Walkergate: John Doe Knocks Out Randa In The Seventh

Late on Tuesday afternoon, Federal Judge Rudolph Randa tried to put a choke hold on Lady Justice and issued an order that effectively killed the extended Walkergate investigations.  At the time, I pointed out some of the faulty reasoning used by Randa in his decision making and that the decision wouldn't be allowed to stand.

This position was strengthened when Jeff Simpson pointed out that the wife of Steven Biskupic, the attorney representing Scott Walker's campaign through the proceedings, worked for Randa.  How this was even allowed needs to be examined by higher authorities, with strong consideration given to whether Randa is even fit to remain on the bench.

And if the gentle reader still had any doubts - after all, Jeff and I are only bloggers, what do we know? - Attorney Mike Maistelman, the state's leading expert on campaign finance law, appeared on the radio show "Devil's Advocate" and confirmed everything I had said.

Maistelman also pointed to another area that raises many a red flag.  According to Maistelman, Randa had twice scheduled sessions to hear the motions related to the case but cancelled both sessions.  Then without hearing the arguments, Randa issued his arbitrary decision.

Maistelman also raised concerns about the part of Randa's order that the prosecutors had to return all the evidence they had seized and destroy any copies they had made.

But as the saying goes, what a difference a day makes.

The prosecutors filed an emergency appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals who immediately put a stay on Randa's orders and reprimanded him pretty severely*:

But a three-judge appeals panel in Chicago, acting on emergency motions that prosecutors had filed just before and after Randa’s ruling, found the judge failed to follow proper procedure in issuing his ruling Tuesday.

“Once a litigant files a notice of appeal, a district court may not take any further action in the suit unless it certifies that the appeal is frivolous,” the appeals judges wrote. “The district court failed to follow that rule when, despite the notice of appeal filed by several defendants, it entered a preliminary injunction.”

The appeals judges — Diane Wood, William Bauer and Frank Easterbrook — also nullified Randa’s order requiring the Milwaukee County prosecutors to return the evidence they had collected and “permanently destroy” all copies of it. The appeals panel said such an action “effectively prevents appellate review” and ordered that Randa’s “return-and-destroy” order be stayed pending further order of the court.

In their emergency appeal, the prosecutors also noted that the same evidence is at the heart of challenges to the probe pending in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and state Supreme Court.

Per Tom Foley, aka Illusory Tenant**, the holding of the Seventh Circuit Court that Randa so conveniently overlooked is only 25 years old and was written by Judge Frank Easterbrook, who is still one of the judges in that court.  Foley also pointed out that the ruling also removed any chance of Randa renewing his order to destroy evidence.

With the timing and the extraordinary aspect to Randa's ruling, one must seriously consider if Randa went beyond the scope of his authority in trying to obstruct justice.   This should really be reviewed to determine if any ethical or legal lines had been crossed.

On a final note, while the right wing was celebrating Randa's ruling as the death knell for John Doe - while ignoring their self-proclaimed disdain for activist judges - the order by the Court of Appeals allows the investigation to continue.  Hopefully, this might spur the prosecutors to start filing some charges in the matter.

*The actual order by the Court of Appeals can be seen here.

**Cor, we could use him back now!

Walkergate: Randa Does A Prosser On John Doe

Late on Tuesday afternoon, news broke that Federal Judge Rudolph Randa ordered a halt to the ongoing Walkergate investigations into Scott Walker's campaign and its sordid relationship with various right wing dark money laundering groups funded by the likes of the Koch Brothers and the Bradley Foundation.  Much like the way Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser tried to put a chokehold on a lady justice, Randa tried to put a chokehold on Lady Justice.

Now, before people get bent out of shape, let's put some perspective on this whole thing.

It should be noted that Randa is a right wing nut job himself.  He is a advisor of the Federalist Society who was appointed to the bench by President George H. W. Bush.  He has a history of making very questionable rulings that have a propensity of being overturned.  Some of his bigger highlights include ruling on the Milwaukee Diocese bankruptcy case even though he has a vested interest in the Diocese.

Another classic from Randa is when he compared a drug dealer to Hitler:

Leniency requests were made for Figueroa on grounds he loves his family. Randa dismissed those requests, saying: "Hitler was admired by his family ... loved his dog. Yet he killed 6 million Jews."

Randa is also the judge that presided over the miscarriage of justice regarding the incorrect conviction of Georgia Thompson, the former state worker. (And lest we forget, Steve Biskupic was the prosecuting attorney then and now is the attorney representing Walker's campaign.)
Randa's ruling also doesn't make a helluva lot of sense.

In general, Randa is saying that he cannot stop the Doe investigations if people had been charged, but since it's still in the investigative stage, he's free to stop it. What he doesn't explain in his ruling is how the prosecutors are supposed to get to the charging stage without first doing an investigation.

In another tidbit, Randa said that one of the subjects/complainants, Eric O'Keefe had his free speech "devastated" because he's already lost out on $2 million in potential fundraising.

Aww, poor baby. Now he's just like the rest of us. How unfair is that!

Another amazing line from Randa was this:

"O'Keefe and the Club obviously agree with Governor Walker's policies, but coordinated ads in favor of those policies carry no risk of corruption because the Club's interests are already aligned with Walker and other conservative politicians," Randa wrote. "Such ads are meant to educate the electorate, not curry favor with corruptible candidates."

If I'm reading that quote correctly, it seems that Randa is saying that there is no risk of corruption because the corruption is already there.  It's pretty obvious why Randa did not provide a rationale for this statement.  He couldn't.  It's pretty obvious that the money being made by the special interests due to their laws being passed by Walker is ample proof of the tit for tat scheme going on and that they were currying favor for their own personal gain.

I do take comfort in knowing that our suspicions about the corrupt R.J. Johnson (known for his involvement with Walker's county/campaign operations) and his equally sketchy wife, Valerie Johnson, are targets of the investigation.

I find it also interesting that Deb Jordahl, a right wing operative and former blogger was part of the skulduggery.  Again, it makes me question why many of the most predominate right wing blogs all shut down about the same time.  Did Jordahl give them a heads up, causing them to close shop?

My best advice is not to get too hung up on this ruling.

Yes, the right wing will bloviate about it until they are blue in the face.  But that is only because they are desperate to get their donors back.  They want to assure their dark money sources that it's again safe to donate so that they can help buy elections this fall.

But it's not really safe.  It's pretty obvious that this ruling will be appealed and overturned.  Sadly, it probably won't be before November's election.  But if I were a right wing donor, I would have to think twice about whether a short term gain for Walker would be the risk of jail time and/or huge fines.

Walker and company haven't thwarted justice, they've only delayed the inevitable.

And even if Walker and company were successful in stopping the local prosecution, it would have no impact on any federal investigation and/or indictments.

On a final note, given this new delay in the Walkergate investigation, it does make Chris Abele's willful decision to aid in the cover up by refusing to regain the emails and other documents from the first John Doe loom even larger.  Again, just whose side is he on?