The Republican special prosecutor recently appointed to investigate allegations by WI Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley that her fellow anger-management challenged Justice David Prosser had placed her in a “choke-hold” during recent deliberations over the anti-union legislation of Prosser’s former colleague Gov. Scott Walker.
See Milwaukee’s Journal-Sentinel coverage of this news yesterday for the complete, insane details.
In a terse announcement from the prosecutor, Sauk County District Attorney Patricia Barrett would say only that she had “determined that no criminal charges will be filed against either Justice Bradley or Justice Prosser for the incident on June 13, 2011.”
The letter notes that Barrett reviewed transcribed reports from law enforcement officials given to her after Dane County Democratic District Attorney Ismael Ozanne recused himself from the case, as the matter over which the Supreme Dispute took place was a lawsuit he had brought charging that the anti-union bill in question was passed by Republican legislators in violation of the state’s open meetings law. The newly-assigned prosecutor also reviewed an audiotape interview with Prosser who was, apparently, the only one who had a taped interview. In addition to Bradley, four of the other Justices were said to have been witness to the fracas.
According to the Journal-Sentinel, “Barrett declined to say whether she had rejected charges because no criminal conduct had occurred or because no crime could be proven to a jury. She would say only that a case must meet both those standards before a prosecutor could bring charges”…
In a written statement following word that there would be no criminal charges, Prosser said Bradley “made the decision to sensationalize an incident that occurred at the Supreme Court.” He said he “was confident the truth would come out and it did. I am gratified that the prosecutor found these scurrilous charges were without merit.”
That is not, of course, what the prosecutor actually stated that she found…
For her part, in her own statement Bradley said the matter “is and remains an issue of workplace safety.” She said her “focus from the outset has not been one of criminal prosecution, but rather addressing workplace safety.”
“I contacted law enforcement the very night the incident happened,” wrote Bradley, “but did not request criminal prosecution. Rather I sought law enforcement’s assistance to try to have the entire court address informally this workplace safety issue that has progressed over the years.”
It was the Dane County Sheriff’s Department that referred the case to a prosecutor.
Today, the Sheriff’s Dept. released the records from the investigation, though a spokesperson would not comment on why only the interview with Prosser was tape-recorded. The police records are now posted as PDFs here and here.
If you don’t have time to plow through the complete records (I don’t myself right now, as I’ve been buried, again, in the exclusive series I’ve been working on for some time — watch for it, finally, next week! Unless Irene manages to blow it back for yet another week!) please see the coverage of the records at the Wisconsin State Journal and the remarkable he-said, she-said accounts from each of Prosser and Bradley’s interviews at TPM here.
Prosser seems to have the disposition of a petulant four year-old, from our limited reading of the report documents, and from what we know of his other behavior (such as this video-taped incident when he angrily snatched a mic from a reporter asking him about the choking allegations.)
Previously, Prosser admitted to calling Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson a “total bitch” and vowed to “destroy” her.
“There will be a war against you and it will not be a ground war,” Prosser is alleged to have said, leading Abrahamson and Bradley to their growing concerns about their workplace safety.
When his earlier verbal assault against Abrahamson came to light during his recent and extraordinarily contentious re-election last April, Prosser admitted that while he “probably overreacted,” he thought “it was entirely warranted,” since “They [Abrahamson and Bradley] are masters at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements. This is bullying and abuse of very, very long standing.”
Moreover, as The BRAD BLOG reported in a special investigation during his re-election debacle this Spring, the partisan Prosser has even admitted to taking part in felonious behavior during his time as Assembly Speaker and leader of the Assembly Republican Caucus.
Prosser was a member of the 4 to 3 court majority that hastily overturned a lower court’s decision which had temporarily nullifyied the GOP bill that stripped public union workers of many of their rights to negotiate with the government. He was blasted by the minority for his 8-page concurrence to the remarkable finding that the state’s open meetings laws don’t actually apply to the state legislature.
The physical incident between Prosser and Bradley arose from Prosser’s push to issue the court’s decision quickly, at the request of the GOP-majority legislature.
Chief Justice Abrahamson wrote of Prosser’s written concurrence in the decision that it was “long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant.” The minority described the decision as “a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law, which undermines the majority’s ultimate decision.”
Abrahamson’s suggestion in response to the prosecutor’s decision to not bring criminal charges could even be more extraordinary. According to the Journal-Sentinel, in a written statement yesterday, her first public comment about the June “choke-hold” incident, “she would propose ‘the presumption will be that court conferences are open to the public,’ as a way to lead the fractious court back toward civility.”
Does she mean that even deliberations between Justices will now be open to the public? That remains unclear at this point.
In the meantime, the choking allegations are still being investigated by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission which oversees the state’s ethics code for judges. However, any findings of wrongdoing brought by that commission would be subject to a hearing before — you guessed it — the state Supreme Court, where two of the Justices were directly involved in the event and four others were witness, leaving just one Justice to hear actually the case?
Yes, this matter is all that insane. See the Journal-Sentinel’s coverage for the full, remarkable details and fall-out from the prosecutors decision, and the other links above for the nitty-gritty on the actual police reports on the physical altercation with Prosser in the office of Bradley’s assistant.
Bradley should file a restraining order.
Really, can anyone be surprised by this? Of course he won’t be charged. Never. For anything.
Inside or outside Bradley’s office?
As recounted by TPM [emphasis added]:
Prosser claims that Bradley “came out of her office towards him” and that he simply raised his hands as a reflex.
Hmmm! Did Bradley insist a belligerent Prosser leave her office or did Bradley charge Prosser who was standing “outside” of her office?
While Brad has touched upon many of the issues surrounding past Prosser misconduct, the conflict on whether he was inside or outside Bradley’s office calls to mind another of the twisted WI Supreme Court tales.
Did Prosser and Walker privately meet on 4/6/11 — the same day Walker speculated about the possible discovery of missing ballots; and one day prior to Kathy Nickolaus’ ‘discovery’?
Recall that in her complaint to the GAB, Ass. Attorney General Jo Ann Kloppenburg alleged that, on “Wednesday, April 6, 2011, Justice Prosser was observed entering the Governor’s Office late in the evening and attending a private, one-on-one meeting with Governor Scott Walker.â€
That same evening, Walker publicly stated that there might be “ballots somewhere, somehow found out of the blue that weren’t counted before.â€
Kloppenburg alleged that, prior to Nickolaus’ announcement at her 04/07/11 press conference that she had “discovered†14,000 missing Brookfield ballots that changed a narrow Kloppenburg lead to a 7,500 Prosser margin of victory, “the National Review online, reported the change in Waukesha County’s election results.
The Journal Sentinel then reported: “Prosser angrily repeated denials Thursday that he had met with Gov. Scott Walker shortly after the court election.”
Subsequently, Mark Crispin Miller reported:
Right, David Prosser, we’re supposed to believe that one day after an election that gave your opponent a narrow lead, you decided to go to Walker’s office to collect mementos; that it was a coincidence that Walker speculated on the possibility of a discovery missing ballots; that just happened to be found by your former subordinate Kathy Nicholaus the next day. Just as we’re supposed to believe that you were so intimidated by the approach of a female justice, that you had to grab her by her neck in self-defense.
Allow me to say why he wasn’t prosecuted.
He is a rethuglican and the prosecutor was rethuglican, that is all needs to be said.
Rethuglicans are all pretty much disgusting to the core
GOP-NAZIS always always always PROTECT THEIR OWN.
Rule of law be damned.
Hi Brad,
In the past few days, Professor Althouse has published some very lengthy, and to me, convincing, analyses of the investigation. And with her analysis, it really does look as though Ann Walsh Bradley is not only the aggressor in the physical incident, but a false accuser to boot, in that she made some pretty nasty claims against Prosser, none of which hold up.
If that’s true, I don’t understand the progressive ideal in supporting her.
And so I encourage you, ask you, suggest that you take the time, and it will be a lot time, to look at Althouse’s analysis and write a critique and rebuttal.
Thank you, and best wishes,
Too bad, Anon, that you did not provide a link.
The account from Ann Althouse that I read is neither “lengthy” nor “convincing.” In fact, it isn’t even an “analysis.”
All that Althouse did was recount the dispute amongst witnesses as to what went down, some saying that Walsh-Bradley not only charged towards Prosser but had her fists raised as she did.
Althouse, who does not appear to have read the actual witness statements (see my comment @3) and fails to mention the gaping contradiction between Prosser’s claim that he was standing outside of Walsh-Bradley’s office as opposed to Walsh-Bradley’s account that she pointed past his shoulder and demanded he get out of the office, states:
Here are the questions Althouse neglected to address in her so-called “analysis.”
That, anon, is what an analysis of evidence looks like.
There’s little difference between Althouse’s “account” and the scurrilous right-wing claims that Ass. AG Joanne Kloppenburg should have been disciplined for accusing Prosser of meeting with Walker the day after the election.
The problem with those right-wing charges is that, after Prosser angrily denied that he went to Walker’s office one day after the election, later admitted he was there, but claimed he was only seeking to obtain mementos.
The Althouse theory of a conspiracy to destroy Prosser’s reputation is absurd. What reputation?
We’re talking about a WI Supreme Court Justice who confessed that, when he was the GOP Speaker of the WI Assembly, he participated in a partisan-related felony. That same Prosser called the Chief Justice a “total bitch” and threatened to “destroy” her. He was caught on camera angrily snatching a microphone out of a reporter’s hand.
If Althouse had any integrity, she would address the question of whether a WI Supreme Court Justice who confessed to taking part in a partisan-related felony should remain on the bench.
After reading all the accounts from all the justices it is obvious that you are an ideologue and attacking Prosser simply because he is a conservative.
1) It is undisputed that Bradley charged Prosser after Prosser stated he lost confidence in her leadership. He stated he lost confidence because the chief justice was improperly attempting to delay publication of a decision where she was in the minority.
2) It is undisputed that as she charged Prosser put his hands up to defend himself as if he were trying to hold her shoulders to keep her back but she charged right into his arms
3) It is undisputed he did not put any pressure at all in an attept to choke her.
ALL the accounts agree on the above.
What is in disagreement is not very significant-
A)whether Prosser, Bradley or the Chief Justice were speaking in a loud voice at any time prior to Bradley charging Prosser.
4 justices (including Prosser) say that Bradley and the Chief Justice were using elevated voices at times while Prosser was not. Bradley and the Chief Justice deny using loud voices and claim it was Prosser said some things in a loud voice.
A majority of the witnesses make Bradley and the Chief Justice look like the ones with problems.
In fact, one justice stated that Bradley smacked him in the back for calling the Chief Justice by her first name. He and other justices said she has a very protective mother daughter relationship with the Chief Justice and that anytime she perceives disrespect she either becomes verbally or physically absuive.
Bradley appears to be the one with the problem if you actually look at the evidence.
B) Another factual dispute that is not that important is that the witnesses (except the Chief Justice and participant Bradley) stated that Bradley charged with her fist in Prosser’s face. I suppose if true this gives even more justification for Prosser to put his hands up to try to hold her back but just charging at him is sufficient for that.
Interestingly one of the liberal clerks tried to defend Bradley by saying she always raises her fist when she speaks. This was meant to try to save her from facing a charge of assault and saying that it should be perceived by everyone who endures it as non-threatening but it helped to corroborate the statement of the other justices who said Bradley had her fist in his face.
C) The final dispute is over when Bradley told Prosser to get out. It has no bearing at all on the assualt claim. While Bradley and the Chief Justice claim Bradely told him to leave when she charged him, the other witnesses say she charged yelling at him for being disrespectful to the Chief Justice and after she ran into his arms that is when she told him to get out.
Some additional observations:
As soon as the incident ended one conservative female justice told police she was still with Bradley and the Chief Justice. She noted that the Chief justice did not ask Bradley if she was ok as any friend would have done if the friend had been attacked or choked. Moreover, Bradley neither held her neck as someone who was hurt would do nor even checked her neck to see if it was red. he siad neither discussed the event either rather Bradley immediately sat down and began to type as if nothing had happened.
Interestingly others also accuse Bradely of being a drama queen. By all rights it appears that Bradley was not disturbed at all at the time but rather made up the claim later that she was fearful.
What I find most interesting is that Bradley was crying to the Police when they were asking her questions. She said she was tired of being accused of yelling and tantrums and hitting people (such as the smack in the back of the head I guess). It appears that she is the one who doesn’t have it together.
Indeed part of her crying was because another justice told her that if Prosser needed help then so does she because she is just as bad or worse.
I have a seriosu quesiton. If Prosser never put his hands on her before ever and only did it after she charged him and got within inches of his face and never applies any pressure at all (her own words were he applied no pressure at all)
then why would she have to fear him?
He did not approach her he only put his hands on her when she wa sin his face. All she has to do is stay out of his face to avoid him placing his hands on her to try to keep her back. Her claim she is in fear over this makes no sense.
That is in fact what the other justices told her after the meeting that took place about this incident. She was hoping to try to get the other justices to encourage Prosser to leave because she doesn’t like it that the conservatives hold a majority.
After the other justices took her to task at that meeting for her theatrics (which is a kind way to say she is a dramaqueen) is when she contacted the press to report Prosser attacked her.
Far from it being Prosser’s claim that she charged him it is an undisputed fact because all the witnesses agree she approached him and got right in his face and yelled at him, most witnesses also say she was waving her fist in her face. As she was charging him screming at him he put his arms up to try to hold her back but instead she ran into his arms. So they were on her shoulder/neck area to hold her back and all witnesses say he didn’t choke her he simply had his hands up to hold her back. Even Bradley said he applied no pressure at all.
You have to laugh that liberals say Prosser did something wrong when it was Bradley who charged him yelling. That seems to suggest she has the problems not him.
right in his face
The bottom line in this is exceedingly simple.
Something interesting is that
This tends to corrorborate
John P wrote @8 wrote:
Fact: Prosser never said anything about Bradley’s leadership. Bradley is not the Chief Justice.
It appears that in the world according to John P anything that Prosser says is “undisputed.”
Here is Justice Bradley’s account — which does not accord with yours:
Justice Bradley stated her intention was to get close to him to make sure he knew that she meant it. Justice Bradley said she wanted to look him in the eyes and recalled that she did not point at his face, but was pointing over his right shoulder towards the door that was behind him.
Justice Bradley said it was at this point Justice Prosser grabbed her by the neck in what she described as a “choke hold.”
It also appears that John P likes to make shit up to bolster his arguments. Even Prosser does not claim that Bradley charged “into his arms.” Instead, Prosser claimed, “When she got near him, her right fist was in his face.”
The statement summaries, include the following [emphasis added]:
So tell me, JohnP, if Prosser’s move were a defensive gesture as a reflex action because Bradley raised her fist towards his face, how is it that the much taller Prosser’s two hands ended up on both sides of her neck?
Sounds like a “choke hold” to me.
Finally, John P, please answer two simple questions.
Do you believe that someone who confessed to taking part in a partisan-motivated felony (misuse of state employee’s and resources for partisan political gain) belongs on the bench?
Did you refrain from commenting upon this unassailable point because you regard Prosser as an ideologically kindred spirit?
ASk John how much Koch is paying for him, and whether Koch is paying for his health insurance.