Prosser-Bradley Investigation Ends
“Chief, I Have Lost Confidence in Your Leadership”
Supreme Court Disgraced
Democrat Delays and Cover-Ups Yet Again?
Justice Prosser has finally been cleared in “Chokegate,” two months after Justice Bradley made the false allegations. National Review Online
Yet disturbing problems remain for Wisconsin in the aftermath of this scandal.
How is Justice Prosser supposed to regain his reputation after Wisconsin Democrats tried to smear it twice with lies twice this year? –
- First smear attempt during election (Kloppenburg’s attempted smear)
- Second smear attempt during collective bargaining law ruling (see 3 links at SyteReitz.com for more):
Which Supreme Court Justice Assaulted Which Justice?
Media Malpractice and Justice Prosser
Why the Prosser-Bradley Choking Investigation Is So Prolonged?
Which individuals need to apologize to Justice Prosser?
Where does David Prosser go to get his reputation back?
Why was Justice Prosser’s accuser, Justice Bradley, not charged?
Why was Justice Prosser’s accuser, Justice Bradley, not charged with politically motivated false accusation of criminal conduct against a fellow member of the bench, as well as with assault of a Supreme Court Justice?
Three Supreme Court Justices who were present support Justice Prosser’s innocence and refute Bradley’s account. They say that it was Justice Bradley who attacked Justice Prosser with raised fists, which caused Justice Prosser to
block her, while a third Justice, Justice Roggensack, pulled Bradley off Prosser (National Review Online). This report is quite credible, since Justice Bradley was previously known to strike a fellow Justice– she had whacked Justice Gableman on the head for addressing the Chief Justice by her first name previously, NOT in jest. Apparently, Justice Bradley has a very protective attitude toward Chief Justice Abrahamson, and is quick to attack anyone who does not treat her as Bradley sees fit. So why is Justice Bradley not being charged with criminal conduct?
The problem is that Bradley has one powerful witness (Chief Justice Abrahamson!) who supports her against the other four Justices. The Special Prosecutor told The Associated Press that accounts from other justices who witnessed the apparent altercation VARIED (i.e. somebody is lying), but declined to elaborate further. Lies by Supreme Court Justices makes a mockery of the entire legal system in our state.
The Special Prosecutor was wise enough to realize that with a “she said, he said” situation among Supreme Court Justices and with at least one witness (possibly the Chief Justice) lying, this crime could not be proven to a jury. It is the special prosecutor’s job not to bring charges unless a crime could be proven to a jury. This is why Bradley will not be charged with what she has apparently done.
The Special Prosecutor offered, “You can review (the investigation records). You can decide whether I made the right decision.” At first, the Dane County Sheriff’s Office (Democrats and Bradley supporters) would not release the records when requested. The Democrat DA’s office also taped only one interview (Prosser’s), and destroyed the detective’s original notes before giving final reports to the Special Prosecutor. So major pieces of evidence may have been missing by the time Democrats handed the investigation over to the Special Prosecutor recently.
Madison Democrats have done a fine job of delaying the investigations, of covering for Bradley and of smearing Prosser simultaneously. They know how to cover their tracks, at least enough to avoid legal proof. The stench of suspicion is overwhelming, but the absolute proof is not there. The smell will dissipate, Democrats hope. But much useful delay has been achieved, and much damage has been done to a conservative’s reputation.
Shocking, Yet Consistent With Previous Tactics
These suggestions may sound shocking, but they are consistent with the uncivilized behavior of Madison Democrats which has been documented at Circus Madison Goes On. Democrats in Madison and elsewhere have been using Alinsky tactics, which espouse the use of any means at all, disregarding ethics, truth or law, to achieve their goals. These seem to be standard tactics now that Democrats are in a minority in Wisconsin.
Is It Fair to Blame Bradley Now, in the Absence of Absolute Proof?
Analysis of the details of the 70 page Dane County Sheriff’s Office Report reveals a number of clarifying, yet disturbing details.
- 3 witness Justices support Prosser’s innocence, while 1 witness Justice supports Bradley’s
- Wisconsin’s Speaker of the Assembly had informed the Court that a decision on the collective bargaining law was needed by June 14th, or the legislature would have to vote again (p37 of the Sheriff’s report).
- There was a commitment by everyone on the Court that the decision would go out on June 13th (p37).
- By evening of June 13th, Chief Justice Abrahamson had not finished her dissent statement, had not notified the Public Information Officer, had not notified the media, and had not issued a press release (p12). The other Justices began to suspect delay tactics were in use.
- Prosser’s ability to complete his supporting statement over the weekend was severely impaired by the absence of his law clerk. Page 39 of the Sheriff’s report indicates that Abrahamson and Bradley apologized to Prosser for the absence of his law clerk, so it is fair to assume that they were somehow responsible for the absence of Prosser’s law clerk. The reason for the law clerk’s absence is blacked out on the Democrat Sheriff’s report. Prosser managed to finish his statement despite the absence of the law clerk over the weekend.
- 3 Justices were almost ready to go over the Chief Justice’s head by the evening on June 13th, and wanted to issue a notice themselves that the opinion would go out on June 14th. Prosser disagreed, and insisted on going to talk to the Chief Justice first (p38).
- When the 4 Justices found Chief Justice Abrahamson outside Justice Bradley’s office the evening of June 13th, Chief Justice Abrahamson said that she might not be able to finish her statement until the end of the month (p63), missing the June 14th deadline and delaying an additional 2 weeks. Justice Prosser, in a separate statement (p39), said that he had seen these tactics before. (Delay tactics)
- All witnesses concur that it was at this point that Prosser told Abrahamson “Chief, I have lost confidence in your leadership.” He accused Abrahamson on “holding things up” (p23). Witness testimony differs only in his emotional state when he said this; 3 witnesses stating that Prosser was levelheaded or even quiet (“no shouting, no volume, no swearing, p63), but 1 witness, Abrahamson, saying that Prosser lost his temper.
- All agree that Bradley approached Prosser after his statement to Abrahamson. 3 witnesses say that Bradley flew at or charged Prosser with a fist raised. Even Bradley and Abrahamson admit that Bradley approached Prosser and that she came very close. Both Bradley and Abrahamson state that they expected Prosser to move back when Bradley approached. Prosser and his 3 witnesses say that Prosser blocked Bradley when she flew at him. Abrahamson’s law clerk (who was not a witness) was questioned directly after the incident by Abrahamson. She asked him hypothetically what he would do if a person “got in his face.” He answered that he would block that person (p7). That is what Prosser had done. Prosser’s testimony also indicated that there was a piece of furniture behind him preventing him from backing up.
- Even Abrahamson’s testimony (p10-11) admits that Bradley played an aggressive role, when she states that Prosser was “more of the aggressor.” This implies that Bradley was an aggressor, too, but less of one. In a lawyer’s world where words are carefully parsed, Abrahamson might try to argue that charging someone with fists raised might be considered “less of the aggressor” than blocking someone because you are not actually touching them.
- Even Bradley’s testimony acknowledges that Justice Roggensack, (who pulled her off Prosser) said to her “Ann, this is not like you, you charged him.”(p17).
- Bradley’s testimony admits that Prosser said “Justice Bradley and Justice Abrahamson have been threatening me for years.” They had been threatening him to go public if he did not go for counseling. But all others testify that there was no previous physical interaction, and that Prosser’s behavior was not previously problematic, other than occasionally getting as dramatic as Bradley. Bradley appears to admit that she and Abrahamson have been taunting Prosser for years, threatening to go public if he does not agree with them that he is abusive and must go for counseling. One has to question Bradley’s definition of abusive if she smacks people’s heads for calling the Chief Justice by her first name, or flies at them with her fists is they question the judgment of the Chief Justice calmly.
- According to everyone’s testimony, Bradley did not become emotional immediately after the incident. No further discussion occurred immediately, Bradley had no emotional reaction, and she went to her desk to type up some notes.
- Later, and throughout the following weeks and investigations, Bradley became repeatedly emotional, at home with her husband (p4), during the deputy report interview (p18), during the Capitol Police interview of all 7 Supreme Court Justices (p18). She admits repeating “Your hands were around my neck in a choke hold” like a “mantra” numerous times during meetings (p19). She admits that she expected Prosser to move backward, and did not expect his hands to touch her (p18). Why would she expect Prosser to move backwards if she were not charging him? How could he move backwards if there was a piece of furniture behind him?
- Bradley’s husband testified that Bradley had repeated bouts of sobbing and crying uncontrollably numerous times (p4). Parts of Bradley’s husband’s testimony in reference to Justice Bradley’s previous response to stress are blacked out in the Democrat Sheriff’s report. Mr. Bradley’s testimony portrays the picture of a very unstable woman. Was her delayed instability due to the delayed realization that she had gone too far this time, that Wisconsin may be losing a Justice, and that unless she plays the victim and goes on the offensive, that Justice might be her?
Further details have been known previously – Bradley’s failure to report this incident immediately, her failure to file charges against Prosser, and her eventual decision to report this through radical newspaper reporters who did not contact Prosser for his side of the story.
This picture is very consistent with two extreme Madison liberals, Bradley and Abrahamson, going further than it is customary for Supreme Court Justices to go, in furthering the Democrat agenda in Madison.
It is clear that they were trying to delay the implementation of the collective bargaining law yet one more time, and went too far. Chief Justice Abrahamson was trying to delay the official announcement of the Supreme Court decision until it missed the June 14th deadline, and Justice Bradley lost her temper and approached to strike a fellow Justice (as she had smacked another’s head previously) for not showing sufficient respect (defined as agreement in Bradley’s eyes) for Abrahamson.
Following the incident, it is not clear whether Bradley realized the seriousness of her actions in initiating the assault and started falling to pieces, or Democrats decided that this would provide them with a good opportunity to destroy Prosser’s reputation and remove him from the Supreme Court, which Democrats had tried to do and failed during the previous election. Whatever their motivation or plan, it backfired and they were not able to cover their tracks very well, even with the 2 month delay and hot-potato tossing and cover-ups by Democrats which ensued.
What IS clear, however, is that the bulk of the media is again skimming over details and protecting Madision liberals. You will not find many reports (other than the references quoted here) in support of Justice Prosser’s innocence. Most reports ingnore the 3-to-1 witness support Prosser has, and most reports blame the entire Supreme Court for dysfunction. They fail to recognize that the problem could be limited to only 2 radical Justices, who apparently support dubious and illegal tactics to achieve their goals. Two Madison radicals could constitute the entire problem.
I challenge anyone to make a similar case for Bradley, from the 70 page Sheriff’s report. Note that this was a Democrat Sheriff’s Office report from a Sheriff who supported Bradley in her election. Note that some portions of the report were blacked out, and that investigator’s original notes were destroyed by the Sheriff’s Office before handing materials over to the Special Prosecutor. If a report coming from this supporter’s office could be so damning, imagine the case that could be made if evidence was not missing. Already, evidence is beginning to surface that it is Bradley, not Prosser, who has the anger management problem.
What is fair?
In a fair world, those framing others and making false allegations should suffer the punishment their victim would have suffered. Bradley deserves the punishment she was trying to mete out unjustly to Prosser – the legal consequences of assaulting a Judge, plus perjury, and the social and political consequences of a destroyed reputation. Abrahamson should share in those charges. Her only advantage is that she did not personally assault the fellow Justice.
Where Do We Stand Now?
Wisconsin citizens suspect that we have liars, perjurers and assaulters on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, possibly including the Chief Justice. But the evidence has conveniently gone missing after being in the hands of Democrats for over 2 months. This may top everything that has gone on in Madison since January 2011. And so, we have the end of the Prosser-Bradley investigation. Our Supreme Court has been disgraced. Democrats have yet again delayed and covered-up while attempting to restore their power by hook or by crook after November 2010.
Where do we go from here?
The People of Wisconsin have survived all that Democrats could throw at them since January 2011.
More is sure to come.
When Alinsky tactics are being used against us, the opponent loses the advantage once we’ve got their number.
Now we’ve got their number.
We read, we wait, we pray and we vote.
Election 2012, here we come!