May 3, 2012

"When material facts are in dispute, a judge cannot testify to establish his version of the facts and then use his version of the facts to decide the controversy."

"Such a process would be fundamentally unfair, to the parties and to the public interest."

21 comments:

deborah said...

I concur.

damikesc said...

So, it seems unlikely that Crooks will recuse himself. Abramson --- please. No chance.

Lem said...

This judge is hung up on a technicality.

Why not just wait a day between roles.. like Obama's Health care Oral.. where a provision was penalty one day and a tax the next.

edutcher said...

I have a feeling we're going to see more of this.

harrogate said...

Oh, goodie. Only a few more to go and then he can get away with it, sans even the pretense of accountability. Yay.

Pogo said...

@harrogate:
I agree. He should get away with being attacked a by a lunatic. Self-defense isn't a crime.

Patrick said...

I do think that it is appropriate for the justices who witnessed the event or the immediate aftermath to recuse themselves.

I find it odd however, that there is no provision to find some other panel to decide the matter.

harrogate said...

"I find it odd however, that there is no provision to find some other panel to decide the matter."

Indeed. To deny that there is something very wrong here is to engage in outright hackery. What you think of the choking incident is irrelevant. This is stupidity on the level of system.

Mark O said...

On Wisconsin.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If the rest of the Judges who are also witnesses don't recuse themselves.....exactly what color clown car are they going to arrive in at the court house. I hope they have colorful big shoes and that rainbow frizzy hair wig would be a nice touch.

Calypso Facto said...

Oh, goodie. Only a few more to go and then he can get away with it, sans even the pretense of accountability.

Alternately, they can proceed without even the pretense of impartiality.

And .... get away with WHAT, exactly?

harrogate said...

"Alternately, they can proceed without even the pretense of impartiality."


ARE those the only alternatives? Do no legal proceedings whatever, or do compromised ones?

"And .... get away with WHAT, exactly?"

Well, apparently, nothing at all. A bizarro kind of diplomatic immunity appears to have absorbed the question entirely. It's always good for justice when that happens.

Calypso Facto said...

Do no legal proceedings whatever, or do compromised ones?

Honestly saying "We can't do this impartially" is FAR better than pretending they can in order to drive obviously personal and political agendas.

...diplomatic immunity appears to have absorbed the question entirely. It's always good for justice...

There was no immunity. The case was investigated by law enforcement and NO CHARGES WERE MADE. Justice has been served in accordance with the law. You just don't like the outcome and want a less structured and more political "do over".

harrogate said...

"You just don't like the outcome and want a less structured and more political 'do over.'"

You might want to think this of me but it's not true at all. I don't want a do over. I don't know enough about the facts of what happened to actually wish for this man to be found guilty of some sort of assault.

But look. If you are right that justice was served, and the case ought to have ended there, then that should be the issue here. Nobody on any side ought to be defending the idea of simply dropping a case because the judges saw what happened. "Find some other goddamned judges" is what common sense and justice dictate, if it is THAT which stands in the way. And if there is no provision for such a thing in place, then this is an example of systemic stupidity.

CJinPA said...

Prosser and Roggensack are part of a four-justice conservative majority that for years has been openly feuding with the *liberal-leaning* Bradley and her close ally, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

Media Rule #1,324: Conservative justices are "conservative." Liberal justices are "liberal-leaning."

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter said...

The question is, could anyone consider this process legitimate if Bradley did not recuse herself?

Rusty said...

leslyn said...
"[Prosser] argued Roggensack, Bradley and Abrahamson were witnesses and accused Bradley and Abrahamson of being biased against him. Crooks wasn't present for the argument, but Prosser contends he's biased too."


It's funny, but all the accounts I've read here and on other news sites on the web, Bradly approached Prosser in an aggressive manner and Prosser raised his arms to push her away. This version was confirmed by the other judges present.
Where do you get your account?

I'm surprised everyone isn't biased against him. I read the report quoting him, and he's so smarmy, even in written rather than spoken language it sounds like fingernails on chalkboard

How does,"I'm surprised everyone isn't biased against him" "smarmy" and "fingernails across a chalkboard" promote reasoned debate?

Amartel said...

Funny how this has to be *explained*, like it's some sort of shocking new foreign concept. What???! I'm not all-powerful Oz, sayer AND trier of fact?

leslyn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Law is a technicality. It always has been and it always will be.

The invention of laws that a Sovreign King has to obey are a modern development that started with a court daring to say that there are a few rights of the Citizens of the City of London against the Crown's men. Believe me that is a technicality.

Winning cases on technicalities is Law. What else do you suggest take its place? The armed men of the local war lord like the Mafia and street gangs do it outside of the Law?

Prosser may be a curmudgeon that has skills to use the law, but that is not a defect in a Justice.

All anyone have on him is a false " he chocked me" claim that no one says happened except that the lady in question who said his hands went up to her throat and he might have choked her next if he had not been stopped by the others who dragged her off of him.

It's Wisconsin, Jake.