Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley asked Justice David Prosser to seek therapy to manage his anger two days after she says he put his hands around her neck, but he declined to do so, according to sources familiar with the situation.
The request came June 15, when all the justices met with Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs to discuss the June 13 altercation between Prosser and Bradley. At least some of Prosser's fellow conservatives on the court said it would be ridiculous for him to take such courses, the sources said.
I think it might be a good idea for all the justices to have group therapy.
Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney -- who is now investigating a claim Supreme Court Justice David Prosser put his hands around another justice’s neck during an argument earlier this month -- endorsed Prosser’s opponent in the recent race for Supreme Court.
The Democratic sheriff endorsed Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg in her challenge to Prosser in the April 5 election. Mahoney and Kloppenburg also use the same campaign manager, Melissa Mulliken, who has worked on many state and local campaigns.
Mahoney took over the investigation Monday at the request of Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs. Tubbs said he consulted with the court before turning over the investigation to Mahoney.
Media Trackers spells out the very real concerns about Mahoney's impartiality:
The need for an impartial investigator to look into allegations of a physical altercation between two Wisconsin Supreme Courtjustices is absolutely critical. Wisconsinites deserve to know the full truth about this matter, and parties that are guilty of misconduct should explain their actions. Following the announcement by Capitol Police that the investigation will now be handled by Dane County Sheriff David Mahoney, MediaTrackers expressed concern over the sheriff's impartiality in the situation.
"After looking into Sheriff Mahoney's record, we have substantial reservations about his qualification to lead his department in a thorough and impartial investigation of this matter," stated Brian Sikma, Communications Director for Media Trackers. "Notwithstanding his long record of service to the public through law enforcement, the very politically charged nature of this particular investigation could prevent the public from resting full confidence in Sheriff Mahoney's abilities."
Citing a list of political activities, official actions, and unguarded public statements from Mahoney, Sikma concluded, "Sheriff David Mahoney’s partisan background and public statements raise questions about his ability to lead an impartial investigation. The sheriff should either explain why these items are not going to factor into any bias in the investigation, or recuse himself from the role altogether."
The following is a record of Dane County Sheriff David Mahoney's political, professional and public actions and statements that are cause for concern when it comes to his handling of a political charged Supreme Court matter:
In 2008, Sheriff David Mahoney appeared in television ad endorsing Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, a well known personal and political rival of Justice David Prosser. Mahoney also gave Abrahamson’s 2008 re-election campaign $100 dollars.
In 2008, Sheriff Mahoney helped create a program –later determined to be illegal – to give tax payer dollars to jail inmates to subsidize their bail. Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said that the Sheriff’s office overstepped its authority with the program.
During the Budget Repair protests that occupied the Capitol, Mahoney refused to order Dane County Sheriff Deputies to enforce an order to keep the Capitol doors shut. Mahoney explained, “I refused to put deputy sheriffs in a position to be palace guards."
When touring the Capitol in during the occupation by pro-labor protesters in March, Mahoney was quoted in The Nation magazine as saying “I smile everyday at what I am seeing take place in this building."
When asked in an April 21, interview with liberal Madison talk-show host John “Sly” Sylvester about booing of the national anthem by counter-protesters at a Tea Party rally, Mahoney said “I’m quite confident that booing the national anthem never occurred.” But of course, the booing was caught on camera which makes it hard to deny.
From 2004-2006, Mahoney served as President of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association. As President of the state’s police union, Mahoney was quoted as saying it is a duty to “take care of those who take care of you,” and that “the job you save may be your own.” During Mahoney’s tenure as President, the WPPA endorsed Governor Jim Doyle for Governor and donated to eight Democratic campaigns and just three Republican campaigns.
Sheriff Mahoney was appointed to three separate commissions by Democrat Governor Jim Doyle between 2007 and 2008.
Without question, the appearance of Mahoney's impartiality exists.
Two agencies are investigating a claim by Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley that Justice David Prosser put her in a chokehold earlier this month - an allegation Gov. Scott Walker on Monday called extremely serious.
Asked if the reports about Prosser's behavior, if true, merited his resignation, Walker said: "I don't even want to go down that path . . . other than to say that just based on the allegations that were made, I can't overemphasize how serious I think the situation is there. Until we know what happened, I don't think it's best for anybody for me to comment on what the next step is."
Was Walker asked if the reports about Bradley's behavior, if true, merited her resignation?
That doesn't appear to be the case from the Journal Sentinel's online account.
Why wonder about Prosser resigning and not consider the possibility of Bradley resigning?
Bias? What bias?
The separate investigations are being run by the Dane County Sheriff's Office and the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which oversees the state's judicial ethics code. The sheriff's investigation was launched Monday; the commission's was authorized Friday and publicly acknowledged Monday.
"After consulting with members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I have turned over the investigation into an alleged incident in the court's offices on June 13, 2011, to Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney," Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs said in a statement.
The sheriff's office in a statement acknowledged it was taking over the case, but declined further comment.
It was not clear why Tubbs would consult with members of the court on who should investigate the matter.
This is so bizarre.
Law enforcement shouldn't be meeting with the Court to determine how to go about investigating an alleged physical assault.
...Walker told Journal Sentinel reporters, editors and members of the newspaper's Editorial Board on Monday that the current court was the most dysfunctional in his memory, and that the judiciary is supposed to be the most dispassionate of the three branches of government.
"I think, again, beyond the particulars of this case . . . the fact that there appears to be an ongoing friction among justices in the court is something that has to be resolved," Walker said. "I don't know what the right answer is."
Walker raised the possibility of providing a mediator, but was cautious about any involvement from either the executive or legislative branches of government.
Walker also said "long-term, it's worth looking at" an appointed Supreme Court, instead of an elected one, in Wisconsin.
Such a change would require a change in the state constitution.
If Prosser resigned, Walker would appoint his successor.
Here we go again!
Why just talk about Prosser resigning?
If BRADLEY resigned, Walker would appoint her successor.
The anti-Prosser slant of the Journal Sentinel article continues:
The court for years has been split by ideological and personal differences.
"Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this stunning development is how, given all that we have learned about the court in recent years, how untroubling many (people) are likely to find this," said Marquette Law School professor Peter Rofes. "Entirely apart from the obvious violent nature of this act - and the fear it engendered in a female member of the court - as each day passes the people of Wisconsin have less reason to believe that there is very much legitimacy left in this incredibly important institution."
"Entirely apart from the obvious violent nature of this act - and the fear it engendered in a female member of the court"?
So, according to Marquette Law School professor Peter Rofes, Bradley is the victim here? It's a given that she was attacked by Prosser, that terrifying brute?
It certainly appears that Rofes thinks he knows what happened.
Why the assumption that Bradley's version of events is accurate?
Rofes should know better than to make such statements.
...Nationally known police practices expert Melvin L. Tucker said he couldn't figure out why the Capitol police would confer with the justices about the direction of the investigation rather than simply presenting a case to the district attorney.
"There may be justifiable reasons for it, but it doesn't sound like it's normal," said Tucker, a former FBI agent who has served as a police chief in three states and is now based in North Carolina.
"If there was probable cause that a choking actually did take place, if the victim did give a statement to that effect, you go to the prosecutor's office and proceed from there," he said.
NO KIDDING!
What's with the strange consultations? Police shouldn't be conferring with the justices about a choking. That's not how they normally handle a violent act. They should do their jobs, no special treatment or additional discussions.
This is all so weird.
Of course, what's completely normal is the Journal Sentinel serving as a mouthpiece for liberals. __________________
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Crocker Stephenson discussed the insanity with Greta Van Susteren.
An argument between state Supreme Court Justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley became physical earlier this month, according to sources who told the Journal Sentinel two very different stories Saturday about what occurred.
According to some sources, Prosser wrapped his hands around Bradley's neck. According to others, Bradley charged Prosser, who raised his hands to defend himself and made contact with her neck.
A joint investigation by Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism first reported Saturday on the incident, stating that Prosser "grabbed" Bradley around the neck.
A source who spoke to several justices present during the incident told the Journal Sentinel that the confrontation occurred after 5:30 p.m. June 13, the day before high court's release of a decision upholding a bill to curtail the collective bargaining rights of public employees.
At least five justices, including Prosser and Bradley, had gathered in Bradley's office and were informally discussing the decision.
The conversation grew heated, the source said, and Bradley asked Prosser to leave. Bradley was bothered by disparaging remarks Prosser had made about Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
Bradley felt Prosser "was attacking the chief justice," the source said.
Before leaving, Prosser "put his hands around her neck in what (Bradley) described as a chokehold," the source said.
"He did not exert any pressure, but his hands were around her neck," the source said.
The source said the act "was in no way playful."
But another source told the Journal Sentinel that Bradley attacked Prosser.
"She charged him with fists raised," the source said.
Prosser "put his hands in a defensive posture," the source said. "He blocked her."
In doing so, the source said, he made contact with Bradley's neck.
Another source said the justices were arguing over the timing of the release of the opinion, which legislative leaders had insisted they needed by June 14 because of their work on the state budget. As the justices discussed the case, Abrahamson said she didn't know whether the decision would come out this month, the source said.
At that point, Prosser said he'd lost all confidence in her leadership. Bradley then came across the room "with fists up," the source said. Prosser put up his hands to push her back.
Bradley then said she had been choked, according to the source. Another justice - the source wouldn't say who - responded, "You were not choked."
Late Saturday, Prosser issued a statement that said: "Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false. Until then I will refrain from further public comment."
Oh, good grief.
These accounts are so strange.
If Prosser truly choked Bradley, she should have reported the incident to the police immediately.
If Prosser assaulted Bradley, she should have pressed charges.
If this did occur as Bradley claims, it certainly would have been to her advantage to get the police involved right away. It would make her enemy, Prosser, look terrible.
But almost two weeks after the incident, we're hearing about it? Why would Bradley delay reporting being attacked? She still hasn't come forward with a comment. All we have are unnamed "sources."
That's very odd, very lame.
The justices aren't talking.
What has this "investigation" revealed?
Rumors.
If Bradley charged at Prosser with her fists raised, and Prosser needed to take defensive measures to protect himself, he should have called the police.
This is all so ridiculous.
Physical attacks between justices cannot be tolerated. There is absolutely no doubt that an individual lacking that degree of self-control is unfit to serve on the court.
Has there been a physical altercation?
We don't know.
This is idiotic.
Whatever the reality of the matter is, the justices, and the media reporting their antics, need to grow the hell up.
GROW UP!
Justices must behave.
Media shouldn't report unsourced crap.
Utterly irresponsible.
Perhaps law enforcement should be present at all times when Supreme Court justices are meeting, to maintain order.
Officers should be armed with pepper spray and stun guns. They shouldn't hesitate to use force to control the justices. __________________
Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley issued a statement late Saturday saying that fellow Justice David Prosser choked her and disputing claims that she attacked him first.
"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold," she said. "Those are the facts and you can try to spin those facts and try to make it sound like I ran up to him and threw my neck into his hands, but that's only spin.
"Matters of abusive behavior in the workplace aren't resolved by competing press releases," she said.
"I'm confident the appropriate authorities will conduct a thorough investigation of this incident involving abusive behavior in the workplace."
What I don't understand is why Bradley didn't immediately get the police involved.
Acting with unusual speed, the state Supreme Court on Tuesday reinstated Gov. Scott Walker's plan to all but end collective bargaining for tens of thousands of public workers.
The court found a committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state's open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when they hastily approved the measure and made it possible for the Senate to take it up. In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled a Dane County judge who had struck down the legislation, ending one challenge to the law even as new challenges are likely to emerge.
The majority opinion was by Justices Michael Gableman, David Prosser, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler. The other three justices -Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks - concurred in part and dissented in part.
