Wisconsin Supreme Court: Corruption at the Top

Dec. 20, 2011

midnight

Growing enthusiasm for a recall election has focused so much attention on corruption in the governor's office that many people may be overlooking even more highly placed corruption that could derail the entire democratic process. That is the open corruption of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Wisconsin was once again reminded of the stench arising from its highest court with the revelation that Justice Michael Gableman received tens of thousands of dollars in free legal services from one of the state's largest law firms. To make the corruption even more brazen, Gableman is currently sitting in judgment of five lawsuits being argued before the Supreme Court by Michael Best & Friedrich, the firm that provided him with that enormous financial gift. State ethical rules forbid officials from receiving anything of value for free because of their positions, and a separate judicial code specifically prohibits judges from accepting gifts from anyone likely to appear before them. If charges are brought after a requested investigationand how could they not be?it will be the second time Gableman has faced possible discipline for unethical behavior. In fact, the tens of thousands of dollars in free legal services were provided by Michael Best & Friedrich to defend Gableman against Wisconsin Judicial Commission charges that he lied about his opponent, former Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler, in a racially tinged ad untruthfully claiming Butler freed a black child molester who then assaulted another child. Michael Best & Friedrich represented Gableman from 2008 to 2010. And the law firm's explanation about why Gableman wasn't required to pay any legal fees defies belief. The law firm compared the arrangement to lawyers' contingency fees common for victims of personal injury suing for damages. If the victims win, lawyers get a percentage of the award. If the victims lose, the lawyers get nothing. You don't have to be Perry Mason to see through that explanation. Gableman wasn't suing for damages. He was defending himself against charges of wrongdoing. Gableman was never exonerated, but he escaped punishment. The Supreme Court itself ultimately decides the discipline for legal and ethical violations by its own members. With seven members on the court, not even Gableman was unethical enough to sit in judgment of himself. But the other three Republican justices had no qualms about voting not to punish Gableman, whose vote gives them a right-wing majority on the court. That ended the case with a 3-3 stalemate. Since Gableman wasn't found innocent, he couldn't apply to have state taxpayers pay his legal fees. And Michael Best & Friedrich claimed it had agreed not to charge Gableman any legal fees for two years of representation unless the state paid his bill. Criminals everywhere should immediately start lining up at Michael Best & Friedrich to get in on that great deal. You can be represented by one of the most expensive law firms in the state and you won't be charged a dime unless someone else agrees to pay your bill. Remember when conservatives believed in law and order? Ethics Cases Raise Questions Although Gableman leads the court in ethical investigations, his behavior is no longer unusual among the right-wing majority on the court. His colleague Justice Annette Ziegler received a judicial reprimand for not recusing herself from cases involving companies in which she owned stock and a bank that gave her and her husband a big loan (and where her husband was a director). And, of course, a third majority justice, David Prosser, aka the Madison Strangler, is still under investigation by the Judicial Commission for putting his hands around the throat of Justice Ann Walsh Bradley during a judicial disagreement. The unapologetic lack of ethics and behavioral restraint on Wisconsin's court isn't just a national embarrassment to the state. It now raises serious questions about the legal oversight of the upcoming recall election. Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican Party have made it clear they will try every legal trick possible to block the recall effort against the governor that has collected more than half a million signatures on recall petitions in just a month. Not a single one of those signatures has been turned into the Government Accountability Board (GAB), the nonpartisan agency charged with ordering and overseeing a recall election if 540,000 signatures are gathered. But that hasn't stopped Walker and the Republican Party from filing a lawsuit in heavily Republican Waukesha County claiming the GAB intends to count duplicate signatures and signatures by cartoon characters. That's not true. Any honest court committed to upholding the law would summarily dismiss such fraudulent claims in any of the lawsuits Walker and the Republicans are expected to file. But can any of us be confident that the openly corrupt Republican majority on Wisconsin's Supreme Court won't invent some excuse, legal or not, to block the recall election of Gov. Walker?

Friends of the Shepherd

Help support Milwaukee's locally owned free weekly magazine.

LEARN MORE

Friends of the Shepherd

Help support Milwaukee's locally owned free weekly magazine.

LEARN MORE

Comments (4)

Comment Feed

I can provide some information to supplement this ...

I can provide some information to supplement this "news article." Gableman voted in favor of a side represented by Michael Best attorneys less than 60% of the times that the situation occurred. He is a conservative justice, and opposing collective bargaining privileges for public employees is a conservative position. Why would anyone expect him to vote otherwise, regardless of which firm's lawyers presented the case? Unless...you just want to have his vote removed, which would leave the decision to a ruling by an ultra-liberal Dane County court, which overturned Act 10 (temporarily.)

The left has viciously attacked every conservative justice on the WI Supreme Court- literally attacked in the case of Justice Prosser, who was physically abused by the psychotic Anne Walsh Bradley (no charges there, either...) This is a pattern that is plain to see, speaking of patterns.

The GAB openly stated that it would count duplicate signatures and clearly false signatures, stating that even Adolf Hitler would be accepted, as long as the address was not in Berlin, Germany. That sound bite from Kevin Kennedy is readily available, but Joel must have missed it.

Finally, Bradley and Abrahamson were both endorsed by the public unions in WI, and ruled against curtailing collective bargaining. What is worth more, a couple years of legal work or the endorsement of several giant labor unions and all the money and support that comes with that endorsement? Yet Bradley and Abrahamson did not recuse themselves. The hypocrisy, again, is disgusting.

Anonymous more than 12 years ago

Prosser and Gableman did their best to cover for J...

Prosser and Gableman did their best to cover for Justice Ann Walsh Bradley who viciously attacked Prosser. Lawyers help out each other all the time as a professional courtesy. I see no wrong doing.

We all new the Gabelman TV ad was a joke and more satire than anything else. Only a blithering idiot would believe Butler freed a child molester. I doubt that ad had anything to do with the outcome of the election.

Justice Annette Ziegler probably owns stock in a lot of companies that come before the bench. Any of us with a mutual fund owns thousands of companies. Judges and Lawyers cant recuse themselves of every little thing or nothign would get done.

I think Joel is reaching a bit and exaggerating the facts .

Anonymous more than 12 years ago

I wonder who anonymous is. Probably a Gabelman rel...

I wonder who anonymous is. Probably a Gabelman relative. Mom?
Mr. Nelan makes a good point. Where is the information about actions that can be taken? Started good, ended on an empty rant.

Anonymous more than 12 years ago

It was an interesting article until the heavy bias...

It was an interesting article until the heavy bias started coming through, then it became little more than a rant. Is this article meant as a news report or as an editorial? Where are the ethics in making unfounded statements? I thought reporters were supposed to use proper citation of their sources for their information or claims. It's sad to watch the Shepherd succumb to sensationalism and drama.

Thank you though for the information you began to provide before ranting - oh, and thank you for "reporting" to whom we should be writing, how we can engage our government, and letting us know what we can do to bring this issue to a "higher court". Oh wait, you didn't. Huh. That would have been helpful information.

Anonymous more than 12 years ago