Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Justice Assaults Fellow Justice


What is Happening in Wisconsin, AGAIN!?


Alinsky Tactics, Supreme Court level


Which Justice Assaulted Which Justice?


Madison media’s lack of balanced reporting is reaching epic proportions, while some members of Wisconsin’s highest court are making a mockery of the powers entrusted to them by the people.


Following Wisconsin Supreme Court’s June 14th decision to uphold Wisconsin’s collective

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson

bargaining law, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson issued official statements criticizing respected members of her Court.  The stinging unprecedented dissent accused the conservative majority of the Court of making “numerous errors of law and fact” and stated that they “set forth their own version of facts without evidence.” She wrote that “They should not engage in disinformation,” and called their view “long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant.” The Chief Justice stated that this decision opens the Court “to the charge that the majority has reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law.”

What kind of leadership is this?

The Chief Justice’s job is one of upholding and respecting our democratic system of government, of fostering communication and unity in our highest court, not of fomenting division when a closely split ruling occurs, dividing liberal and conservative Judges of the Court.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley

To further inflame the situation, now Justice Bradley (liberal), has accused Justice Prosser (conservative), of assaulting and choking her in the presence of 5 other Justices!  The correct procedure for such a complaint would be through legal channels, and the incident should not be discussed publicly before the investigation is complete, as any lawyer should know.  However, Justice Bradley made this accusation through the liberal media, and has not yet filed any official legal complaints in the 2 weeks since the supposed incident.

The conservative judges, as befits the legal profession, are not giving details to the press.  Justice Prosser stated his confidence that he will be cleared with investigation.  “Confidential sources” seem to indicate that Bradley has one witness supporting her claims, while 4 witnesses support Prosser’s innocence.  Yet Madison’s

Justice David T. Prosser

liberal media continues to decimate Judge Prosser’s reputation with headlines like “What To Do About High Court’s Prosser Problem,” , in which they question whether Justice Prosser remains fit to serve!

I have been struggling to assemble information on the latest happenings in Wisconsin’s dysfunctional Supreme Court in the absence of clear facts.

Now that I have managed to unearth facts that Madison’s media is unwilling to divulge, I can paint a more accurate picture.

Bottom line, for those who are impatient, is that liberal Justice Bradley seems to have used Supreme Court level Alinsky tactics.   –She physically attacked Justice Prosser, turned the tables by accusing HIM of what she had done, lied about the incident, leaked reports of the “event” to the obliging Bill Lueders of (George Soros-funded) Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, and now has the assistance of Madison’s media in smearing Justice Prosser and calling for his termination, in the hopes that the liberal 3 would shift the balance of the other conservative 4 judges in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  With conservative Governor Walker at the helm, this seems to be a pointless pursuit.

The details of the sparring were uncovered and reported by Christian Schneider and can be found at the National Review.  If you read just one reference, this would be the one to read.

Another report summarizes events even more concisely:

Long story short: a liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice named Ann Bradley has apparently tried to claim that another Supreme Court Justice, David Prosser, “choked” her.

The story had been leaked to a George Soros muckraking group, and then the incident seemed to get turned on its head when other witnesses came forth to indicate that while Prosser did put his hands up and touch Bradley’s neck, it is because she was coming at him with fists raised, meaning the contact was defensive in nature, and Bradley was the aggressor.

The plot appears to be thickening now, with news that Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson may have had a hand in orchestrating the leak in an attempt to get the conservative Prosser impeached.

As the investigation moves forward, it appears than instead of collecting a conservative scalp, that the two liberal Wisconsin SCOTUS justices may face impeachment instead. If they are impeached—and that is far from certain at this point—Republican Governor Scott Walker will have the opportunity to add two conservative justices to the bench.

It appears that the plot to frame up Prosser has backfired spectacularly.

I can only wish for such a happy ending for all of convicted felon Soros’ investments in deception.

This report of two liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices, one the Chief Justice, attempting to smear and discredit a conservative colleague with lies, is symptomatic of a more general dissolution of integrity among Democrats in Madison, Wisconsin today.  The problems with Madison’s Democrats, in turn, are reflective of a growing general dissolution of Democrat integrity in the United States.

Most of us trust automatically that respected high officials support the laws they were appointed/elected to administer and that their goals include the peaceful, fair and tranquil functioning of society.

There is, however, a growing new philosophy/methodology, particularly among some in high office, which attempts to circumvent the legal democratic process in order to implement radical change rapidly against the wishes of the majority.

The new methodology welcomes and creates chaos, in the knowledge that it is easier to implement change during chaos.  The new philosophy spurns dialogue and advocates polarization, demonization of opponents, and dispensation of traditional moral constraints such as truthfulness or limiting oneself to civilized behavior.

Saul Alinsky

The new methodology is patterned after what has become known as Alinsky tactics.  Radical Democrats, including President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, teachers unions, and numerous Wisconsin Democrats have been implementing these tactics more and more often, particularly in recent months.

For example, in Madison, 14 Democrat legislators violated the Wisconsin Constitution by fleeing to Illinois to prevent a quorum on legislation they opposed.  Protesters at the Madison State Capitol have adopted new aggressive techniques, including blowing air horns in Republican Senator’s and in conservative demonstrators’ ears. Unions have shipped aggressive out-of-state protesters into Madison by the thousands, while Madison’s liberal Mayor called off the Madison police.  Radicals brag about “peaceful” protests, while Republican Senators are being chased around the Capitol building by hundreds of protesters, unhindered by police, and damage/security bills mount to over $8 million.  Madison’s police and firefighter’s unions, as well as Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider), have joined in support of teachers’ unions that are bleeding the State dry with benefits which radically exceed what other Wisconsin workers get.  Republican Senators have received death threats for carrying out campaign promises and attempting to pass responsible legislation.  Wisconsin’s liberal Secretary of State has helped to stall publication of the collective bargaining legislation repeatedly, enabling unions to rush through new contracts before implementation of the law.  Liberal judges have procrastinated making decisions on the pending legislation, taking vacation, and making bad rulings, which must be heard, reprimanded and reversed by the cooler-headed individuals on the Supreme Court.  Wisconsin’s media, seriously dominated by radial liberals, publishes only glowing reports of the radicals, omitting any of the reality mentioned above.  The dirty tactics observed in Madison are overwhelming.

I have been so appalled by the chaos and trampling of democracy I have witnessed in Madison recently that I have written numerous articles documenting and referencing the above facts on my website,  since February.

I don’t jump to the defense of people in the absence of conclusive evidence.  However, in the light of the above facts, particularly those collected by Christian Schneider, I am willing to stick out my neck and venture to say that there is only one logical interpretation of what happened between Justices Bradley and Prosser in Madison on June 13th, the story which was leaked to the liberal press by Justice Bradley and which has spread like wildfire in the national news, accusing Justice Prosser of choking her.  Radical Democrats, yet again, are using Alinsky tactics in an effort to further their (now minority) agenda by eliminating a conservative voice from the Supreme Court.

Prosser was smeared with lies previously by Democrats during his campaign , and his installation was delayed by Democrat challenges and recounts after the election.  The latest June 14 decision of the Supreme Court approving the collective bargaining legislation was almost made in the absence of Judge Prosser, when Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg threatened to sue yet a second time for recounts, which would have delayed Judge Prosser’s appointment yet again.

Aside from the original reports accusing Justice Prosser of choking his colleague, Madison’s media is not correcting the skewed initial reports.  They are still spreading the dirt and calling for Prosser’s removal: Madison’s Cap Times wrote an editorial entitled “What to do about high court’s Prosser problem” yesterday (6-29-11), in which they suggested that Justice Prosser was “no longer fit to serve.”

The truth cannot be found in Madison media, with very few exceptions.  – go to the National Review for truth in reporting.

Finally, it is interesting to note that Bradley did not file charges against Justice Prosser, which would have put her credibility at risk when the truth was revealed.   She just leaked the fictitious smear story to newspapers to foment liberal frenzy, a la Alinsky tactics. This is certainly not the type of behavior expected from a Supreme Court Judge, or anyone whose job function is to provide reasoned deliberation on matters that distinguish our society from anarchy.

More references from both sides of the dispute, by date :