Well, we have two answers for this so far - yes and no.
The no is Kevin Kavanaugh's case. Kavanaugh, who is facing charges of embezzlement from a veterans fund, had his hearing. It is now scheduled for trial before Judge Guolee. But the trial is not until October. To the best of my knowledge, this didn't even rank a mention in any of the news services.
The yes is Scott Walker's old chum, Tim Russell. Like Kavanaugh, Russell is also facing charges for embezzling money from a veterans fund, as well as from two campaign funds. That said, Russell is named in each and every of the criminal complaints and could be charged with so much more.
As I mentioned in that earlier article, Russell's trial is not set until after the election, but his final pretrial hearing is the day before the general recall election. However, it now looks like Russell's case could play a role in the primary election this Tuesday.
On Friday, Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf filed a letter with the court requesting an extension to the time allowed to file motions regarding the case. He asked that the deadline be extended until May 8, which is the primary election day.
Now, there's no telling what motion or motions Landgraf might be filing. It could be something as routine as a response to Russell's attorney to dismiss the case or regarding an earlier motion to open sealed records. Or it could be something much more interesting, like when they released the Rindfleisch transcripts. Or it could be something as titillating as new charges being filed.
The ramifications could be huge, as I noted in that previous article:
By happenstance, Russell's final pretrial hearing is June 4, the day before the recall election. This could be significant since the DA's office has been presumably putting pressure on Russell to enter some sort of plea bargain and turn witness against Walker and others that have been involved with the Walkergate scandal. This could lead to new charges being issued and new information being made available if he should decide to stand with Walker. And if he would turn state witness, he would be a treasure trove of information. But the timing would be key as to whether it would have any significant impact on the election.
But even if it is the most pedestrian of motions, this will not serve Scott Walker well. It will only remind people of Walker's corruption and help impel a greater voter turnout for the good Wisconsinites who want to reclaim their state and restore dignity and integrity to our government.*
And lest we forget, there will be Darlene Wink's sentencing hearing on May 15.
Interesting times we live in. And the more interesting it gets, the worse it will be for Walker.
*Since we can't trust the right wing media to do their job, make sure you share this with your friends, family and neighbors so that they too can be aware of this and join the groundswell as the people take our state back.
Posts
What do we know?
ReplyDelete1) The ADA was concerned about Russell's new criminal defense lawyer's impact on plea negotiations (from the FOIA request).
2) Russell could be charged with, child enticement (from the Pierick case)
3) Russell could be charged with campaigning on work time (from the Rindfleisch case).
4) Russell was running out of $$ (from the FOIA request)
5) The ADA, Bruce Landgraf, has now requested an extension to file motions. (from today's news)
My bet is that Russell has ran out of $$ and is going to cop a plea deal by COB Tuesday. They agree not to bring up the other charges, move, move his felonies to misdemeanors, and give him a limited amount of jail time.
If not, I'd imagine that Russell will get hit with the other two charges that were implied with the Rindfleisch and Pierick cases.
I'm also willing to speculate that, if what Capper is saying is true, that Walker if funding the Rindfleisch defense, that when/if Walker is charged, both Walker and Rindfleisch will attest that Russell was the brains and that Walker knew nothing.
Also, the Wink sentencing will be very interesting, as the judge gets to determine what the sentence is. So, how can the judge determine Wink's value as a witness without being told what she will attest to? How can we not find out SOMETHING regarding who she has agreed to testify against?
05-07-2012
ReplyDeleteResponse/reply
Hansher-42, David A.
Additional Text:
State's Response to Defendant Russell's Motion to Dismiss and Affidavit in Support of State's Response to Defendant Russell's Motion to Dismiss, filed.
-> So, seems like nothing too exciting here. Although, they filed it the day before the due date and we don't know exactly what the state's response was...if this was a hail marry and it was shot down, does that mean more developments are likely prior to the pre-trial? What information can we expect from the Wink sentencing?
We won't know about Russell until someone does an FOIA on the response and affidavit.
DeleteAs for Wink, the sky's the limit.