Butler Spent Taxpayer Dollars to Try to Enable More Frivolous Appeals
Louis Butler’s campaign recently suggested that Butler earned the nickname “Loophole Louie” as a criminal defense lawyer because his colleagues admired him for unwavering devotion to the law.
But was it really his dedication his colleagues admired, or rather the unlimited resources Butler had as a state Public Defender to pursue appeals regardless of the potential for success? In one instance, Butler took a case he knew to be wholly frivolous all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court just to prove a point.
In his staunch defense of Ellis T. McCoy, who was convicted of the kidnapping and sexual assault of a child, Butler used taxpayer funds to argue that taxpayer-funded lawyers should not have to tell the court why they believe their client’s appeal is frivolous.
During the oral arguments, Justice Scalia asked if he thought it was appropriate for state paid lawyers to file frivolous appeals (you can find the audio here).
5:10
Butler: I can’t imagine a client paying a lawyer to go in and argue that his case is wholly frivolous.
Justice Scalia: What we’ve got is case where the paying client, if he’s got a conscientious lawyer, would say to him you’re going to waste your money. I’m telling you that in advance. It’s not worth the five thousand dollars to file this. Of course if you want to throw your money away, I’ll file your papers for you. What you’re saying is the poor defendant is entitled to have the state waste the same amount of money.
Butler: That’s correct.
Later Butler employs a circular logic to suggest that even though the burden of proof is on the defendant during appeal, the defendant should have greater latitude to argue frivolous cases.
19:28
Butler: If you liken this to a trial situation, this would be akin to a lawyer coming in a on the eve of the trial evaluating the case, telling the client, it’s obvious that you’re guilty, it’s obvious that we don’t have a prayer, we ought to plead and take the best deal possible and the client says no I want a trial and the lawyer says no I’m going to plead you guilty.
Justice Rehnquist: Mr. Butler, I think there is a good deal of difference between a trial situation where the burden of proof is always on the government and any competent attorney knows that he represents a defendant simply by putting the government to it’s proof, just by cross examining. On the other hand on appeal, you get into situations, which I dare say you’ve confronted some yourself having filed two Anders briefs, the burden of proof is no longer on the government, the burden of proof is on the appellant and there’s virtually nothing to complain about. Everything that you asked the trial court to do, the trial court did. The jury still returned a verdict of guilty.
Butler: It is precisely because in an appellate situation that the burden is now on the defendant, precisely because a defendant now needs a lawyer to act as a sword to overturn that appeal. It is for that very reason that role of counsel becomes critical in appeal. It’s critical at that point. He needs more help there so that he can come in and try to overturn the appeal.
In the end, Louis Butler lost his own frivolous appeal when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Unfortunately it was the Wisconsin taxpayers who had to pick up the tab.
The Supreme Court concluded:
We also do not find that the Wisconsin Rule burdens an indigent defendant’s right to effective representation on appeal or to due process on appeal. We have already rejected the contention that by filing a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous counsel to an indigent defendant denies his or her client effective assistance of counsel or provides a lesser quality of representation than an affluent defendant could obtain. If an attorney can advise the court of his or her conclusion that an appeal is frivolous without impairment of the client’s fundamental rights, it must follow that no constitutional deprivation occurs when the attorney explains the basis for that conclusion. A supported conclusion that the appeal is frivolous does not implicate Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment concerns to any greater extent than does a bald conclusion. [486 U.S. 429, 444]
A defense attorney has very little leeway on being able to tell a client no. It is their right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2008 at 0918 hrs
Local talk radio was all over this court race today. Final word from the host - Gableman is better qualified but Butler will probably win because of horrible ads by Gableman campaign. Who has their fingerprints all over these horrible ads? Mark Graul, the same person who gave us Gov. Mark Green. Oh - I forgot - Mark Green lost.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2008 at 1111 hrs
Even if Gableman is proven to be the Devil himself, he will get my vote. The equation is simple…Louis Butler = Jim Doyle… Jim Doyle = bad for Wisconsin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2008 at 1157 hrs
Gableman more qualified? Heh. He can’t even figure out the stats that come from his own supporters.
Butler is far more qualified. Fact is, he’s able to stand before the Supremes and make a case. All Gableman would be able to do is utter, “D’oh.”
Posted by Tim on March 24, 2008 at 1158 hrs
Tim,
Obviously he was not able to make the case. He lost.
Posted by Owen on March 24, 2008 at 1251 hrs
First, he was able to get three justices to agree with him, so its not as if Butler’s appeal was a fool’s errand.
You make it sound as if Butler was conducting an academic exercise for his own fun and enjoyment. The Supreme Court, in its discretionary review, doesn’t review cases for the fun of it. This case presented a true question of what duty does a court-appointed owe his client when he believes his client has no meritorious issues on appeal. If you are convicted of a crime and you hire an attorney who says you don’t have a case on appeal, you are free to hire someone else. An indigent defendant does not have that luxury—his court-appointed attorney is his only vehicle for arguing his appeal. So how do we ensure equal justice for indigent clients as well as those who can afford private counsel?
You are showing your ignorance when you claim that Butler had unlimited resources. Public defenders have “unlimited resources” in the same sense that you have an unlimited amount of time to spend on this blog. Butler would have hundreds of clients and very little time to give a full investigation to each case. He would have very little time to sit down with trial counsel or conduct any investigations for habeas proceedings. In most cases, he would have enough time to read the transcript and write a brief.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2008 at 1406 hrs
Isn’t there a case pending in the lower court in Madison challenging the marriage amendment?
Now, where do we think Butler would be on that issue if it comes before the court.
I think Butler was quoted as saying in the Sunday MJournal that he’s trying to turn the nation in the right direction. That sounds rather activist to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2008 at 1544 hrs
I believe you have misrepresented this case. In a major way.
What was going on here is not that Butler was filing appeals all the way to the SCOTUS that he knew to be frivolous; rather, Butler was fighting the Wisconsin rule that required him to file a brief explaining why he knew his client’s appeal was frivolous.
That is, the SCOTUS was not ruling on his client’s frivolous appeal, but rather on the requirement that Butler file the brief. Got it? This case at SCOTUS had nothing to do with the merit of the client’s appeal, and everything to do with a burden state law placed on public defenders that private attorneys did not face.
In even more other words, had Butler won his SCOTUS case, he would have saved the state of Wisconsin money because PDs would no longer have to file the briefs he argued were unnecessary!
Interesting reading: The ruling. You don’t have to read very far to see how very wrong you are:
Believing that his client’s state-court appeal from felony convictions was frivolous, but being unwilling to include in his withdrawal brief the discussion required by the Rule, appellant’s court-appointed counsel, after an unsuccessful challenge in the state intermediate appellate court, filed an original action in the State Supreme Court challenging the discussion requirement on the grounds that it is inconsistent with Anders and forces counsel to violate his or her client’s Sixth Amendment rights.
I don’t want to say this is copier-gate all over again—because I don’t know if you were given this or found it on your own—but you are wrong here. Badly.
Posted by folkbum on March 24, 2008 at 1548 hrs
Crap. The other point I meant to make:
A lost case in front of the SCOTUS is also not in any sense frivolous by itself. As Buddy pointed out, that Butler was able to split the court on the question suggests, in fact, that the question to be decided was anything but. (I would argue that the SCOTUS’s taking of the case in first place suggests that there was enough concern among the justices about the question to indicate that it was anything but frivolous.)
And Butler was not merely concerned for the extra (state-paid) work required in such cases; he was also concerned about a defendent’s ability to present a case in the future. Consider recent vacated convictions based on DNA evidence. Who wants a brief from defense counsel in your casefile saying your case is hopeless while you’re arguing that new science has proved you innocent?
Posted by folkbum on March 24, 2008 at 1600 hrs
I will be filing a complaint shortly against the Butler campaign and others for campaign law violations. Keep tuned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2008 at 1627 hrs
Dohnal- Does it involve the Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothchilds, and Col. Sanders?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2008 at 1827 hrs
Wait and see, see you in court.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2008 at 1905 hrs
NEWS FLASH—Butler drops out of race!
The mighty Dohnal, a legend in his own mind, forces candidate to quit!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 24, 2008 at 2122 hrs
Folkie, READ the opinion of SCOTUS:
It is settled that an attorney can advise a court that an appeal is frivolous without impairing his or her client’s constitutional rights. Explaining the basis for the frivolousness conclusion does not burden the rights to effective representation or to due process on appeal any more than does stating the bald conclusion. The Rule does not [486 U.S. 429, 430] diminish any right a defendant may have under state law to an appeal on the merits, since once the court is satisfied both that counsel has been diligent and that the appeal is frivolous, federal concerns are satisfied and the case may be disposed of in accordance with state law. Furthermore, the discussion requirement does not diminish the attorney’s obligations as an advocate, since his or her duty to his or her client is fulfilled once he or she has conducted a zealous review of the record.
Since Blackmun, Marshall, and Brennan were the dissenters, (all of whom were….uhmmmnnhhh…disturbed fellows), having THEM agree with Loophole Louie is not a big deal.
In fact, if Brennan and Blackmun (who made their names by launching the American Holocaust) tell me that the sky is blue, I will go outside to CHECK on that.
IOW, Folkie: BS. Now go find an actual argument someplace.
Posted by dad29 on March 24, 2008 at 2135 hrs
BTW. you can see Sykes’ name taken in jest? vain? (who knows) on my post, same issue, here:
http://dad29.blogspot.com/2008/03/butler-its-only-tax-moneylets-be.html
Some jackass pretended to actually know something…
Posted by dad29 on March 24, 2008 at 2138 hrs
Dad29, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. That Butler lost this case? I acknowledged that. Duh. My point in making these comments is simply that Owen is wrong—which you’ve done nothing to disprove.
Owen is wrong when he wrote that Butler used “taxpayer dollars to try to enable more frivolous appeals.” Owen was wrong when he wrote that “Butler took a case he knew to be wholly frivolous all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.” These are just flat-out lies. Owen was also wrong when he implied that the Justices thought the case before them was frivolous—SCOTUS doesn’t take frivolous cases.
IOW—to borrow some of your high-falutin’ lingo—Owen has mischaracterized the substance and content of a case Butler argued in front of the SCOTUS purely for the political purpose of making Butler seem like he wastes taxpayer dollars.
So how about you go find an argument somewhere.
Posted by folkbum on March 25, 2008 at 0653 hrs
We should all be happy to see that the Wisconsin State Journal decided not to endorse Butler.
We should all be telling the Supreme Court that we want our Courts to be fair and impartial. Butler hasn’t done anything that I know about since he’s been on the Court.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 25, 2008 at 1132 hrs
Butler hasn’t done anything that I know about since he’s been on the Court.
I thought that was Chief Justice Roberts’s point about judges and baseball—judges should be like umpires, and if you never hear about them, then they’re doing their job well?
Posted by folkbum on March 25, 2008 at 1212 hrs
Did Scalia waste taxpayer money by having the US Supreme Court hear what you so amusingly call a frivolous appeal?
Isn’t it true that Butler -in arguing his case- was advocating what his client needed to succeed?
I understand that’s not what we want from other people’s lawyers, but isn’t it wnat we demand from our own?
Isn’t that what you do? Obfuscate, cover up, and accept as fact any old thing that would support your ultimate goal of getting a (purportedly) pro business lawyer on the supreme court?
By the way, did the Supreme Court find the appeal to be frivolous?
Of course not, but that doesn’t fit your frivolous argument so it goes unmentioned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 25, 2008 at 1218 hrs
SCOTUS did not find the appeal frivolous.
They DID, however, declare it to be wrong.
Posted by dad29 on March 25, 2008 at 1304 hrs
At 1500 h I will be filing major complaint against Butler and his democratic henchmen for election and ethical violations. Keep tuned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 25, 2008 at 1313 hrs
folkbum -
I know you to be for the most part a reasonable man. The Supreme Court is responsible for what happens in all the Courts.
If we had a Supreme Court that was doing something to make sure our Courts are fair, none of us, conservative, liberal or independants would have to worry about who’s trying to buy justice. We need the High Court to do the job it has to do. We need the High Court to know that we the people want our Courts to be fair and impartial and not doing whatever they feel like doing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 25, 2008 at 1439 hrs
If we had a Supreme Court that was doing something to make sure our Courts are fair, none of us [...] would have to worry about who’s trying to buy justice.
So thne I have to ask: Do you really think the business interests at WMC and the corporate billionaires behind CAF care about crime? What is their real agenda, and why are they hiding behind lies and distortions to promote their candidate? (Corollary: If their candidate is so great, why does he need people like that—and like Owen in this very post—to lie for him?)
And it’s now almost 1600h. The earth has not shaken, Señor Dohnal.
Posted by folkbum on March 25, 2008 at 1550 hrs
Complaint just filed with appropriate boards and commissions about the misuse of corporate funds by the Law firm of Freibert and Finerty aiding Louis Butler over the last 9 years. At the same time those attorneys had numerous cases before the court and Butler did not dislcose their aid to Louis Butler, Supreme Court Justice.
Corporate contributions in the form of postage, computers, secretaries, phones etc. is absolutely illegal even “in minimis”.
Stay tuned, these guys are the mouthpieces of the democratic party, but just like the Clintons they have become too arrogant.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 25, 2008 at 1555 hrs
Interesting, Bob. Too bad your side has already set such a low, low bar for ethics.
Posted by folkbum on March 25, 2008 at 1611 hrs
There aren’t sides in ethics and election law, there is only the law and those who break it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 25, 2008 at 1640 hrs
Wasn’t this issue dealt with a long time ago and discredited?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 25, 2008 at 1718 hrs
How do you discredit the law? Either there has been corporate subsidy by Freibert and Finerty or there has not.
See complaint at wispolitics.com.See you in court John or maybe the hoosegow. Suggest that you contact Freibert and Finerty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 25, 2008 at 1728 hrs
Q: How can you tell Owen knows he’s wrong and doesn’t care?
A: When (except for one wrong remark) stays off his comment thread, doesn’t update anything, and moves on to - gulp - the West Bend mayor’s race.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on March 25, 2008 at 1728 hrs
folkbum… from the ruling:
Under Anders v. California, 386 U. S. 738, if court-appointed appellate counsel wishes to withdraw on the ground that his client’s appeal is wholly frivolous, he must include with his withdrawal motion “a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” A Wisconsin Supreme Court rule essentially restates this requirement, but also requires that the brief include “a discussion of why the issue lacks merit.” Believing that his client’s state court appeal from felony convictions was frivolous, but being unwilling to include in his withdrawal brief the discussion required by the rule, appellant’s court-appointed counsel, after an unsuccessful challenge in the state intermediate appellate court, filed an original action in the State Supreme Court challenging the discussion requirement on the grounds that it is inconsistent with Anders and forces counsel to violate his client’s Sixth Amendment rights. The court upheld the requirement.
Held: The discussion requirement—as construed by the State Supreme Court to require a brief statement of why particular cases, statutes, or facts in the record lead the attorney to believe that the appeal lacks merit—is constitutional under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The discussion requirement merely goes one step further than the minimum requirements stated in Anders, and satisfies the same objectives that those requirements serve: assuring the appellate court that the attorney has protected his indigent client’s constitutional rights by diligently and thoroughly searching the record for any arguable claim that might support the appeal, and allowing the court to determine whether counsel’s frivolousness conclusion is correct. Because counsel may discover previously unrecognized aspects of the law in the process of preparing his or her discussion, the discussion requirement provides an additional safeguard against mistaken frivolousness conclusions. It may forestall some motions to withdraw, and will assist the court in passing on the soundness of counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. It is settled that an attorney can advise a court that an appeal is frivolous without impairing his or her client’s constitutional rights. Explaining the basis for the frivolousness conclusion does not burden the rights to effective representation or to due process on appeal any more than does stating the bald conclusion. The rule does not diminish any right a defendant may have under state law to an appeal on the merits, since, once the court is satisfied both that counsel has been diligent and that the appeal is frivolous, federal concerns are satisfied and the case may be disposed of in accordance with state law. Furthermore, the discussion requirement does not diminish the attorney’s obligations as an advocate, since his duty to his client is fulfilled once he has conducted a zealous review of the record. P P. 440-444.
In other words, The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that attorneys must file an explanation if they want to withdraw because the appeal is frivolous. This measure serves two purposes: first, it may prevent premature withdrawals by making counsel do their homework. Second, it forces counsel to prove that the case is frivolous if they want to withdraw. Then, this brief can be used to forestall further federal appeals if the state court accepts the withdrawal. It is this second purpose that Butler opposes.
As Butler states:
In this particular case, the problem with that result is that, as Appellee concedes in their brief, it removes an appeal from the adversarial testing process once counsel reaches the conclusion that there is no merit to the appeal.
He is afraid that if defense counsel wants to withdraw and is forced to make the case in a brief, then the brief will be accepted without rigorous adversarial testing - it would be left solely up to the judges in the case.
Butler wants to make it more likely that judges will reject motions to withdraw based on frivolous appeals because the lawyers in the case are not forced to prove their case in written format.
So, yes, Butler wants to make it easier for frivolous appeals to progress further up the system.
Posted by Owen on March 25, 2008 at 1739 hrs
Continued…
As for the cost, I’ll let Butler speak for himself:
MR. BUTLER: That’s correct. In fact, the irony of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision, if it had really—saves the Court no time whatsoever. The only agency that is saved any time by the Anders procedure is the agency representing the State of Wisconsin.
The ruling does not save the court any time, but it does save the prosecution, which is paid by the taxpayers, the effort of proving that the case is frivolous. If Butler had gotten his way, then the taxpayers would have been on the hook for more as they would have to pay both the prosecution and the defense (in the case of indigent defendants) to provide evidence of the same issue.
In the end, my statement is true. Butler spent taxpayer dollars (he way paid for his appeal to the SCOTUS and travel, etc.) to try to make it easier for frivolous appeals to progress. I did not contend that his case was frivolous. I contended that he was paid by taxpayers to try to make frivolous cases easier to advance, which is most certainly true.
Take your “liar” accusations and shove them up your… ear.
Posted by Owen on March 25, 2008 at 1740 hrs
Mike,
Some of us have jobs that don’t allow us to sit around and comment on blogs all day.
Grow up.
Posted by Owen on March 25, 2008 at 1741 hrs
Dohnal- What are you talking about? I certainly am not going to see you in court so I would not anyone from that law firm, nor any others for that matter.
I took a look at your complaint and I did not know that opening mail was an inkind expense. Looks like I will have to start charging my wife for opening our bills.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 25, 2008 at 1756 hrs
Earth to Dohnal! Earth to Dohnal! Take a look at the addresses listed for the campaign committees or treasurers for most Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judges and you will find lawyers names and law firm addresses used.
If what Butler’s campaign committee has done is illegal then you better be prepared to file a similar complaint against all of the offending Judges. This is when we find out if you are a man of honor, Dohnal, or just a cheap, two-bit hack.
(I am not a betting man but I would put a lot of money on you being a cheap, two-bit hack.)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 25, 2008 at 2036 hrs
The address is irrelevant, it is what is done there. If it’s reported and paid for by the candidate that is fine. If it’s not it is a violation. Corporations cannot give in kind contributions.
Many people have their campaign committees at somone’s business but you must allocate properly, account for everything, record it and report it otherwise it is an illegal contribtuion.
Butler has not reimbursed them for services, supplies and expenses rendered. Illegal corporate contribtuions by people who should know better, they have become too arrogant.
In the last election Tom Reynolds was given guidleines how to report his electricity, heat, taxes and other expenses by the ethics board, which he followed strictly. Gretchen Schuldt lied to everyone, a TV commerical accused Reynolds of using campaign contributions to pay for his home’s electricity and the DA found the TV ad and therefore Gretchen to be liars. The worm has turned.
I helped write the laws.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 25, 2008 at 2052 hrs
Owen, how squinty were your eyes when you read that into the ruling and into Butler’s arguments? Butler did not, as you said, “try to enable frivolous appeals,” as you disingenously titled the post. Even if Butler had prevailed, he and every PD in Wisconsin would have been bound by Anders, and you know it—not a single additional appeal would have resulted.
Butler did not take “a case he knew to be wholly frivolous all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court,” and you know that, too. His case wouldn’t have made it as far as it did were it without merit. To suggest that Scalia, Renhquist, and crew picked a frivolous case (maybe “just to prove a point”?) does them a disservice.
Butler did not tell Scalia that it was appopriate to file frivolous appeals, as you claimed, nor did Butler tell Renhquist that “the defendant should have greater lattitude to argue frivolous cases.” In fact, in the latter instance, Butler followed immediately on from where you truncated the transcript to talk about “recognizing the ethical duty of the lawyer not to knowingly file a frivolous appeal and pass it off as a meritorious.”
All of those statements you made are just plain false—outright fabrications or horrible misreadings of the case. Period.
Posted by folkbum on March 25, 2008 at 2214 hrs
Dohnal- In want dream world do you live in that you wrote the laws? Did you get tired of rifling through Sullivan’s trash and have to move on to another candidate? My guess is the real reason is that an attorney at the firm you are attacking sent you a cease and desist order and you want a little payback. This will go the same as the complaint you filed with the Office of Lawyer Regulation.
Glass houses dohnal, glass houses.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 25, 2008 at 2225 hrs
Owen, I smoked you out and you know it. You are pathetically wrong and you know it. Repeating yourself is not an argument, it’s an admission. Get on to the next point being fed to you by the oppo-researchers, already. It’s getting late.
P.S.: Don’t you wish they’d put you higher up in the food chain? If I were stuck with the worst dreck in their desperate bucket, I’d be offended if I were you.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on March 25, 2008 at 2234 hrs
Dohnal, you are truly an idiot.
Let’s say I am a candidate’s treasurer. Do I want contributions for the candidate to arrive at my home and have my home address disclosed (on every piece of campaign literature), so that nut-bags like you know where I live, or do I want the mail delivered to my office? If I live in an area where the mail is placed in an outside mailbox, do I want the contributions delivered there, where they can be stolen by someone driving by?
Did you contemplate any of these possibilities before you got on your mule (ass!) and filed your mighty complaint?
It’s pretty apparent that you were acting in concert with Reince Priebus since he sent out an RPW press release last evening which relies almost entirely on your goofy complaint to attack the sitting Supreme Court Justice.
This dog won’t hunt, Dohnal, but your last posting gives the cyberworld a little glimpse of the dementia which rolls through your little pea brain. You wrote the law? That’s hysterical!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2008 at 0541 hrs
Typically I find that the more adamant that liberals are about declaring that they are right, the more they are wrong. This case is no different. If you were so right, you could let your argument speak for itself instead of constantly declaring victory and hurling insults.
Posted by Owen on March 26, 2008 at 0637 hrs
Fair comment, Owen, but why limit you comment to shrill liberals; it may be equally applicable to shrill conservatives as well.
I submit that your comment fits Dohnal to a T. We have all read the horse dung which he throws out. How much of it has been even remotely close to the mark?
The filing of a complaint one week before the election bears all the markings of the classic red herring—you toss it out, at the last minute, so that it will attract some attention but not with enough time remaining for the merits—if any—to be evaluated.
Much later when the complaint is dismissed there is further attention paid, and the creeps like Dohnal who do this never apologize or own up to their sleezy tactics. These complaints are filed from both the left and the right, of course, since foul play isn’t the excluvise province of one side or the other.
While this is all classic Dohnal, his claim that he “wrote the law” sounds a lot like Hillary describing her bullet-dodging dash across the airstrip in Bosnia!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2008 at 0659 hrs
Contributions can be sent anywhere you like, but if corporate employees open the mail, record the contributions on corporate computers, make phone calls raising money, use corportate postage to send out thank yous, use corporate employees to file forms, write letters etc. then you have to have the campaigns compensate the corporation for that work. Anything else is illegal. Plus you have to notify people involved in cases before you that a group or corporation is gving you in kind donations, illegal from corporations.
Yes, I did help formulate the laws. After the Nixon debacle and the conviction of Jim Devitt we rewrote a lot of election laws. I was on the GOP committees that made recomendations on what to do. It was a bipartisan program.
John, we are going to teach you what the libel laws are in this state. I suggest you take your postings to Freibert and Finerty and get some advice. Plus get $25,000 or so out of your bank account. There are some poeple in this world that you do not want to screw with. See you in court.
Owen, sorry that we willhave to drag you into this.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2008 at 0750 hrs
Question for Dohnal:
Are you going to file the same complaint against Supreme Court Justice Crooks, whose listed treasurer is a partner at a large law firm in Madison and who uses the Madison law firm office address as the campaign committee address? Look it up.
(The campaign committee will likely be naming a new treasurer soon as the very prominent lawyer still listed has recently died, unfortunately.)
Just asking if you are consistent or just playing politics.
For the record I don’t think that either campaign committee has likely committed a violation here. People want contributions to go to business addresses and just because the mail goes to a business address doesn’t mean it is opened on business time, etc.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2008 at 0808 hrs
Owen continues to hide. Note the suddenly sensitive victimhood and the non-denial denials.
Hey, Dohnal, your complaint is hilarious. What I’d like to see is one about WTMJ and WISN’s in-kind contributions to the WMC/Gableman campaign. I mean, all they do these days is repeat the campaign’s talking points. Now THAT’S some corporate contribution. Is any of that on Gableman’s reports? Didn’t think so.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on March 26, 2008 at 0825 hrs
Wow, I have been threatened by the great Bob Dohnal. I look forward to having some frivolous complaint filed against me in the near future.
Let’s all step back and see this for what it is. Dohnal has an ax to grind against the Friebert Finerty law firm since they filed a cease and desist letter against him in 2006. A campaign does not have to create inkind donations for incidental/negligent costs dealing with receiving or opening mail.
Man up Dohnal and admit that you are creating an issue to get back at someone. Why waste our tax dollars with this garbage?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2008 at 0855 hrs
Wally,
Agreed. The need to constantly tout one’s superiority is indeed a human failing of which people of all idealogical stripes are guilty. Sorry for being overly specific.
Mike,
Who’s hiding? I’m right here. I made my argument. You made yours. You think you’re right. I think I’m right. The readers can decide for themselves. Your apparent need to sing from the mountaintops that you think you’re right speaks to either a lack of confidence in your argument’s ability to stand on its own or an unhealthy craving for praise and support.
Posted by Owen on March 26, 2008 at 0903 hrs
Hmmm…I wouldn’t get into too much amatuer psychology there, Owen. You are way in over your head on these issues as it is.
What “arguments’ have you made since the original post? Forget me - Folkbum has posted repeatedly here about how wrong you are and you have nothing in response.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on March 26, 2008 at 0910 hrs
See comments 30 and 31. I responded to folkbum. I see that you read things thoroughly before commenting
Posted by Owen on March 26, 2008 at 0921 hrs
All you do in those comments is repeat your original post. Sorry, I didn’t mean to call your post “original”. Where did you get that crap, anyway?
Sorry to intrude on your right-wing dreamworld where you can’t be challenged. Go back to sleep.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on March 26, 2008 at 1338 hrs
You’re right, Mike. Taking direct quotes from the oral argument and the final ruling are completely irrelevant. My bad. I’ll go back to sleep now.
And in case you didn’t notice, I am frequently challenged in the comments and from other blogs. When’s the last time you saw me shut off a comment thread? You can debate my argument, but don’t pretend that we somehow stifle debate around here. It’s not my fault that too few people read your blog for your opinion to be heard.
Posted by Owen on March 26, 2008 at 1346 hrs
John, not a threat, a promise. Ask Owen. Papers are being drawn as we write.
If I have ever had any contact with Friebert and Finerty I do not know about it. Have never had any cease and desist order filed in court against me for anything.
Even more serious than using coporate contribtuions is failing to inform people appearing befor the court of any problems, far worse than anything that Annette Ziegler did.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2008 at 1424 hrs
Having a law office or a business listed as your HQ is fine, you jut cannot use the staff, computers, postage, phones and other things without paying for them or it is an illegal donation.
Otherwise I could hire some people to work on campaigns at my business, pay them salaries and benefits and claim that they are volunteering their time.
Ask Monroe Swan about volunteers. He still claims, after coming out of prison, that the staff was volunteering. Ask Scott Jensen and Chuck Chvala about people volunteering when they are at the office. Doesn’t happen.
If people could do that then it would open a Pandora’s box of misuse of campaign funds.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2008 at 1431 hrs
Sounds like Dohnal has done his homework. There is now a process for review and consideration of his complaint. The results will speak for themselves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 26, 2008 at 1453 hrs
See comments 30 and 31. I responded to folkbum.
And in comment 36 I pointed out (again) four specific statements or insinuations of yours that are flat-out false. You have neither corrected yourself nor provided evidence to show how I am wrong.
Posted by folkbum on March 26, 2008 at 1626 hrs
Oh, goody. George Mitchell checks in. THAT really makes the whole thing credible, doesn’t it?
Really, is this all you people have? Pathetic.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on March 26, 2008 at 1731 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 49
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/23/2013 12:09 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).