The conservative Wisconsin justice who allegedly grabbed fellow justice Ann Walsh Bradley by the neck during an argument in her chambers was perceived as a threat long before that June 2011 incident, according to a filing by Bradley recusing herself from the related judicial ethics proceeding.

Two months earlier, Bradley and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson had developed a security plan that included locking themselves in their offices on nights and weekends, and securing more frequent police patrols. Other incidents that led them to be concerned included a 2010 correspondence in which Prosser reportedly called Abrahamson a “total bitch” and said, “There will be a war against you and it will not be a ground war.” Bradley explains in her filing:

Contrary to Justice Prosser’s answer to the Judicial Commission complaint and to recent public comments, what happened in my office on June 13, 2011 is not an isolated event. Rather, it is one event in a history of abusive behavior in our workplace that has escalated from tantrums and rages, to threats, and now to physical contact. [...]

In late March 2011—two months before the incident in my office—it appeared to me and others that Justice Prosser’s behavior was becoming increasingly agitated. One newspaper editorial characterized his comments as “odd,” “troubling” and “unsettling.” A then, but now retired, Deputy Director of State Courts contacted me to warn of her concern that Justice Prosser may endanger my physical safety as well as that of the Chief Justice. [...]

To this day, the Chief Justice and I continue to lock ourselves inside our private offices when working alone because of concerns for our physical safety due to Justice Prosser’s behavior. That is not a satisfactory solution. Our court needs to address and solve its workplace safety issue. If nothing is done, I wonder what will happen next in this escalating pattern of abusive behavior.

It appears, however, that nothing will be done in the immediate future. Although ethics charges were filed against Prosser after the June 2011 incident in which Prosser admitted putting his hands around Bradley’s neck “to protect himself,” Prosser had already convinced three of his fellow conservatives on the court to recuse themselves from the case — eliminating the necessary quorum to appoint a three-judge panel and effectively immunizing him from any disciplinary action. And his fellow justices replaced an ethics official who supported the probe with one who had called the ethics allegations “unfairly directed.” In her memo, Bradley urged reform of the judicial discipline process in which “justices sitting in judgment of their closest colleagues.” “In any other place of employment,” she reasons “there likely would be serious consequences for such a response.”

 

 

The Denver District Attorney and and Colorado’s Independent Ethics Commission will investigate allegations that Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler (R) improperly used taxpayer dollars to travel to a Republican election law event hosted by a pro-voter suppression group and to his party’s national convention.

Gessler was elected in 2010 on a platform of fighting “election fraud” — a largely non-existent problem — and of guaranteeing “fair and open elections.” But, the Coloradoan reports, he traveled in July to a Republican National Lawyers Association election law conference which included a panel presentation on the role of states and voter ID laws and charged $1,105.17 for the trip to his office budget. He also requested and received reimbursement from his office’s discretionary fund to pay for his travel to the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August. Colorado forbids such expenditures for personal or political purposes and violations could constitute a misdemeanor.

The Associated Press reported Tuesday:

Gessler’s office responded to the announcement of the review Monday by saying, “We welcome a thorough review.”

Colorado Ethics Watch filed a complaint last month against Gessler that alleged he misappropriated public funds because he was reimbursed for attending political events.

Independent Ethics Commission Jane Feldman says the amount of money in question is $1,570.51. She says Gessler could be fined up to double that amount if he is found to have violated rules.

The Denver District Attorney’s office has launched a formal criminal investigation.

The Republican National Lawyers Association claims its mission is “advancing open, fair and honest elections,” but has strongly advocated for strict voter ID laws to combat “voter fraud.”

When actually in Colorado, Gessler has spent much of his time pushing a failed voter purge which found at most 35 cases of non-citizen voting out of the 2,401,462 total votes cast in the state’s 2008 presidential election — less than 0.0015 percent of the vote.

Justice Nathan Hecht is the longest serving justice on the Texas Supreme Court, the highest court in that state for civil matters. Judge Sharon Keller is the presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which makes her the highest ranking judge in Texas who hears criminal cases. Both judges received major fines years ago — a $100,000 fine for Hecht and a $29,000 fine for Keller — after a state ethics commission determined they violated their ethical duties. Yet both judges avoided paying those fines for years due to Texas’ labyrinthian process for appealing ethical decisions against judges:

Hecht, the longest-serving member of the Supreme Court, was fined by the Texas Ethics Commission for accepting and failing to report an illegal political contribution from a major law firm. The same panel fined Keller for repeatedly failing to disclose more than $2 million in personal holdings on her financial disclosure forms. . . .

Individuals fined by the ethics panel can appeal by suing in state district court. Once that happens, cases are treated as if they are brand new, and attorneys are given time to gather evidence and witness statements to be presented at trial.

Hecht was fined in December 2008 and started his appeal the next month. Keller’s appeal began in June 2010, about three months after she was fined. Both cases have been assigned to a judge, but neither has been set for a trial date.

Judge Keller, for her part, is no stranger to allegations of misconduct. In 2007, Keller allegedly made a misleading statement to an attorney to prevent a death row inmate from receiving a stay of execution from the United States Supreme Court. The Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct initially gave her a “public warning” to Keller for her actions, saying that Keller’s actions “cast[] public discredit on the judiciary or the administration of justice” and “constitute[] willful or persistent conduct that is clearly inconsistent with the proper performance of her duties as a judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals.” This warning was eventually dismissed on appeal.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser is currently the target of a ethics probe into an incident where he allegedly grabbed a fellow justice by the neck during an argument in her chambers. Yet, despite the seriousness of these allegations, Prosser and his conservative allies on the court have bent over backwards to prevent this probe from moving forward. Prosser convinced his three fellow conservatives on the court to recuse themselves from the probe, a move that effectively prevents any meaningful action against Prosser. And they removed an ethics official last May who supported the probe into Prosser.

This official’s replacement has now been announced, and he appears hand chosen to ensure that Prosser does not have to worry about any inconvenient probes into his ethical fitness for the job:

State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser and three other justices have appointed a retired attorney to the Wisconsin Judicial Commission who has said the ethics case against Prosser is unfair.

The court voted 4-3 to appoint Frank J. Daily to the commission last month, at a time when the case against Prosser faces major hurdles.

In a May letter to the editor printed in the Journal Sentinel, Daily said the proceeding against Prosser was “unfairly directed” at him and suggested it should be ended. His letter also took issue with Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, who has often clashed with Prosser; Daily called the chief justice “vindictive” and said she was responsible for the decline of the court’s reputation.

Wisconsin’s conservative justices have a history of protecting their own against ethics complaints. A complaint against conservative Justice Michael Gabelman for running a misleading campaign ad was shut down after the court split on party lines in Gabelman’s favor.

Since he was elected in 2010, Rep. David Rivera (R-FL) has been under an ethics cloud. Already facing federal and state investigations, a new Miami Herald report suggests Rivera may have secretly made illegal cash payments to vendors for a primary candidate running against the Democratic Party’s favored candidate to oppose him in his re-election bid.

Political unknown Justin Lamar Sternad was accused of being a ringer during his failed primary campaign against Democratic nominee Joe Garcia. Now, Stenard campaign vendors say they received their payments from Rivera’s campaign.

According to the Miami Herald:

Interviews with campaign sources, invoices, campaign records and other documents show that Rivera personally and frequently called [vendor] Rapid Mail about Sternad’s mailers. During one call, Rivera directed an employee to walk outside, check the office mailbox for an envelope containing payment for one mailer, the sources said.

The envelope was stuffed with cash — $7,800.

Last week, [Rapid Mail President John] Borrero told The Herald that the Sternad campaign had paid cash for six of the cash mailers, which cost between $4,000 and $6,000 each. He said he was surprised by the amount of cash, which he sometimes may see from private clients and not usually campaigns.

In April, a Florida investigation found “possible criminal and ethical violations” by Rivera. The FBI and IRS are also reportedly investigating payments to Rivera by a gambling company. Rivera has denied wrongdoing.

These mounting allegations against Rivera come despite House Republican Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) promised “zero tolerance policy” for ethical scandals.

Conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser currently faces ethics charges for allegedly grabbing fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley by the neck during an argument in Bradley’s chambers. In response to these allegations, Prosser tried to convince a majority of his colleagues to recuse themselves from his case — a move that would effectively kill the complaint against him because it would deprive the state supreme court of the quorum it needs to hold Prosser accountable if it determines that the allegations against him have merit.

All three of Prosser’s fellow conservatives have now signed onto this plan:

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman becomes the third member of the state’s high court to recuse himself from hearing the complaint against fellow Justice David Prosser.

Gableman made the expected announcement yesterday. Justices Annette Ziegler and Pat Roggensack had already said they wouldn’t take part in consideration of the complaint by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission.

Prosser argued that his fellow justices could not sit on his case because most of them witnessed the alleged choking incident. Yet, while it is usually true that a judge should not sit on a case where they are also a witness, that normal rule should not have applied here. Courts normally apply a “rule of necessity” to these sorts of cases which establishes that “a judge is not disqualified to [hear] a case because of a personal interest in the matter at issue if ‘the case cannot be heard otherwise.’”

Gableman, who provided the final vote immunizing Prosser, benefited in the past from a similar vote by his conservative colleagues. An ethics case against Gabelman for running a false ad against his predecessor was dropped his fellow conservatives voted to effectively kill it.