http://wicourtscorrupt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Wisconsin-Court-Corruption.pdf

Wisconsin court corruption

Mar 4, 11:37 a.m. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is not only supposed to avoid corruption, but also avoid the perception of corruption. They and the state legislature are not doing a very good job of it. The upcoming Supreme Court probe into Governor Walker’s possible illegal campaign coordination, and the April 7 statewide vote on a constitutional amendment to change the way the court selects its chief justice, are classic examples.

Three of the groups that Walker is alleged to have coordinated with--and that are also targets of the probe--are the Wisconsin Club for Growth, Citizens for a Strong America, and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. All three derive funding from the Koch brothers.

Those four justices may now rule on a case involving the organizations that helped get them elected. The justices are not required to recuse themselves, and indications are that they will not. If that is not blatant corruption, it certainly creates the perception of corruption.

For added insurance, Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature want to remove liberal-leaning Shirley Abrahamson from her position as chief justice, prior to the Walker probe.

one of the first issues the 2015-2016 legislature took up was amending the state constitution to change the way the Wisconsin Supreme Court selects its chief. that selection has been based on tenure. With a majority of conservatives now on the court, the Republican legislature has approved an amendment to the constitution that would allow the justices to elect their chief.

Representative Brooks of the 50th Assembly District was one of the sponsors of that legislation. He has been less than honest about its purpose. Brooks and other Republicans deny that they are trying to get rid of Abrahamson as chief, but their denials smack of deceit.

The legitimate way to change the way the Court selects its chief would be to wait until 2019 when Abrahamson’s term ends, but Republicans refuse to wait.

Democrats suggested that the new rule could exempt Abrahamson, since she earned her position under the rules existing at the time, but Republicans flatly refused that also—revealing again that their true motive was to oust Abrahamson as chief.

Abrahamson was already chief when Wisconsin voters re-elected her for another ten-year term in 2009. Wisconsin voters have therefore given their approval of her as chief. The Republican maneuver is a slap in the face to Wisconsin voters.

Wisconsin voters can restore some measure of legitimacy to the Court by voting NO to the amendment on April 7. That would also send a message to the Koch brothers that Wisconsin is not a subsidiary of Koch Industries.

http://www.swnews4u.com/m/archives/25938

If corruption goes this high I won't put it past them Toeither be involved in pizzagate or covering it up http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a41010/wisconsin-supreme-court-corruption/

In Other News, Scott Walker's Wisconsin Is Still as Crooked as Ever

formerly known as the state of Wisconsin, now that Scott Walker has gone back to his job as its manager, ......and now that he continues to turn the state's political culture into a SuperFund site. For example, recently, he installed a crony named Rebecca Bradley in a seat on the state's Supreme Court, and Justice Bradley turns out to be quite the piece of work.

Bradley and Milwaukee attorneys Don Daugherty, David Simon, and Daniel Kelly said in a 2008 opinion column that a pledge put forward by the State Bar of Wisconsin's Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee shouldn't be signed by candidates because it infringes on free speech.

"The Bar should not try to regulate speech by judicial candidates in a way that would be plainly unconstitutional if done by the government," the four wrote. "The far better course is for candidates and their supporters to provide information they believe appropriate — good, bad, even ugly — and let voters decide." The committee was created in 2007 by the bar association's then-president, Tom Basting Sr., as a self-appointed watchdog group that tried to referee that year's race for Wisconsin Supreme Court. The committee was disbanded in 2009, according to the bar association. Basting and his group issued seven statements reacting to advertising in the race that it deemed false or to have impugned the reputation of either candidate or the court.

The In essence, then, Bradley and her co-authors are arguing for the right of candidates to lie in their advertisements, and to put the ethical obligations of their professions in a jar while they're running for office. It follows, then, that campaigning for political office is a lesser ethical pursuit than, say, the law. Of course, this has become axiomatic in Wisconsin since Walker was elected its governor. The state still has a functioning open records law, and Bradley has declined to let it inconvenience her over much. A liberal watchdog group, One Wisconsin Now, filed an open-records request for the office calendars from Bradley's days as a judge in a lower case. Bradley responded by providing the group with a raft of blank pages that indicated she had done no official business in that court for two-and-a-half years. Confronted by this improbability, Bradley admitted…well, I don't want to spoil it.

Responding to an open records request from a liberal group, the newly appointed conservative justice provided monthly calendars that suggested she had no official business—other than the cases she was hearing—for 29 straight months. But in answer to questions from the a court official recently said Bradley actually did not have a way to retrieve her calendars.

And, of course, the open-records law itself is currently under siege by the forces of Walkerism, probably to mask from the people of Wisconsin how much of their money got chucked down the rathole of Walker's misbegotten presidential campaign.

Now an obscure administration board charged with facilitating the retention of records quietly made significant changes to the open records law without required public notice, giving the Walker administration a new way to deny records requests about the use of public resources during his presidential run and taxpayer handouts to Walker donors. The Freedom of Information Council asked the Dane County District Attorney to prosecute the board for violating the open meetings law when it made the changes. The swift pushback on the changes has prompted the board to reconsider and the board chair announced a public hearing about the changes on Monday, January 11