradley, Female, 5’3″, 130 lbs

    Sanddog in reply to Zachriel. | March 17, 2012 at 11:35 am

    If a co-worker charged me in an insane rage with their hands up and clenched, they’d get more than just my hands on their neck.

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to Zachriel. | March 17, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    I suggest you contact Wisconsin law enforcement immediately. You obviously know something they don’t.

      Zachriel in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | March 18, 2012 at 8:58 am

      That law enforcement didn’t see a prosecutable offence—no one was injured, and they withdrew immediately—, doesn’t make it reasonable workplace behavior. There’s just no excuse for a worker to put his hands on a co-workers neck.

        William A. Jacobson in reply to Zachriel. | March 18, 2012 at 10:02 am

        From the police investigation:

        From Roggensack interview: “Justice Roggensack said if she had not got in between the two of them, she believes Justice Bradley would have “smacked him in the face with her fist .””

        with links here,

        Sanddog in reply to Zachriel. | March 18, 2012 at 1:20 pm

        If you are being assaulted, you have a right to defend yourself without being forced to cower, or run away. Putting your hands up in front of your face to ward off an attack is an instinctual reaction in a person who hasn’t been trained in self defense. When the attacker is 6″ taller than you, your hands may well come in contact with their neck.

        Prosser’s reaction was legitimate. Bradley’s unhinged attack was not. You might want to keep that in mind.

    Hope Change in reply to Zachriel. | March 17, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    Zachriel, you might want to familiarize yourself with the facts before leaving a comment.

    Eye-witnesses say Ann Walsh-Bradley charged at Prosser. She came from around her desk and charged at him and shook her hand or fist up near his face. He raised his hands defensively.

      Zachriel in reply to Hope Change. | March 18, 2012 at 9:04 am

      Yes, she shook her hands near his face. Just because she was getting in his face is no excuse for putting his hands on a coworker, much less her neck. He was acting out of rage, not fear. Don’t worry, though. There’s little likelihood of this going much further.

[…] Dimbulbs Posted on March 17, 2012 7:30 am by Bill Quick » Is anything ever “over” in Wisconsin? – Le·gal In·sur&middot… Read the Complaint.  The Complaint makes no mention of the evidence from the criminal […]

This is a war of attrition, a war without end. Re-reading David Horowitz’s pamphlet in Alinkyism last night and wondering if we have it in us to fight this, as the fight will require some new kind of awarenness and higher (or lower) form of ferocity. These people have no interest in the law or appearances anymore. It’s relentless, shameless and all about the “ends.” Do we have it in us to fight it to the end?

    Ragspierre in reply to raven. | March 17, 2012 at 11:54 am

    Yep. But I’m Scots-Irish, with Highland complications…

    so I will fight myself if need be.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to raven. | March 17, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Zechariah 4:6 – “Not by might, not by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.”

    Isaiah 31:8-9 – tells Israel that the sword of the Lord, not the sword of man will defeat Assyria (Islam). The Sword of the LORD is the Word of God…the Law and Commandments of God which are the blessing and strength of Israel.

    Hope Change in reply to raven. | March 17, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    raven, as you know, the unions will lose their state-enforced public-employee union dues if the Walker changes remain in place. So this is their desperation moment.

    Union money from all over is pouring in to Wisconsin to make it look like the union are powerful. BUT, the unions all over the country have come to the same end of the road: the towns, cities, municipalities and states are going to be bankrupted if the current system of work- rules, payments and pension plans isn’t radically changed.

    Wisconsin is on the front line. When you see the battle in one state alone it looks like the unions are strong. But this is a nation-wide problem. They don’t have the resources to do this nationwide. They’re trying to win a knockout here “pour encourager les autres.”

    The American People, once roused, are much, much stronger than the public employee unions. The Alinsky method only works when the truth has no voice. The media must be compliant and complicit. Of course, the MSM are. But WE are here.

    The Army of Davids we are creating on the internet is a counterweight. Everyone who reads Legal Insurrection, Instapundit, PowerLine or Ann Althouse knows the true facts about the Walsh-Bradley claims. That readership includes a lot of lawyers, journalists and law professors. Everyone knows it looks like Walsh-Bradley and Abrahamson are trying to destroy Prosser because they don’t like his politics.

    Oh, and the rumors in Wisconsin about the chaos of incompetence, unseemly behavior and bullying, which is a word former members of the court have used in public, from Chief Justice Abrahamson, may now start to come out. It would serve the Chief Justice right if she overplays in her attempt to destroy an honorable man’s career and reputation, and is hoist by her own petard. It will be her reputation that is damaged.

    Newt has said that we must have a public showdown with the public employee unions. One of the reasons I support Newt is that he is clear on how corrupt the unions’ methods and intentions are. Newt knows this is going to be a huge fight. And it needs to be.

    The American People need to be aware that the public employee unions think the unions run our schools, our towns, our school boards, our politicians, our school, town and state budgets and all our elected officials. And we need to teach the public employee unions that they are the SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE, NOT THE MASTERS.

    So raven, I say, yes, we do have the strength to defeat the Left. We are WITH the flow of life. We want freedom.

    The Left want to control others and to live off the tax payer and to terrify and destroy anyone who stands up to them. They are AGAINST the flow of life. In the end, they are rowing against the current.

    If the American People are together on this, the unions will be powerless. It needs to be a big enough conversation. In Wisconsin, they are overplaying their hand.

Yesterday, I took a chance (using my real name and home email address, not my usual collection of noms des guerre), and wrote Mr. Spiegelhoff, the union thug cyberstalker, addressing as a parent and grandparent of numerous females. Therein, I requested an apology for the female Senator and for all women and suggested he consider a change of vocation.

Also said: the tactics of the unions in Wisconsin are not winning friends or influencing people. Taxpayers resent their trashing the Capitol building and making a noisy nuisance of themselves. In closing, I wrote that the citizens of Wisconsin should be honored to have the capable and honorable Scott Walker as Governor.

Mr. Spiegelhoff was warned that if I received any response from him, other than an apology, he would hear from my attorney. (I did not tell him that two of my daughters are attorneys and the other is a paralegal). In closing, I said I hope he repents and does not continue his vile behavior.

    Nathan in reply to Uncle Samuel. | March 17, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    So if he sends you a thank you card with a smiley face drawn inside, but no apology, you will sue him?

    I’m not sure what crime “responding to a letter” falls under…perhaps ‘joke crime’?

    People gathering recall signatures experienced plenty of unpleasantness from conservatives.

I have this sick feeling in my stomach that the socialists are going to re-take power in Wisconsin. The way I see it, the voters can act like parents and put their foot down and vote out as many Democrats as possible or, they can decide to give in to the union thugs and their dirty tactics and vote the Republicans from power in order to restore social and political peace. I truly hope for the former to be the result, however, we’ll just have to wait and see.

The Republicans just don’t have it in them to fight dirty and the socialists/progressive/marxists/democrats know this and are not going to let up because the left seems to get what they desire more often than not.

I remember in the last Kennedy mini-series when a toast was offered and the toaster opined — here’s to living in interesting times. Well Wisconsin, your state is definitely living in interesting times. GOOD LUCK!

    Hope Change in reply to Liberty. | March 17, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    Hi Liberty — don’t underestimate Wisconsin.

    Scott Walker’s reforms are working.

    People are more aware now what the unions were doing with work rules, pensions, thuggery, threatening store owners and citizens. The unions are acting like something out of a Sopranos episode. The more people see of this the less they like the unions, the more they question whether the unions are actually good.

    Wisconsin people may be extremely polite and slow to anger but they don’t take kindly to being lied to, threatened, cheated and having their political process turned into a circus for the benefit of the sore-loser, parasitic Left. The “It’s not over until we win,” Feingold Left.

    Don’t underestimate Wisconsin.

Althouse in this post, The Blutarsky/Feingold Philosophy does indeed warn us with video of Senator Feingold, that it isn’t over until they say it is over.

Just as some conflicts allow no neutrality others will allow no surrender. Just as some opponents of civilized society have forced their extermination, or near extermination, the liberals need to consider what they are promoting. There aren’t any wolves in England. Today is St. Patrick’s Day. St. Patrick may or may not have driven the snakes out of Ireland, but he did help bring Christianity to Ireland. The Christians forced the Moors out. If it isn’t over until they way it’s over, then “they” are the problem that needs to be eliminated. Myself, I would hope for their conversion.

If we had a competent attorney general, these union thugs might be undergoing a thorough investigation by the Justice Department under the RICO statutes.

Don’tcha just luv it when the obvious becomes untouchable?

Evict the Chicago mob in November!

    Browndog in reply to GrumpyOne. | March 17, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Not sure why everyone is so quick to assign the term “incompetent” to the likes of Holder, Obama. etc.-

    If they were truly incompetent, happenstance would dictate that once in a while they would accidentally “do the right thing”.

    Not incompetence.


“My family has experienced multiple, sudden and serious health issues, which require my full attention….”

I certainly hope that these “health issues” weren’t CAUSED by Union members messing with her family.

Unfortunately, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to discover that they were….

bluesingincat | March 18, 2012 at 12:49 pm

@Zachriel I suppose your first instinct, when being charged by an enraged Femi-Nazi, who is shaking her fist in your face, would be to throw your hands at your sides and prepare for the blow?
Prosser’s reaction was instinctual, and understandable.

Abrahamson, a ferocious ally of Bradley, has a long history on the court of intimidation, verbal assaults, and demeaning taunts directed towards the other Justices.
In 1999, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Justices Bablitch and Crooks met with the newspaper’s editorial board and said they were thinking of resigning because of the “way Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson is running the court.” They complained that Abrahamson was “abusing her position by micromanaging the court system, making unilateral decisions on administrative matters that should come to the full court, and jeopardizing the court’s neutrality by awarding grants to groups with lobbyists and social agendas.”
One matter of dispute involved Abrahamson’s usage of the Supreme Court chambers for aerobics class. Other justices felt using the courtroom as basically a gymnasium was demeaning to the court.
Way back in the mid-1980s, the Milwaukee Journal quoted an unnamed justice as saying Abrahamson gave colleagues the finger in conference and ridiculed their opinions in her dissents. Long before Abrahamson was trading barbs with Prosser and Roggensack, she was locked in a public battle with Justice Roland B. Day. …One lawyer who has worked in the court calls her style “toxic” and compared dealing with her to chewing tinfoil. In short, Abrahamson may be brilliant, but her critics say she doesn’t countenance other perspectives or much care about consensus or conciliation.”

Just because Bradley is a woman, does not mean male Justices,or anyone else for that matter, should acquiesce to her aggressive behavior.

Get a clue.

The fact is, when Walker won the seat of Governor, and Prosser won another 10 years serving on the court, Bradley, Abrahamson and the progressive Fleebagging Democrats in Wisconsin lost it. They went berserk.
Just as Bradley did when she charged Prosser like a mad woman, or a rabid dog.

Personally, I wish Prosser would have knocked her on her ass as he was trying to defend himself.

bluesingincat: I suppose your first instinct, when being charged by an enraged Femi-Nazi, who is shaking her fist in your face, would be to throw your hands at your sides and prepare for the blow?

Femi-Nazi? Geez. Is that supposed to be the start of a reasoned argument? In any case, she did not touch Prosser. It’s unreasonable to believe that he felt threatened by someone so much smaller than himself. With fingers from both his hands on her neck, he clearly acted out of rage, not self-defense. Fortunately, no one was physically injured.