Well, this one is gonna hurt Team Donkey in the great state of Wisconsin. For those not in the know, for the past couple years, there has been a John Doe investigation against Wisconsin Gov Scott Walker by Team Donkey DA John Chisholm. Donkey Chisholm accused Walker of illegal communications with conservative groups in Wisconsin and across the country. Donkey Chisholm expanded the investigation 8 times, but, never found a shred of evidence against anyone.
It appears, Donkey Chisholm launched the investigation because his wife – a teacher and union steward – could not stop crying after Wisconsin passed Act 10, which curbed union rights.
Wow.
A Democratic district attorney who has pursued Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker over alleged campaign finance violations told a fellow prosecutor that his crying wife, a union official, drove him to hunt the governor and his conservative allies because of his anti-union laws feared by organized labor. The explosive revelation came Tuesday as lawyers for Milwaukee DA John Chisholm began two days of oral arguments in a Chicago courtroom over earlier rulings that effectively ended his wide-ranging investigation. The investigation aimed to show that conservative groups were illegally working hand-in-hand with Walker’s office when they ran ‘issue ads’ pressing the case that public employee unions should face reforms. Such arrangements, attorneys say, are common on both sides of the political aisle – including President Barack Obama’s longstanding coordination with Priorities USA Action and other ‘super PACs.’ Leaders of virtually every conservative political nonprofit in the Badger State, 29 in all, have found themselves swept up in Chisholm’s criminal probe as they were hit with pre-dawn raids that seized their computers, cell phones, email records – and even a child’s iPad.
** …
** Chilsolm’s wife Colleen, he said, repeatedly broke down in tears and insisted he go after the governor following the passage of a 2011 budget law that trimmed the sails of the state’s powerful public employee unions. Mrs. Chisholm, a teacher, represented a union as her school’s designated shop steward. Legal Newswire reported that she feared what would become one of the biggest reversals of labor power in American history. His wife ‘frequently cried when discussing the topic of the union disbanding and the effect it would have on the people involved … She took it personally,’ Mr. Chisholm reportedly told his close associate, who has not come forward because he fears retaliation in the rough-and-tumble atmosphere of Wisconsin union politics.
I read about this in a different news source last night. . , Can you explain how you can have a far reaching intrusive subpoena issuing investigation with no restraints or restrictions and most importantly judicial oversight? And more importantly how does that survive a constitutional review?
On edit: I did some more research ( the article I read stated that the police had subpoena power which I assumed meant Stasi style and not Anglo-Saxon need the judge’s signature) and there is judicial oversight albeit no probable cause, which again leads to a Constitutionality question. Since a citizen’s complaint is sufficient to initiate one of these perhaps a citizen should issue one against the DA. Want to get cute asshole, fine let’s flip the table and see how you like it (Might as well go after every union and progressive group too under a RICO theory and/or conspiracy theory).
I read about this in a different news source last night. . , Can you explain how you can have a far reaching intrusive subpoena issuing investigation with no restraints or restrictions and most importantly judicial oversight? And more importantly how does that survive a constitutional review?
John Doe investigations in WI are coming under heavy fire. The leeway given the prosecutor is frightening. In this case, heavily armed police conduct pre-dawn raids of people’s homes. People were forced from their home, by gunpoint, as computers were seized.
This has never been an issue before. Never seen such abuse.
In this case, two judges have halting the proceedings and have verbally chastized the Donkey DA. But, that has not stopped him, which is why they are before the 7th Cir.
You should check out my edit (to see if my understanding of the proceedings is correct). . . .Over/Under this law is off the books before say the closure of the next legislature?
You should check out my edit (to see if my understanding of the proceedings is correct). . . .Over/Under this law is off the books before say the closure of the next legislature?
Your understanding is correct.
This law is not going anywhere. Even if Walker loses the election (doubtful), the GOP will not lose the Legislature. None of the doom-and-gloom has taken place. School districts and municipalities across the state are rejoicing. There is a budget surplus. The unemployment rate keeps going down. Property taxes keep going down. The law is working as intended. The only change in the foreseeable future is that Act 10 will likely soon apply to police and fire (who are currently exempt from its provisions).
John Doe investigations in WI are coming under heavy fire. The leeway given the prosecutor is frightening. In this case, heavily armed police conduct pre-dawn raids of people’s homes. People were forced from their home, by gunpoint, as computers were seized.
How exactly do these work? “John Doe” goes to the DA and says “Hey I think something is going on over there” and the DA says “Oh, ok let’s arrest people!”?
I can understand to a point the need for such an approach but I would also think that a pretty significant amount of evidence must be available in some form other then “Hey I saw something” in order to start seizing peoples stuff. I can even see “Hey I saw something” as grounds for something like a wire tap in order to attempt to get more evidence, but to jump right to arrests and seizures seems way over the top and actually quite frightening.
Clearly we have a case here were potentially something as simple as “I don’t like them” turned into a whole lot of abuse. That should tell somebody that something is wrong with the system.
John Doe investigations in WI are coming under heavy fire. The leeway given the prosecutor is frightening. In this case, heavily armed police conduct pre-dawn raids of people’s homes. People were forced from their home, by gunpoint, as computers were seized.
How exactly do these work? “John Doe” goes to the DA and says “Hey I think something is going on over there” and the DA says “Oh, ok let’s arrest people!”?
I can understand to a point the need for such an approach but I would also think that a pretty significant amount of evidence must be available in some form other then “Hey I saw something” in order to start seizing peoples stuff. I can even see “Hey I saw something” as grounds for something like a wire tap in order to attempt to get more evidence, but to jump right to arrests and seizures seems way over the top and actually quite frightening.
Clearly we have a case here were potentially something as simple as “I don’t like them” turned into a whole lot of abuse. That should tell somebody that something is wrong with the system.
~Matt
That’s the difference between probably cause and this farce.
D’oh. Sorry I kept thinking there was an actual donkey somewhere in the story.
I was hoping when opening the thread that this was about a Donkey show in TJ, that made the wife cry perhaps bc it was her prosecutor husband participating in the show and that made the prosecutor’s conduct gross. I was disappointed to learn it was a political rant/thread.
D’oh. Sorry I kept thinking there was an actual donkey somewhere in the story.
I was hoping when opening the thread that this was about a Donkey show in TJ, that made the wife cry perhaps bc it was her prosecutor husband participating in the show and that made the prosecutor’s conduct gross. I was disappointed to learn it was a political rant/thread.
Agreed. That was my thought too and I did not follow the story otherwise.
John Doe investigations in WI are coming under heavy fire. The leeway given the prosecutor is frightening. In this case, heavily armed police conduct pre-dawn raids of people’s homes. People were forced from their home, by gunpoint, as computers were seized.
How exactly do these work? “John Doe” goes to the DA and says “Hey I think something is going on over there” and the DA says “Oh, ok let’s arrest people!”?
I can understand to a point the need for such an approach but I would also think that a pretty significant amount of evidence must be available in some form other then “Hey I saw something” in order to start seizing peoples stuff. I can even see “Hey I saw something” as grounds for something like a wire tap in order to attempt to get more evidence, but to jump right to arrests and seizures seems way over the top and actually quite frightening.
Clearly we have a case here were potentially something as simple as “I don’t like them” turned into a whole lot of abuse. That should tell somebody that something is wrong with the system.
~Matt
Yes, that really is it in a nutshell. Now, you have to get judge to sign off at the onset, but, that is easy. The DA goes to a friendly judge with a story of wide-spread corruption. Unfortunately, the “justice” occurs after the fact once the bullshit allegations and lack of evidence come out.
Yes, that really is it in a nutshell. Now, you have to get judge to sign off at the onset, but, that is easy. The DA goes to a friendly judge with a story of wide-spread corruption. Unfortunately, the “justice” occurs after the fact once the bullshit allegations and lack of evidence come out.
Huge amount of abuse. Huge.
How does a law like that even get put in place? I honestly don’t understand how anyone would ever think it’s a good idea for someone to be able to go after someone with no supporting evidence, well no supporting evidence other then hearsay and conjecture.
Yes, that really is it in a nutshell. Now, you have to get judge to sign off at the onset, but, that is easy. The DA goes to a friendly judge with a story of wide-spread corruption. Unfortunately, the “justice” occurs after the fact once the bullshit allegations and lack of evidence come out.
Huge amount of abuse. Huge.
How does a law like that even get put in place? I honestly don’t understand how anyone would ever think it’s a good idea for someone to be able to go after someone with no supporting evidence, well no supporting evidence other then hearsay and conjecture.
~Matt
Too much reliance on the DA to show integrity and professionalism (and lack of partisan behavior). Like I said, the John Doe laws in WI are now under attack and will likely be revised as a result of this.
there’s plenty of evidence - emails and documents - that show Walker and his staff coordinated with outside political groups . . . the question is: Is he guilty? The allegedly coordinated outside political ads in question did not list Walker by name, only by reference . . . the Governor who . . . , etc. Also, one the Walker advisers in question also is a leader of one of the outside groups . . . how can one coordinate with oneself, heh?
there’s plenty of evidence - emails and documents - that show Walker and his staff coordinated with outside political groups . . . the question is: Is he guilty? The allegedly coordinated outside political ads in question did not list Walker by name, only by reference . . . the Governor who . . . , etc. Also, one the Walker advisers in question also is a leader of one of the outside groups . . . how can one coordinate with oneself, heh?
Tell it to the Judge. Oh wait! You Donkeys did and the Judge tossed the case!
At best (and even this is a stretch), the email and documents show that Walker’s camp allegedly coordinated with outside political groups to run issue ads and ads for other candidates. Nothing about that is illegal or unethical and it is done throughout WI and across the country.
But, maybe someone on the 7th Circuit is married to a teacher who can weep and get the Court to reverse the lower court’s decision to toss the case …
there’s plenty of evidence - emails and documents - that show Walker and his staff coordinated with outside political groups . . . the question is: Is he guilty? The allegedly coordinated outside political ads in question did not list Walker by name, only by reference . . . the Governor who . . . , etc. Also, one the Walker advisers in question also is a leader of one of the outside groups . . . how can one coordinate with oneself, heh?
Maybe I’m not understanding the purpose of a “John Doe” case. Hopefully JSA will clear this up.
If it is a John Doe case that means that no particular, or unnamed, entity is bringing a case against someone/group with rather nebulous or nonexistent evidence. The first step is to “Search and Seize” in order to gain more factual hard evidence. If there was hard factual evidence there would be no need to do anything other then arrest people and go to court and thus it would not be a John Doe case but “XXXX” versus “YYYY” case.
To me, again if I’m understanding correctly, “John Doe” cases are an extreme case of searching for evidence, wire tapping and interviewing on steroids.