Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Kinda like George Soros?

Do you think the Koch Brothers and George Soros do the same things politically?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Do you think the Koch Brothers and George Soros do the same things politically?

if 1 equals 1000. Money wise........

[Riot]

And now, Wisconsin Republicans chose to simply IGNORE the court stay on publication of the law.

Un - effing - believable. This is still America, right? We don't allow dictators?

Union law published despite restraining order
Fitzgerald, Barca disagree on whether law goes into effect Saturday

By Patrick Marley and Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel
Updated: March 25, 2011 10:46 p.m.

Madison — In a stunning twist, Gov. Scott Walker's legislation limiting collective bargaining for public workers was published Friday despite a judge's hold on the measure, prompting a dispute over whether it takes effect Saturday.

New suit filed

Also Friday, another suit was filed over the law, bringing to three the total number of cases now pending.

Madison firefighters and public works employees filed suit in Dane County Circuit Court against Walker and the state seeking to block the law from taking effect, saying it had been passed in violation of the state constitution.

More at http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...118677754.html

[Riot]

The Judge was approached over the weekend with request for an emergency hearing on violation of her injunction not to publish - she saws the law is NOT in effect due to her injunction no matter what they do (sorry Senate Leader Fitzpatrick), and she'll address everything tomorrow in court.

[Riot]

Judge blocked any further implementation of the Wisconsin union-busting law until she can hear the case on it's legality, and had some distinctly pointed words for Senate leader R-Fitzgerald regarding his trying to go around her temporary restraining order and say the law is published and implemented.

Gov. Walkers office was saying the same thing, and yesterday they already changed paychecks of state employees to not withhold union dues - WRONG MOVE guys. You are not above the law, even though you are acting like it.

This certainly will end up in the Wisconsin supreme court - thus very important election April 5th for supreme court judge.

[Danzig]

riot, i may be remembering incorrectly, but didn't you scoff at lawsuits filed against the health care law?

[wiphan]

Riot forgets that judge Sumi didn't have jurisdiction to place a restraining order on the bill in the first place until it became law and she placed the restraining order against the wrong legislative branch. Just a few of her errors. What should happen legally whether you agree or disagree is the law is published and becomes law then you can challenge it in court. The courts do not have jurisdiction until it becomes law. Just my non-law degree opinion though.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Judge blocked any further implementation of the Wisconsin union-busting law until she can hear the case on it's legality, and had some distinctly pointed words for Senate leader R-Fitzgerald regarding his trying to go around her temporary restraining order and say the law is published and implemented.

Gov. Walkers office was saying the same thing, and yesterday they already changed paychecks of state employees to not withhold union dues - WRONG MOVE guys. You are not above the law, even though you are acting like it.
This certainly will end up in the Wisconsin supreme court - thus very important election April 5th for supreme court judge.

The Republican Party of Dane County sent out a press release on March 29th criticizing Judge Maryann Sumi for holding up the publication of Governor Scott Walker’s collective bargaining reform bill. Upon further reflection we’d like to apologize for not understanding her point of view.

Sure, Governor Walker’s bill is unquestionably constitutional, increases worker’s rights and helps local government balance budgets without having to fire public workers. The Wisconsin state legislature consulted with their non-partisan parliamentarian to make sure that the passage of the bill followed the rules of the Senate and Assembly. But this isn’t about the law, is it?

The Republican Party of Dane County recognizes that Judge Sumi is a leftist living in Dane County. Her friends are leftists living in Dane County. Her son is a left wing activist in Dane County. She goes to cocktail parties held by leftists in Dane County. She shops at organic gourmet food shops run by leftists living in Dane County. If she were to enforce the law of Wisconsin and do what was in the best interest of the people of Wisconsin, she’d be exiled from her lifestyle. She’d lose her friends!

The leadership of the Republican Party of Dane County have all made the choice to stand against the Dane County elite. We accept that Left feels righteous vandalizing our homes and keying our cars. It's only fair. We disagree based upon logic and principle. That is intolerable! We prioritize the Constitution and the well being of the people of Wisconsin over foie gras at cocktail parties. That’s the choice we made. We respect Judge Sumi’s decision to live her life with the rich diversity that liberals cherish

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

riot, i may be remembering incorrectly, but didn't you scoff at lawsuits filed against the health care law?

The ones that say it's unconstitutional? I didn't scoff at the filing of lawsuits, I said I didn't think they'd be found valid. Haven't been so far.

In Wisconsin, Fitzgerald and Walker are completely dismissing any influence of the court, including Fitzgerald purposely ignoring the judges temporary restraining order, taking the position they are above the law. We'll see. Not the same situation in the least.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Riot forgets that judge Sumi didn't have jurisdiction to place a restraining order on the bill in the first place until it became law and she placed the restraining order against the wrong legislative branch..

Wow - it's like you speak and Fitzgeralds words come out of your mouth

Nonsense. That contention is what is being put forth by the current AG. Not too many other lawyers agree with it, including past Wisconsin AG's. They are also begging the argument that the Legislative branch of the government is above the law and cannot have the Judicial branch review it's actions. Right .... Along with the attack on Sumi as a leftist.

This will go to the Supreme Court. Let's hope voter turnout April 5th is huge, thus representative of the voter's desires.

There are multiple lawsuits against this bill: the one Sumi addressed was only reference to the violation of the open meetings act. She also agreed that the Dem Secretary of State needed his own lawyers independent of the AG and state to protect his interests - because it's clear the state is not. Today in court that tape was played of the Republicans violating it at that very meeting - the GOP wanted the tape played without audio. Seriously, pathetic.

And the AG wanted the appeal dropped, saying, "the law is already in effect, thus the appeal is moot" - that was, of course, denied, too (and why Fitzgerald went around the SOS to try and make the publication on the website "legal" - although it is clearly not according to statute requirements)

I wonder if the AG guy really has a law degree? It seems he's desperate on defense, and nothing he has said has held up in court so far.

The several other lawsuits about the constitutionality of the bill are asking to all be folded into this lawsuit.

Madison - Gov. Scott Walker's administration wasn't saying Wednesday whether it will continue to implement legislation sharply curbing union bargaining by public employees.

Because the judge has forcefully said she will start holding people in contempt if the law goes forward in violation of her temporary restraining order. So we'll see if Walker holds money out of paychecks, as he said he will. He might like an overnight in jail.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wow - it's like you speak and Fitzgeralds words come out of your mouth

That contention is what is being put forth by the current AG. Not too many other lawyers agree with it. This will go to the Supreme Court.

Actually in listening to a law professor from Marquette discuss this and from WI Supreme Court Case Zimmerman vs Goodland is where I am getting my information from. Where is your info from?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Riot forgets that judge Sumi didn't have jurisdiction to place a restraining order on the bill in the first place until it became law and she placed the restraining order against the wrong legislative branch. Just a few of her errors. What should happen legally whether you agree or disagree is the law is published and becomes law then you can challenge it in court. The courts do not have jurisdiction until it becomes law. Just my non-law degree opinion though.

Judge Sumi isn't addressing the constitutionality of any law. Judge Sumi is addressing whether or not there was a violation of the open meetings act.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

Actually in listening to a law professor from Marquette discuss this and from WI Supreme Court Case Zimmerman vs Goodland is where I am getting my information from. Where is your info from?

The Wisconsin newspapers, and lawyers writing on blogs about it.

[Riot]

Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 12:07 PM PDT
Wisconsin GOP Cockiness Flops in Court - Updated w/GOP effort to remove Duffy tape from net
by Patriot Daily News

Yesterday, this little link on the website of the Wisconsin State Legislature was the focus of a court hearing with Judge Maryann Sumi. Instead of GOP lawyers coming to court with citations to relevant law, the primary argument was political hubris that the courts should just bow to their wisdom. Specifically, the GOP pronounced that legal proceedings are now moot because the anti-union law has been "published" by the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB).

Judge Sumi rejected this mootness argument offered by the Department of Justice in an attempt to halt the hearings yesterday on its claim that the "law is now in effect. "

The Court of Appeal similarly rejected a request by the Department of Justice to withdraw its appeal of the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued March 18th on the DOJ's claim that the lawsuit is now moot given that the Legislative Reference Bureau "published" the law, which they claim is now in effect.

The Court of Appeal rejected because it had already certified questions in this case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Moreover, the Court noted that the Attorney General was not just seeking an order to allow him to withdraw his petition, but wanted the court to rule on an "entirely new" question of whether the LRB's posting of a link on a website rendered the anti-union law now in effect.

As the Court of Appeal stated: "The Attorney General's desire for a ruling on this issue is apparent because the only ground he offers to justify withdrawal is his legal argument and assertion that the act has become law."

If they were smart, the GOP might just ponder why it can't bully the courts as they did bully and pressure the LRB to post the link that landed them in court.

Testimony in court yesterday showed that the Attorney General's office and Senator Fitzgerald pressured the LRB to "publish the law. LRB witnesses testified that Fitzgerald is the "boss" of LRB and so his "request" to "publish" the law was interpreted "at the level of insisting."

This impression that the LRB was being directed to post the link to the anti-union law was fortified by additional facts. Fitzgerald also told LRB to speak to the Deputy AG, who advised that a failure to publish might subject LRB to court action. In addition, the Deputy AG asked the LRB to e-mail him with confirmation once the law was "published."

Sen. Fitzgerald had a 45-minute meeting with LRB on the 25th, the day the LRB posted the link. "Attending the meeting were Fitzgerald; Stephen Miller, chief of the reference bureau; Cathlene Hanaman, the deputy chief of the bureau; Jeff Kuesel, an attorney with the bureau; and Rob Marchant, the Senate chief clerk."

Hanaman testified that the publication date was added to the LRB posting of link to anti-union law because "He is our boss, so a request from him would be at the level of insisting," Hanaman said of Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald suggested that Miller call the top aide to the AG, Deputy AG Kevin St. John, after the meeting.

St. John "said he thought under the statutes LRB had a duty to publish that was distinct and independent from the duties of the secretary of state," Miller testified. "He said that it would be possible the LRB would be subject to a (court action) if we didn't do publication."

Miller said St. John asked him to e-mail him once the law was published, and Miller did so.

The Attorney General also lost in court one of his political tools of using the name of the Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette to file lawsuits in his name to give the impression that the AG's position was not political.

Judge Sumi "ordered the Department of Justice to provide La Follette with independent attorneys because the two sides disagree on key issues."

This is another example of hubris foiling the GOP as Follette was not pleased that "his attorneys" were not asking questions of witnesses on his behalf the way an attorney should when representing a client.

The GOP also lost in the hearing on an issue that could have ramifications in the court of public opinion as well as with the judge. At issue was whether a video played in the court yesterday should be done with or without audio. The purpose of this video evidence was to confirm the location and participants of the Joint Conference Committee that violated the Open Meetings Law by holding the meeting without proper notice.

The DOJ objected to playing the video with the audio on the grounds that it does not prove anything about open meetings. Yeah, right: This is the video where the sole Democrat, Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, objected to the meeting on the grounds that it violated the open meetings law.

This video is good evidence that the lawmakers knowingly attended a meeting in violation of the law, which is required for the District Attorney Ismael Ozanne to obtain forfeiture or a small monetary penalty against the defendants.

The importance of this forfeiture is it would be based on a court finding that the lawmakers knowingly violated the law. While this video has made the rounds on DK and other blogs, it is now part of the court record viewed by both media and a very interested public.

Today, the Dane County GOP displayed their own partisan cockiness by issuing a press release that attacked Judge Sumi as a "leftist" member of the elite while they, the GOP, "prioritize the Constitution and the well being of the people of Wisconsin over foie gras at cocktail parties."

Yes, please keep showing the public how much you care about them and are fighting for them, rather than your own wacky political agenda.

update #1: One member of the Walker administration is now blinking.

Wednesday Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said that he was "confused" about the judge's ruling and the legal controversy over whether the law is in effect. Asked whether the state would move forward, Huebsch said he couldn't say.

"It's up to the judge," Huebsch said.

…On Monday, Huebsch had said that he believed the law took effect Saturday, and the state was charging employees more for their benefits and had ceased collecting dues on behalf of unions. Those changes would show up on checks issued April 21.

update #2: Speaking of the elite, Wisconsin County GOP want embarrassing Duffy video REMOVED from the Internet!

First the Republican Party in Polk County, Wisconsin, pulled the tape of Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) fretting about making ends meet on his $174,000 a year salary from its own website. Now they want it gone from the whole Internet.

For a couple hours, the local county GOP was successful. But we've put an excerpt of the video back up.

His salary that he whines about is "nearly three times the median income in Wisconsin."

I can guarantee you, or most of you, I guarantee that I have more debt than all of you. With 6 kids, I still pay off my student loans. I still pay my mortgage. I drive a used minivan. If you think I'm living high on the hog, I've got one paycheck. So I struggle to meet my bills right now. Would it be easier for me if I get more paychecks? Maybe, but at this point I'm not living high on the hog.

[Riot]

These guys are simply unbelievable ... this would be like Congress telling the Supreme Court to go eff themselves, they can't rule on the constitutionality or legality of any law the the Congress made, and they will ignore any rulings the court makes.

It's bad enough Walkers "budget bill" ends up costing the state money, rather than saving it. Now he's costing the state hundreds of thousands defending itself from multiple lawsuits, and he's only been in office since January (sorta like what happened when Walker worked for the county, and illegally fired people and hired a private contractor - which all had to be undone and paid for, too)

State will continue implementing collective bargaining law despite judge's order

MARY SPICUZZA and CLAY BARBOUR - Wisconsin State Journal madison.com
Posted: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 8:15 pm

State officials are moving ahead with changes to collective bargaining rules for public employees despite a judge's order barring the law's implementation — and a threat of sanctions against anyone who violates it.

Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said Wednesday he has a legal obligation to implement all laws passed by the Legislature, signed by Gov. Scott Walker and published into law. Huebsch said the Department of Justice and his own legal counsel, a team of DOA attorneys, agree the measure has met those requirements "and is now effective law."

"It is my duty to administer that law," he said.

Huebsch's latest comments raise questions about whether he or others could face sanctions following a hearing Tuesday, when Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi said any further implementation of the law is prohibited under a temporary court order.

"Now that I've made my earlier order as clear as it possibly can be, I must state that those who act in open and willful defiance of the court order place not only themselves at peril of sanctions, they also jeopardize the financial and the governmental stability of the state of Wisconsin," Sumi said Tuesday.

Sumi was referring to a March 18 ruling that a legislative committee likely violated the state's open meetings law when it rushed passage of the bill earlier this month. That order also barred Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law.

Much more at: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...tml?mode=story

[hi_im_god]

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/30...ng-bug-42.html

[richard]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 12:07 PM PDT
Wisconsin GOP Cockiness Flops in Court - Updated w/GOP effort to remove Duffy tape from net
by Patriot Daily News

Yesterday, this little link on the website of the Wisconsin State Legislature was the focus of a court hearing with Judge Maryann Sumi. Instead of GOP lawyers coming to court with citations to relevant law, the primary argument was political hubris that the courts should just bow to their wisdom. Specifically, the GOP pronounced that legal proceedings are now moot because the anti-union law has been "published" by the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB).

Judge Sumi rejected this mootness argument offered by the Department of Justice in an attempt to halt the hearings yesterday on its claim that the "law is now in effect. "

The Court of Appeal similarly rejected a request by the Department of Justice to withdraw its appeal of the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued March 18th on the DOJ's claim that the lawsuit is now moot given that the Legislative Reference Bureau "published" the law, which they claim is now in effect.

The Court of Appeal rejected because it had already certified questions in this case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Moreover, the Court noted that the Attorney General was not just seeking an order to allow him to withdraw his petition, but wanted the court to rule on an "entirely new" question of whether the LRB's posting of a link on a website rendered the anti-union law now in effect.

As the Court of Appeal stated: "The Attorney General's desire for a ruling on this issue is apparent because the only ground he offers to justify withdrawal is his legal argument and assertion that the act has become law."

If they were smart, the GOP might just ponder why it can't bully the courts as they did bully and pressure the LRB to post the link that landed them in court.

Testimony in court yesterday showed that the Attorney General's office and Senator Fitzgerald pressured the LRB to "publish the law. LRB witnesses testified that Fitzgerald is the "boss" of LRB and so his "request" to "publish" the law was interpreted "at the level of insisting."

This impression that the LRB was being directed to post the link to the anti-union law was fortified by additional facts. Fitzgerald also told LRB to speak to the Deputy AG, who advised that a failure to publish might subject LRB to court action. In addition, the Deputy AG asked the LRB to e-mail him with confirmation once the law was "published."

Sen. Fitzgerald had a 45-minute meeting with LRB on the 25th, the day the LRB posted the link. "Attending the meeting were Fitzgerald; Stephen Miller, chief of the reference bureau; Cathlene Hanaman, the deputy chief of the bureau; Jeff Kuesel, an attorney with the bureau; and Rob Marchant, the Senate chief clerk."

Hanaman testified that the publication date was added to the LRB posting of link to anti-union law because "He is our boss, so a request from him would be at the level of insisting," Hanaman said of Fitzgerald.

Fitzgerald suggested that Miller call the top aide to the AG, Deputy AG Kevin St. John, after the meeting.

St. John "said he thought under the statutes LRB had a duty to publish that was distinct and independent from the duties of the secretary of state," Miller testified. "He said that it would be possible the LRB would be subject to a (court action) if we didn't do publication."

Miller said St. John asked him to e-mail him once the law was published, and Miller did so.

The Attorney General also lost in court one of his political tools of using the name of the Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette to file lawsuits in his name to give the impression that the AG's position was not political.

Judge Sumi "ordered the Department of Justice to provide La Follette with independent attorneys because the two sides disagree on key issues."

This is another example of hubris foiling the GOP as Follette was not pleased that "his attorneys" were not asking questions of witnesses on his behalf the way an attorney should when representing a client.

The GOP also lost in the hearing on an issue that could have ramifications in the court of public opinion as well as with the judge. At issue was whether a video played in the court yesterday should be done with or without audio. The purpose of this video evidence was to confirm the location and participants of the Joint Conference Committee that violated the Open Meetings Law by holding the meeting without proper notice.

The DOJ objected to playing the video with the audio on the grounds that it does not prove anything about open meetings. Yeah, right: This is the video where the sole Democrat, Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, objected to the meeting on the grounds that it violated the open meetings law.

This video is good evidence that the lawmakers knowingly attended a meeting in violation of the law, which is required for the District Attorney Ismael Ozanne to obtain forfeiture or a small monetary penalty against the defendants.

The importance of this forfeiture is it would be based on a court finding that the lawmakers knowingly violated the law. While this video has made the rounds on DK and other blogs, it is now part of the court record viewed by both media and a very interested public.

Today, the Dane County GOP displayed their own partisan cockiness by issuing a press release that attacked Judge Sumi as a "leftist" member of the elite while they, the GOP, "prioritize the Constitution and the well being of the people of Wisconsin over foie gras at cocktail parties."

Yes, please keep showing the public how much you care about them and are fighting for them, rather than your own wacky political agenda.

update #1: One member of the Walker administration is now blinking.

Wednesday Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch said that he was "confused" about the judge's ruling and the legal controversy over whether the law is in effect. Asked whether the state would move forward, Huebsch said he couldn't say.

"It's up to the judge," Huebsch said.

…On Monday, Huebsch had said that he believed the law took effect Saturday, and the state was charging employees more for their benefits and had ceased collecting dues on behalf of unions. Those changes would show up on checks issued April 21.

update #2: Speaking of the elite, Wisconsin County GOP want embarrassing Duffy video REMOVED from the Internet!

First the Republican Party in Polk County, Wisconsin, pulled the tape of Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) fretting about making ends meet on his $174,000 a year salary from its own website. Now they want it gone from the whole Internet.

For a couple hours, the local county GOP was successful. But we've put an excerpt of the video back up.

His salary that he whines about is "nearly three times the median income in Wisconsin."

I can guarantee you, or most of you, I guarantee that I have more debt than all of you. With 6 kids, I still pay off my student loans. I still pay my mortgage. I drive a used minivan. If you think I'm living high on the hog, I've got one paycheck. So I struggle to meet my bills right now. Would it be easier for me if I get more paychecks? Maybe, but at this point I'm not living high on the hog.

you're fired

[Riot]

The GOP involved are walking a very, very thin line of contempt. This AM, without request from attorneys, Judge Sumi apparently has seen what the GOP has done and said in public, and issued an amended temporary restraining order (the important page is page 2) telling everyone involved, clearly, that the law is not in effect (no matter what the GOP says).

Walkers office today so far will not return reporters phone calls, and Senator Fitzgerald (the one ignoring the judge, who requested the non-traditional publication, who says the legislative branch can simply ignore the judge and the judicial branch, etc) is quiet, too.

I think the state AG is giving the GOP some pretty dangerous and questionable advice. It sure doesn't seem to match what experienced outside observer lawyers are saying regarding this.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see a public perp walk of Senator Fitzgerald overnight to jail for contempt. Their hubris is unbelievable.

Here's the TRO amended from this AM:

http://thewheelerreport.com/releases...1/0331sumi.pdf

The next hearing on this case is scheduled for tomorrow, and should be televised live on wiseye.wisc.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/30...ng-bug-42.html

[GenuineRisk]

Third time's the charm...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...it.php?ref=fpa