Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...

M
Category: Law

WILL Files Petition to Prevent Ballot Harvesting

by | 2231, 8 Jun 20 | , | 8 Comments

Good.

The News: The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), on behalf of a group of petitioners, submitted a rules petition to the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) asking the state agency to promulgate a rule that makes clear that the practice of ballot harvesting is illegal in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Elections Commission is required by state law to respond to WILL’s petition within a “reasonable period of time.”

[…]

WILL’s Rules Petition: Under Wisconsin law, only voters are allowed to request absentee ballots and voters are responsible for returning the ballot. This is the law except in very specific circumstances such as hospitalization. WILL, on behalf of the petitioners, is asking the Wisconsin Elections Commission to promulgate a rule that makes clear:

  • Third parties cannot request an absentee ballot on behalf of a voter
  • Third parties cannot collect and submit absentee ballots on behalf of a voter

The Wisconsin Elections Commission is required to consider the rules petition and either begin the rulemaking process or provide a response explaining why they are rejecting the petition.

Officer Who Killed George Floyd is Arrested

by | 1243, 29 May 20 | , | 187 Comments

Good. Let justice be done.

The former Minneapolis police officer seen in a video with his knee on George Floyd’s neck before the unarmed black man died this week was taken into custody Friday by state authorities, according to John Harrington, commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
The officer, Derek Chauvin, was taken into custody by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension as fires continued to burn from violent protests overnight as demonstrators demanded justice for Floyd.

Zuckerberg Breaks with Dorsey

by | 2123, 28 May 20 | , , | 1 Comment

Interesting 

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has criticized competitor Twitter for its decision to fact-check tweets from President Donald Trump.

In an interview with Fox News due to be broadcast on Thursday, Zuckerberg claims that it is not the place of private companies to interfere in what people say online.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey immediately fired back saying that the site would continue to call out ‘incorrect or disputed information’ about elections shared by users.

The spat between Zuckerberg and Dorsey came after Trump said he will sign some sort of ‘social media’-focused executive order on Thursday amid the rift with Twitter over the fact-checks on his tweets.

Trump To Issue Executive Order to Clarify Rules Around Liability for Internet Platforms

by | 1219, 28 May 20 | , , | 17 Comments

I’m very wary of things like this.

The order would push the Federal Communications Commission to write rules on when and how platforms can remove content from their platform and still maintain liability protection granted them under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The law as it stands largely exempts those publications from being held liable for much of the content on their websites.

The working order, which cites Twitter by name, would encourage the Federal Trade Commission to take action against companies that engage in “deceptive” acts of communication.

Outside of the current kerfuffle between Trump and Twitter, this debate has a deep history with huge implications. The debate revolves around the legal responsibility of people and companies who provide information platforms, carry/transport information, and perhaps operate a monopoly. Let’s take this blog, for example. Am I legally liable for what a commentator writes? In general, no. Part of what bolsters that relative protection is the fact that we don’t censor comments here. With rare exception – direct threat, spam, etc. – commentators can write whatever they want. If we got in the business of curating or filtering comments, then that liability potential increases. If I am curating the content, do I then own it? Someone might argue “yes.”

The discussion has roots back to medieval common carriage laws and norms. Here’s a great paper on some of the history and modern implications. It was written as part of the net neutrality debate, but has application here. Here’s a part:

Looking at the matter from a fresh perspective, it seems important to look at the entire regime of common carriage, not simply interconnection and non-discrimination—or even rate regulation and liability. And what emerges is a bargain that gives special legal liability in return for the carrier refraining from using some market power to further some public good. On one hand, the carrier gives away the right to discriminate on the basis of sender or content and in return receives immunity for liability for the content therein. On the other hand, the carrier agrees to moderate monopoly power against competitors, perhaps provides access to competitors in return for immunity from antitrust suit. Similarly, the increased standard of care reflects the market power of dominant communication and transportation firms enjoy vis à vis individual customers—and can be seen as a return for the privileges common carriers enjoy such as right of access etc.

In this regard, common carriage is a deal. The regulated industry has something the government wants—a universal communications platform that provides a valuable public good, notably free speech to further democratic deliberation. But, in return, the regulated industry receives preferential treatment from the government.

In the case of Twitter and Facebook, Trump is arguing, in his clumsy way, that those companies have surrendered their liability for content when they got into the business of regulating speech. If Twitter, for example, is going to curate, edit, and regulate content, do they also get to continue to enjoy liability protections for that content? If that’s the case, then shouldn’t such liability protections be extended to anyone to generates content?

Twitter, Facebook, and the like are going to have to make a choice. Either they can be agnostic platforms that carry content created by other people, in which case they enjoy certain legal liability protections for that content, or they can be content creators that create, modify, and curate content for consumption based on achieving their political or business objectives, in which case they are liable for the content. They can’t have it both ways.

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Local Lockdown Orders

by | 1110, 22 May 20 | , , | 50 Comments

Yes, they are unconstitutional. We have to nip in the bud the notion that our government can completely strip us of our civil rights based on a health scare – or anything else for that matter.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Business owners, candidates for office, a pastor and one of the organizers of last month’s “reopen Wisconsin” protest at the Wisconsin Capitol have filed a federal lawsuit alleging that local stay-at-home orders are unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, filed by 17 Wisconsin residents Wednesday in federal court in Milwaukee, challenges the local orders that took effect after the state Supreme Court last week tossed out Gov. Tony Evers’ statewide “safer at home” order as unconstitutional. The new lawsuit names 21 state and local Wisconsin public safety and health officials, including Evers and all members of the state elections commission, as defendants.

The lawsuit asks the judge to declare the local orders unconstitutional and void them all.

Lawless bureaucrats must be held to account

by | 0639, 19 May 20 | , | 52 Comments

I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty disgusted how high-level bureaucrats in Washington and Madison are never held accountable when they break the law. Shouldn’t losing their job be the least thing that should happen when they abuse their power and break the law? I think so and argue the case in my latest column for the Washington County Daily News today. Here’s a taste. Go pick up a copy!

What happens now? When a normal Wisconsinite is caught breaking the law, they are fined or jailed. When Palm’s illegal order was being enforced, Wisconsinites were being ticketed and arrested for doing things as simple as eating in a restaurant or playing basketball in a park. Will Secretary-designee Palm be held accountable for breaking the law?

Will her boss, Governor Evers, take responsibility for his employee’s blatant flaunting of the Constitution and the law?

So far, neither Evers nor Palm have indicated that they will accept any responsibility for violating the law. They will continue to cash their full paychecks and direct their opulent staffs courtesy of the very citizens they sought to oppress. They have committed to continue on without a modicum of contrition for their unlawful actions.

As an elected official, the voters will have to decide if Governor Evers should be held to account at the next election or sooner. But as an unconfirmed appointed secretary, the Wisconsin state Senate should immediately move to reject Palm’s confirmation so that the people of Wisconsin will no longer be subject to her lawless proclivities. She is clearly unfit for public service.

Rwandan Genocide Fugitive Captured

by | 1551, 17 May 20 | , | 1 Comment

Wow. It’s good to see some justice.

PARIS, May 17 (Reuters) – Rwandan genocide fugitive Felicien Kabuga, whose arrest on Saturday ended 26 years on the run, was a frail, elderly man who said little to neighbours and who would take a stroll most days outside of his apartment in a well-off suburb of Paris.

Kabuga, 84, Rwanda’s most wanted man with a $5 million bounty on his head, had been living under a false name in a five-storey apartment block in Asnieres-sur-Seine with the help of his children, according to France’s justice ministry.

Police detained him early on Saturday.

“I would see this man going out, maybe once a day, alone or with someone,” said Jean-Yves Breneol, 72, a resident in the same block where Kabuga lived. “He wouldn’t say a word, nothing.”

Breneol said he thought Kabuga might have lived in the building for four or five years.

[…]

A Hutu businessman, he is accused of creating and making contributions to a fund that raised finances to pay the youth militias that would slaughter some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, as well as importing huge numbers of machetes, according to the UN tribunal’s indictment.

Local Governments Rescind Unconstitutional Orders

by | 2045, 15 May 20 | , | 9 Comments

Some sense is prevailing outside of Milwaukee and Madison.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Some local health officials in Wisconsin rescinded their stay-at-home orders Friday after attorneys warned they could be vulnerable to legal challenges after the state Supreme Court wiped out Gov. Tony Evers’ statewide order.

But the Wisconsin Counties Association said after Wednesday’s ruling that it was unclear whether whether local orders mimicking the statewide mandate would stand up in court. By Friday, health officials in Kenosha, Brown, Manitowoc and Outagamie counties had dropped orders, as did the cities of Cudahy and Appleton. State Department of Health Secretary

“While the WCA and outside legal counsel did not opine that counties were outright prohibited from taking such actions, they did indicate that overall, the legal basis to do so is likely weak,” Brown County’s attorney, David Hemery, said in a letter Friday to the county’s health officer, Anna Destree.

Wisconsin’s largest and most liberal counties, Milwaukee and Dane, home to about 1.5 million of the state’s 6 million residents, left their orders in place.

“Emergency Order 28 is declared unlawful, invalid, and unenforceable.”

by | 1726, 13 May 20 | , | 39 Comments

Hey look. The Supreme Court agrees with me. Go about your business, folks.

IV. CONCLUSION

¶58 We conclude that Emergency Order 28 is a rule under the controlling precedent of this court, Citizens for Sensible Zoning, Inc. v. DNR, 90 Wis. 2d 804, 280 N.W.2d 702 (1979), and therefore is subject to statutory emergency rulemaking procedures established by the Legislature. Emergency Order 28 is a general order of general application within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 227.01(13) which defines “Rule.” Accordingly, the rulemaking procedures of Wis. Stat. § 227.24 were required to be followed during the promulgation of Order 28. Because they were not, Emergency Order 28 is unenforceable.21 Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 252.25 required that Emergency Order 28 be promulgated using the procedures established by the Legislature for rulemaking if criminal penalties were to follow. Because Palm did not follow the
law in creating Order 28, there can be no criminal penalties for violations of her order. The procedural requirements of Wis. Stat. ch. 227 must be followed because they safeguard all people.

¶59 We further conclude that Palm’s order confining all people to their homes, forbidding travel and closing businesses 21 This decision does not apply to Section 4. a. of Emergency Order 28.  exceeded the statutory authority of Wis. Stat. § 252.02, upon which Palm claims to rely. By the Court.—Palm’s Emergency Order 28 is declared unlawful, invalid, and unenforceable.

Most disappointing is that Justice Hagedorn voted in the minority with a ridiculous rationale. This comes after he went lefty on taking up the ballot issue a few months ago. Make no mistake, once Justice Kelly leaves the court, this is now a 4-3 LIBERAL Supreme Court.

Wisconsin’s Constitutional Problem

by | 0657, 6 May 20 | , | 14 Comments

This is the heart of the problem with Governor Evers’ power grab.

“There is a constitutional problem with the Legislature giving away this much power to an unelected cabinet secretary,” Bradley said. “The people never consented to a single individual having that much power.”

Whether or not you think the order is a good idea or not, Americans have purposefully divided power in their government to prevent the concentration of power.

Think about how this power could be abused (if you don’t think it’s being abused already). Imagine that they declare smoking a health crisis and the Health Secretary orders anyone caught smoking (tobacco or Mary Jane) or vaping to be imprisoned. Or perhaps too much screen time is declared a health emergency so the government regulates your screen time from the ISP. Or having large groups of kids together spreads disease so a bureaucrat closes all public schools. I’m struggling to come up with a farcical example because I could see any of these things being done if we concentrate that much power in the hands of a few… or one.

We are a self-governing people and our Constitution was constructed precisely to prevent something like this. Separate, coequal powers; checks and balances; elected officials making laws; Rule of Law; etc… these are the roots to which we must return.

Evers Agrees To Follow Law

by | 0759, 4 May 20 | , | 3 Comments

It’s not just on shutdown orders where the Evers Administration is breaking the law. He truly doesn’t think that the law should apply to him.

Gov. Tony Evers’ administration will hand over 10,000 pages of records to Republican Rep. John Nygren to settle an open records lawsuit he filed in November.

Under the terms of the settlement reached by the Department of Justice, the state will pay $40,000 in fees to Nygren’s private attorneys.

Nygren, R-Marinette, sued Evers in November to compel his office to turn over records related to farmer mental health programs run by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection his office had denied in full. Nygren had requested the records in August. Senate Republicans ended up firing Evers’ agriculture secretary for criticizing them about the funding for those programs.

Nygren’s lawsuit was one of several instances where Evers has come under fire for his open records practices. In filing his lawsuit, Nygren — who has himself come under fire over transparency — chided the governor’s records denial as shameful.

This was a pretty routine open records request and the law is clear. Despite that, Evers concealed, fought, and eventually cost the taxpayers tens of thousand of dollars to defend Evers’ vanity.

City Reverses Mask Order After Citizenry Gets Uppity

by | 2207, 3 May 20 | , | 41 Comments

Good. I hope that all municipal governments and police departments remember who they serve.

An Oklahoma city has reversed an emergency proclamation requiring shoppers to wear face masks due to threats of violence.

Stillwater, located about 65 miles northeast of Oklahoma City, started to reopen businesses on Friday morning as part of the state’s phased-opening program. That included salons, barber shops, restaurants, gyms, museums and movie theaters.

The city had required customers to wear masks in stores and restaurants. But the mayor quickly amended that policy on Friday afternoon after employees were “threatened with physical violence and showered with verbal abuse” in the span of three hours, Stillwater City Manager Norman McNickle said in a statement. There was one threat of violence using a firearm, he added.

And if you want to wear a mask, then by all means… wear a mask.

Supreme Court Takes Case. Will Hold Hearings on Tuesday.

by | 0649, 2 May 20 | , , | 25 Comments

Ugh.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Friday said it would take up a controversial case that could result in the suspension of Gov. Tony Evers’ stay-at-home order, implemented to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.

The 6-1 decision is a setback for the Evers administration, which wanted the court to throw it out. Now, attorneys for the administration and Republican Legislature, which brought the lawsuit, will present their arguments via videoconferencing on Tuesday, after which the court could rule.

It frustrates the hell out of me that the court moves so slow. For most of the court’s business, time is not of the essence. They are deciding on some legal issue about an incident that is long over and the immediate impact of that decision impacts very few. But when there is something going on RIGHT NOW that requires a decision, the people deserve for them to act faster.

In this case, we have a rogue executive branch that is seizing dictatorial powers to usurp the power of the legislature and rule by decree. The governor is violating every Wisconsinite’s civil rights and causing incredible irreparable harm to the economy and lives of millions of citizens. If there was ever a time that required swift action by the court to restore the division of powers and uphold the people’s rights, this is it.

The court showed that they can at swiftly when required. Just a few weeks ago, they acted within hours of Evers’ unconstitutional attempt to move the election. Why can’t they do that here? That’s the wrong question. They can do it here. Why are they choosing to plod along?

Supreme Court Rejects Teachers Union’s Attempt to Intervene

by | 0636, 29 Apr 20 | , | 6 Comments

I was deeply amused by the court’s order:

A motion to intervene, both as of right and with the permission of the court; an alternative motion for leave to file a non-party brief, amicus curiae; a proposed brief in response to the petition for leave to commence an original action and the accompanying motion for temporary injunctive relief; and an affidavit of counsel in support of the proposed brief having been filed by the Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association, et al.;

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to intervene is denied; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a non-party brief, amicus curiae, is denied. The court’s April 21, 2020 order expressly stated that a non-party brief, which must be attached to a motion for leave to file it, “shall not exceed 20 pages if a monospaced font is used or 4,400 words if a proportional serif font is used.” The proposed non-party brief submitted with this motion fails to comply with this order as it is 74 pages in length.

Notice that the brief was not rejected because of any of the content or some arcane legal rule. It was rejected because they didn’t follow instructions on the format! The TEACHERS. They didn’t follow the formatting instructions. Bwhahahahaha.

And it’s not like it was some minor technicality like screwing up citing in APA format or anything. It was supposed to be no more than 20 pages and they turned in SEVENTY FOUR PAGES!

That’s hilarious…

Racine Sheriff Defends Civil Rights Against Tyrannical State Government

by | 1609, 17 Apr 20 | , | 94 Comments

Excellent.

4/17/2020 I want to take this opportunity to notify Racine County citizens of our position on the enforcement of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services public health emergency orders. Wisconsin law gives the Governor and the Wisconsin DHS the authority to develop emergency measures and enforce rules and orders to protect the public during a health crisis. However, state law does not have the power to supersede or suspend the Constitutional rights of American citizens. I urge the Wisconsin DHS to develop a workable plan that balances the safety of our citizens while at the same time acknowledging the fact that there is a way for business to operate even during the current health situation. I have all the confidence in Racine County business owners that they can make the appropriate adjustments in the way they operate during this difficult time to accommodate for the safety of their employees and guests. The overreaching measures taken by State government will have dire lifetime consequences for businesses, homeowners, and families. I took an oath to uphold the constitutional rights of our citizens and I can not in good faith participate in the destruction of Racine County businesses or interfere in the freedoms granted to all of us by our Constitution. Wisconsin law gives the authority and the responsibility for investigating and enforcing public health violations to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services and local health departments. We will leave the enforcement of public health orders to the health department experts. It is important that we stay focused on our obligations and responsibilities to those areas of the law that we are charged with enforcing. We have and will continue to concentrate our resources and efforts at keeping our roads safe and protecting our citizens from criminal activity. COVID-19 isn’t going to go away any time soon. I strongly encourage all of us to start thinking of our new “normal” way of doing business. Let’s get Racine County back on its feet again and move ahead. I understand the seriousness of the current health situation and I urge all Racine County citizens to continue to be responsible and to follow the social distancing, mask and hygiene recommendations of the CDC and the Wisconsin DHS. Let’s continue to look out for our neighbors and those less fortunate around us. Brighter days are ahead. Sheriff Christopher Schmaling

SCOTUS Upholds Election Laws

by | 1841, 6 Apr 20 | , | 5 Comments

Excellent. A two-fer today.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court blocked a plan to extend absentee voting in Wisconsin’s spring primary by six days because of the coronavirus.

The Wisconsin election is being viewed as a national test case in a broader fight over voter access.

The Supreme Court’s decision came shortly after the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-2 on Monday that Evers lacked the authority to move the election on his own.

It’s not about whether or not when we should have the deadlines for voting, absentee ballots, etc. It’s about who gets to decide. The People through their elected representatives and a legislative process? Or a single man in a black robe? In this case, as in the case of Evers, the People get to decide these things through our elected government. We are not subjects. We are citizens.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Thwarts Evers’ Unconstitutional Power Grab

by | 1735, 6 Apr 20 | , | 2 Comments

Good.

MADISON – The Wisconsin Supreme Court reinstated Tuesday’s election Monday, five hours after Democratic Gov. Tony Evers called it off because of the widening coronavirus pandemic.

In a brief 4-2 ruling, the court undid an emergency order that Evers issued that would have closed the polls. Their decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by Republican lawmakers.

Monday’s on-again, off-again election triggered chaos across the state as election officials told clerks to continue preparing for an election because they did not know whether the polls would open.

Before the court acted, at least two local government leaders as of Monday afternoon issued their own orders to block in-person voting.

The high court’s ruling fell along ideological lines. Four conservatives — Chief Justice Patience Roggensack and Justices Rebecca Bradley, Brian Hagedorn and Annette Ziegler — were in the majority. Liberal Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and Rebecca Dallet were in dissent.

What should worry you is that despite the fact that, by Evers’ own admission, it was very clear that Evers was usurping power, the two liberal justices used their power to try to ignore the constitution and the law in favor of influencing a political outcome. That is why we need to make sure that Dan Kelly remains on the court to protect the people from judicial rule.

Republicans Call for Religious Freedom During Pandemic

by | 1018, 6 Apr 20 | , , , | 2 Comments

And Evers said “no.”

Assembly Republicans are calling on Gov. Tony Evers to allow in-person services for Easter and Passover amid the deadly coronavirus pandemic.

“It is more important than ever that we allow Wisconsinites to observe their individual faiths,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and the other members of the Assembly GOP caucus wrote in a Friday letter to Evers. “To that end, we ask that you work with Wisconsin churches and temples to allow them to hold Easter or Passover services, even if it’s outside.”

Evers declined the request.

“As a state and as a nation, we are heading into the worst of this public health crisis,” Evers spokeswoman Melissa Baldauff said. “The governor understands that for many Wisconsinites their faith is a source of comfort, especially in these difficult times, but in order to protect the health and safety of all Wisconsinites he will not be rolling back the provisions of the Safer at Home order.”

Jenna Ellis has some interesting thoughts on this at The Federalist.

Church is essential, and the free exercise of religion is specifically enumerated in our First Amendment because the founders understood how essential spiritual activity and religious liberty are to people and society. For a state government to take any action that specifically distinguishes churches as “non-essential” is contrary to the First Amendment’s purpose. It’s a dangerous precedent that government could consider itself the arbiter of private essential services.

Government’s action to prohibit mass gatherings, including church gatherings, is constitutionally sound for the temporary timeframe that the Wuhan coronavirus provides a compelling state interest rationale for stay-at-home orders. The virus is highly contagious, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations are the best-known ways to stop its spread. Because the virus does not distinguish between mass concert gatherings and mass church gatherings, the government can properly issue a neutral order that does not intentionally target religious groups.

 

 

Police Interrupt Church Service on Palm Sunday

by | 1846, 5 Apr 20 | , | 21 Comments

This is tyranny. Hat tip to Matt Batzel.

The church was live streaming their service. The people involved in the service were there, but the pews were empty. After getting a call from someone, the West Bend Police actually interrupted the service.

Our freedom of religion and our freedom of assembly are being oppressed. This is unconscionable and the West Bend Police Department should be ashamed of themselves.

Login | Register

Archives

Categories

Pin It on Pinterest