Wisconsin Supreme Court Ends "John Doe" Reign of Terror

[maxparrish]

The latest reign of legal terror, started by one of the "Prosecutor Generals" of the left (and the complaints of his unionista wife), along with its endless secret investigations, secret warrants, and every handy battering ram are over. Joining the litany of sorry legal heaps (Duke, Stevens, Delay, etc.) this latest corruption of law through 'lawfare' has been quashed by a disgusted Supreme Court.

¶68 Having reached our conclusion about the scope of conduct regulated by Chapter 11, we now turn to the special prosecutor’s theories of coordination and whether the alleged conduct is regulated under Wisconsin law.[23] The special prosecutor has disregarded the vital principle that in our nation and our state political speech is a fundamental right and is afforded the highest level of protection. The special prosecutor’s theories, rather than “assur[ing] [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,” Roth, 354 U.S. at 484, instead would assure that such political speech will be investigated with paramilitary-style home invasions conducted in the pre-dawn hours and then prosecuted and punished. In short, the special prosecutor completely ignores the command that, when seeking to regulate issue advocacy groups, such regulation must be done with “narrow specificity.” Barland II, 751 F.3d at 811 (quotations omitted).

¶69 The limiting construction that we apply makes clear that the special prosecutor’s theories are unsupportable in law given that the theories rely on overbroad and vague statutes. By limiting the definition of “political purposes” to express advocacy and its functional equivalent, political speech continues to be protected as a fundamental First Amendment right.

Our lengthy discussion of these three cases can be distilled into a few simple, but important, points. It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a “perfect storm” of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them. It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution. Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.

- See more at: http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/0...(Le·gal+In·sur·rec·tion)#sthash.aNBYvrLd.dpuf

Next to be laughed out of court? The Rick Perry 'prosecution'.

 

[KeepTalking]

Who is this Mr. Doe, over what kingdom did he reign, and what terror did he induce upon his populace?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If he was so innocent, why'd he change his name to the overly generic "John Doe"? I think the prosector was right in wanting to keep an eye on this sketchy fellow.

 

[ronburgundy]

Sounds like this prosecutor had almost as little regard for basic human liberties as does Scott Walker and his conservative supporters. Lucky for his supporters that people like themselves were not on the court.

 

[untermensche]

When does the real terror called the "war on drugs" end?

How many Republican presidential candidates support the end to that reign of terror? One?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Max,
I am glad you are reporting on this important topic.
Being a libertarian and supporting Scott Walker go hand in hand.

 

[maxparrish]

Max,
I am glad you are reporting on this important topic.
Being a libertarian and supporting Scott Walker go hand in hand.

Being libertarian and against corrupt and abusive state prosecutions makes me platinum - unlike some so-called 'due process' liberals.

 

[dismal]

Max,
I am glad you are reporting on this important topic.
Being a libertarian and supporting Scott Walker go hand in hand.

Being against politically motivated prosecutorial witch hunts = being for Scott Walker now?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Max,
I am glad you are reporting on this important topic.
Being a libertarian and supporting Scott Walker go hand in hand.

Being against politically motivated prosecutorial witch hunts = being for Scott Walker now?

No, being a libertarian and supporting Scott Walker go hand-in-hand. You should practice your reading skills.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Background?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.wisdc.org/pr071615a.php

The four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court who just dismissed the John Doe investigation concerning alleged coordination between Scott Walker and so-called outside groups were aided enormously by some of the very groups that were party to the John Doe case.

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Wisconsin Club for Growth, and Citizens for a Strong America—all of which are reportedly embroiled in the John Doe--together spent more than $8 million in support of Justice Patience Roggensack, Justice Annette Ziegler, Justice Michael Gableman, and Justice David Prosser.

“It boggles the mind that these justices are essentially saying that they can somehow be impartial when these parties to the case were spending huge wads of cash to get them elected,” says Matt Rothschild, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. “This doesn’t pass the smell test. The initials WMC are practically embroidered on their seats.”

Nope, no conflict of interest there. I'm sure they were impartial.

 

[ksen]

voting for judges is kind of dumb

 

[dismal]

http://www.wisdc.org/pr071615a.php

The four justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court who just dismissed the John Doe investigation concerning alleged coordination between Scott Walker and so-called outside groups were aided enormously by some of the very groups that were party to the John Doe case.

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Wisconsin Club for Growth, and Citizens for a Strong America—all of which are reportedly embroiled in the John Doe--together spent more than $8 million in support of Justice Patience Roggensack, Justice Annette Ziegler, Justice Michael Gableman, and Justice David Prosser.

“It boggles the mind that these justices are essentially saying that they can somehow be impartial when these parties to the case were spending huge wads of cash to get them elected,” says Matt Rothschild, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. “This doesn’t pass the smell test. The initials WMC are practically embroidered on their seats.”

Nope, no conflict of interest there. I'm sure they were impartial.

Do you have some objective argument that suggests the investigations in question were not politically motivated shams?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.wisdc.org/pr071615a.php



Nope, no conflict of interest there. I'm sure they were impartial.

Do you have some objective argument that suggests the investigations in question were not politically motivated shams?

Do you have some objective argument that suggests the decision in question were not politically motivates shams?

 

[ksen]

I'm wondering how whether or not the investigations were politically motivated matters even a little bit to the impartiality of the judges who had received large donations from the same groups that also gave large donations to Scott Walker?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'm wondering how whether or not the investigations were politically motivated matters even a little bit to the impartiality of the judges who had received large donations from the same groups that also gave large donations to Scott Walker?

I know what you are inferring and "good ol' boys" network is a racial slur no matter how apt the term is.

 

[dismal]

Do you have some objective argument that suggests the investigations in question were not politically motivated shams?

Do you have some objective argument that suggests the decision in question were not politically motivates shams?

That's not how it works. If you want to collect every personal detail of someone's life conduct predawn paramilitary style raids in which you detain them and their kids you need to have probable cause some crime has occurred, and some theory that makes the evidence specifically relevant.

The burden is on you.

What probable cause did they have?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The burden is on you.

No it isn't. it is on you.

 

[dismal]

The burden is on you.

No it isn't. it is on you.

My evidence is that posts like this show you have no evidence there is any evidence that shows probable cause.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

No it isn't. it is on you.

My evidence is that posts like this show you have no evidence there is any evidence that shows probable cause.

Translation: I am rubber, you are glue. Everything bounces off me and sticks on you. Even the monkey poo.