AP file photo
ABRAHAMSON’S RANT: Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote a dissenting opinion Tuesday showing her contempt for the four conservative justices who declared the politically driven John Doe probe unconstitutional.
Posted on 01/13/2016 8:03:10 AM PST by Sopater
MADISON, Wis. – Prosecutors of the political John Doe investigation into dozens of conservative groups and Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign will not be able to hold on to the mountains of documents they illegally seized, according to an order issued Tuesday by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
The court filing also includes a vitriolic dissenting opinion from Justice Shirley Abrahamson that may set a new standard of bitterness for the liberal former chief justice.
Four conservatives on the seven-member court denied a motion for limited intervention in the Supreme Court cases related to Wisconsin’s infamous John Doe probe.
Justices Anne Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Bradley did not participate.
Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm, a Democrat, and two of his assistant DAs, Bruce Landgraf and David Robles, had asked the court to allow them to, in Abrahamson’s words, “preserve documents and other materials†from the investigation. They want to have them readily available to defend themselves in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by one of the targets of their probe.
AP file photo
ABRAHAMSON’S RANT: Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote a dissenting opinion Tuesday showing her contempt for the four conservative justices who declared the politically driven John Doe probe unconstitutional.
RELATED: John Doe prosecutors ‘just playing games,’ Cindy Archer’s attorney says
The Supreme Court also has denied a similar motion by three Milwaukee County investigators who worked on the John Doe and also are defendants in the lawsuit.
In her dissent, Abrahamson asserts that the court’s majority has denied access to “materials that may be essential in their defense against allegations of misconduct…â€
“This situation raises significant due process questions,†Abrahamson wrote.
But the prosecutors have no greater claim to access than any other litigant, particularly given that the highest court in the state has ruled the investigation they pursued unconstitutional.
“There are adequate means to obtain these materials in discovery or in trial evidence or testimony,†said Dean Strang, an attorney for some of probe’s conservative targets who appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
“I don’t perceive the basis of a claim, especially when there was no crime to investigate for these state actors,†Strang added. “There is no reason why law enforcement officers ought to stand in a more privileged position than any other litigant.â€
On Dec. 2, the state Supreme Court reaffirmed its July decision declaring the investigation unconstitutional and ordering it shut down. The court also ruled that the position of the probe’s special prosecutor had been invalid since the inception of the investigation.
Chisholm launched what is commonly referred to as “John Doe II†in 2012. With the assistance of the state Government Accountability Board and their hand-picked special prosecutor, the campaign finance probe turned into a five-county shakedown of nearly every right-of-center group in the state. The prosecutors’ theory underpinning the probe – that conservative groups illegally coordinated with Walker’s campaign – was rejected by multiple courts, including the final presiding John Doe judge.
In its December ruling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered physical property taken during early morning armed raids on targets’ homes and offices be returned within 30 days of the order. Former special prosecutor Francis Schmitz told the court he has complied with that order; some targets say he has not.
All electronic documents – as many as 6 million, according to court records – seized through secret taps on Internet service providers – must be turned over to the court. But the prosecutors do have some time on that front.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted a motion by Chisholm and two other Democrat district attorneys involved in the five-county probe to intervene in the case. That could open the door for the prosecutors to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Wisconsin high court’s John Doe ruling. Legal experts say the odds are extremely long the federal court will accept such a petition.
Not surprisingly, Abrahamson concurred with the conservatives’ decision to grant the prosecutors’ motion, offering a backhanded compliment in her opinion. She said the order “begins to clean up the mess the four (conservative) justices created†in their Dec. 2 ruling.
“In short, the four justices may have begun to stumble out of the thicket they created by leaving the prosecution and the State’s interests totally unrepresented†in the John Doe cases, Abrahamson wrote, “but they are far from out of the woods.â€
Rarely has the liberal justice been such a strong advocate for the interest of the state and prosecutors in cases of declared abuses against civil rights. Perhaps Abrhamson’s unusual advocacy in this particular case has something to do with the fact that the victims of prosecutorial abuse are conservatives. And some of those conservatives are from right-of-center groups that paid for issue ads attacking liberal Supreme Court candidates – political activity that is legal under the First Amendment, as the John Doe case drove home.
The court’s conservative majority cost Shirley Abrahamson the role she most coveted, chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Thanks to a Republican Legislature, Wisconsin voters last April approved a referendum that ended the long-time practice of seniority determining leadership of the high court. Instead, members may now elect their chief justice.
Abrahamson lost.
The left and right wings of the court have long had a combustible relationship, with episodes of bitter, sometimes physical, disputes well documented. That bitterness was on display again Tuesday, at least in Abrahamson’s dissent.
“I think there’s no secret, no masking the fact that there are just raw personal feelings going on in that court,†Strang said. “It’s perfectly right for judges to disagree on the merits of things and write strong dissents, but when we sense personal hurt, those raw feelings in them, I honestly hope for the state and its institutions that it heals over time.â€
What a miserable looking left wing fossil.
She is a communist and a criminal, bad combination.
FUSA
I would think the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against the rat prosecutors would want all the documents illegally obtained to be available for them to show the rats actually did commit illegal acts against them and that the documents show no illegal activity by the plaintiffs. The court just let evidence be destroyed.
Wisconsin Supreme Court declines to intervene in John Doe case. Abrahamson issues vitriolic dissent.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wiscnosnin interest ping list.
If we can elect a Republican president and retain the majority in the House and Senate, I hope that in 2017 the IRS and Lois Lerner will get what is coming to them too. Both the Wisconsin and the IRS matters exhibit the tyrannical abuse of power to the nth degree.
Te court actually said all the documents must be turned over to the courts and that the plaintiffs have the same right of access as the defendants.
The investigation was not just unconstitutional (needing to be shut down) but a clear violation of their rights and the DA should be JAILED FOR IT!
That makes more sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.