This smells.

The Office of Lawyer Regulation has dismissed a complaint accusing Dem Susan Happ of a conflict of interest for how her office handled the case of a man facing sexual assault charges while he had a land deal with the Jefferson County DA and her husband.

Happ’s campaign on Monday released the OLR letter in which intake investigator Cathe Hahn wrote there was not “a sufficient basis to proceed” on the complaint filed by the victim in the case. Hahn also wrote the original complaint did not offer sufficient proof that Happ violated any rules of professional conduct.

Happ (left) has argued she handed off the case to an assistant and took necessary steps to wall herself off from the investigation, which has become an issue in the AG’s race. Hahn’s letter said if Happ was “timely screened” from the case she would not have violated conflict of interest rules, and attorneys for both Happ and Assistant DA Monica Hall said that happened.

There are a few things that stink about this. First, the OLR has been complaining of an unsustainable backlog of cases with a record number of cases at least one year old. And yet they managed to take up Happ’s case, investigate it, and clear it within a month. That means that someone at that office decided to prioritize Happ’s case above a lot of other cases. Why? Was it to head off this damaging political story before the election?

Second, the investigator from OLR signed the Walker recall petition. While that was certainly her right, it hardly leads an honest observer to believe that she is a dispassionate investigator when looking into the Democratic candidate for Attorney General.

Third, what was actually investigated? The story says that “Happ was “timely screened” from the case she would not have violated conflict of interest rules, and attorneys for both Happ and Assistant DA Monica Hall said that happened.” So Happ and her ADA both said that they followed the rules. Of course they did. Did the investigator actually investigate their assertions? Did she dig into their emails and phone records? Did she interview other people in the office? Did she interview the victim and her lawyer? What about the perpetrator and his lawyer? Court personnel? Just how much investigating did Hahn actually do in the month between when the complaint was filed and when she issued her opinion? According to her actual letter, the answer is no. All Hahn did was talk to Happ and here ADA’s lawyers and just took their word for it. No wonder it only took a month. With that kind of “investigating,” all she needed was an afternoon.

None of this changes the truth what actually happened. Happ’s office delayed and eventually reduced the charges to a slap on the wrist for a man accused of repeated sexual assault of a child. And this happened at a time when Happ was receiving money from the accused man as part of a land deal. Whatever some joke investigator for the OLR says, that ain’t right.

Heh.

MADISON — Democratic attorney general candidate Susan Happ promises to crack down on for-profit colleges that she says prey on Wisconsin students and veterans.

Happ released a plan Friday that calls on partnering with attorneys general in other states and with federal agencies to find the best ways to address deceptive practices by unscrupulous for-profit colleges.

Setting aside, for a moment, the merit of the issue, why is Happ pushing this? There haven’t been any recent news stories about for-profit colleges preying on students. This hasn’t been brought up in the campaign until now. Why make an issue that very few people care about and that is on nobody’s radar a campaign push a month before the election?

Well, as Happ searches around among the pressing issues of the day to use in the campaign, the popular ones are all unfavorable to her. Push to crack down on illegal campaign activity? The unpopular John Doe investigation is continuing to look like the illegal and vindictive crusade of an out-of-control Democratic D.A. while the intended victim, Scott Walker, is advancing in the polls. Happ doesn’t want to attach her name to that.

Should Happ take the traditional “tough on crime” stance that voters find popular in candidates for Attorney General? That’s a hard place for Happ because then voters will take a look at her record as D.A. to see if she has been tough on crime. That record shows that Happ has a very checkered record with letting serious criminals off with a slap on the wrist.

Should Happ go after the ever-unpopular sex offenders -ooo, or even better – child sex offenders? Happ can’t do that. There are already two examples in the news of her being unbelievably soft on sex offenders as D.A. – including one with whom she had a financial relationship. She can’t bring that up.

So that’s why Happ is stuck hanging her hat on for-profit colleges with exactly a month to go until the election. It’s safe and doesn’t open the door to anything in her past. It is also not going to get anyone excited about her campaign. Meanwhile, it is a ploy to get the support of the employees in the UW system by going after UW’s competition. But she likely had most of their votes already.

As for the issue itself, whatever. Nobody wants businesses to be predatory, but it is also the responsibility of the consumers to educate themselves before buying an education. I suspect that there are plenty of consumers who feel like they got swindled by non-profit schools too.

Good. It’s a scandal that this victim was likely denied justice because of Happ’s financial relationship with the perpetrator.

MADISON (WKOW) — The victim of a crime originally charged as a felony, child sex assault submitted an ethical complaint against attorney general candidate Susan Happ, stating Happ refused to consider relinquishing prosecution of the case, even though Happ had sold a home to the accused man.

“I did ask the prosecution/trial for the case to be moved to another jurisdiction or prosecuting office and was told by Happ’s constituents that is was not possible or happening,” the victim writes in her grievance to the state office of lawyer regulation. 27 News is not identifying the woman because she is the victim of an alleged sex assault.

Happ – Jefferson County’s district attorney – signed the summons involved in the May 2013 charging of 36 year old Daniel Reynolds of Jefferson with two counts of felony, child sex assault, but the case was assigned to Assistant District Attorney Monica Hall.

In May 2012, property records show Reynolds submitted the final installment of a $180,000 payment to Happ and her husband, Laurence Rupprecht, for the purchase of their home.

In March 2014, Reynolds entered into a deferred prosecution agreement signed by Hall, reducing criminal charges to misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct, and requiring him to remain crime-free for a year, and pay for the victim’s therapy, or face the possibility of sex-crime charges being reinstated.

“I believe that Reynolds got off easy in this case due to his connection to Happ,” the victim writes in the grievance. “Reynolds who molested me got away with it.”