Thursday, July 5, 2012

David Prosser - Rule of Necessity!

David Prosser was recently in the news when his documents were released, showing him to be a complete immoral unethical ass. His latest escapade was to ask all of his colleagues to recuse themselves from reviewing his horrible judicial conduct. 

If Prosser can get two others to recuse themselves, Patience Roggensack already has(and Prosser will also) then the review of his conduct that is so desperately needed, will never happen.  While Prosser is unethical he is not dumb.  He knows that his conduct will not stand up to review so he works to make sure he is never held accountable. 

Luckily for the people of Wisconsin and our Justice system, Justice Crooks will NOT recuse himself and is ready to hear the case.  

I have given careful consideration to Justice David T. Prosser's motion for my recusal from participation in the judicial disciplinary proceedings against him, Case No. 2012AP566-J. Initially, I concluded that this recusal motion was premature because the judicial discipline statutes, Wis. Stat. § 757.81 through § 757.99 (2009-10), do not require this court to act at this stage in the proceedings. Nevertheless, I have decided that I now want to issue my decision on Justice Prosser's recusal motion.

I conclude that the legal rule known as the "Rule of Necessity," as well as the duty to sit on cases, requires me to remain on this case. After considering all of the arguments raised by Justice Prosser's recusal motion, I further conclude that Wis. Stat. § 757.19(2)(b) and (g), and SCR 60.04(4) do not require me to recuse in this matter.

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed the complaint against Justice Prosser in this court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 757.85(5) and did not request a jury. At this point, the statutes direct the chief judge of the court of appeals to select a judicial conduct panel. Wis. Stat. § 757.87(1), (3) (providing that "[t]he chief judge of the court of appeals shall select the judges and designate which shall be presiding judge"). Despite the statute's requirement, no panel has been selected. The Judicial Commission has now filed a motion titled "motion for designation to panel." (Capitalization omitted.) It asks this court to initiate the selection of a three-judge panel and to designate this matter to such a panel to make findings of fact, conclusions of law and a recommendation regarding the appropriate discipline in response to the complaint.

The complaint against Justice Prosser appears to allege ethical violations based on two incidents: (1) that Justice Prosser put his hands around the neck of Justice Ann Walsh Bradley on June 13, 2011, in Justice Bradley's chambers, and (2) a prior incident in which Justice Prosser said to Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson after a closed conference, "You are a total bitch." I was not present during the first incident. I was present during the second. The complaint is against a member of the court, and both incidents directly involved other members of the court. Justice Prosser has requested by letter that Justice Roggensack, Justice Ziegler and Justice Gableman recuse themselves and has filed motions for recusal against Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Bradley. Justice Roggensack has decided to recuse herself in this matter. If I were to grant Justice Prosser's motion for recusal, it is possible that this court would lack a quorum to act on the judicial disciplinary proceedings against Justice Prosser. Wis. Const. art. VII, § 4(1) ("Any 4 justices shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of the court's business.").(1)  

Justice Crooks is ready to roll in terms of hearing SWORN testimony in the Prosser case, under the "Rule of Necessity".  I can not think of anything more necessary than hearing this case and doling out the appropriate punishment to allow the people of Wisconsin to have faith in their government again

Our friend Illy T has much more here!   


  1. If this were a fiction novel, Justice Crooks and Justice Roggensack would switch names. You know those books where people have names that sort of indicate their character. But it is not fiction and I am just speculating. I was not a witness, thus, I shouldn't be judging anyone.

  2. Wait. This isn't a fiction novel?

  3. This stuff cannot be used in a John Grisham novel or even one of those science fiction- type, bad future-genre books.

    Why not?

    Good question, because, there is some good material here and there in our state these days. But, it is too farfetched, so it would be like that "Lost" show on tv, only since it is Wisconsin, and not some goofy island, it wouldn't work.

    You can see this when someone from another state is surprised at some news item from our state. They think it is something new and unusual and we would be surprised if it didn't happen that way.

    Like, if the GOP had just accepted the results of the recall in Racine, wouldn't you have been surprised? Yes, you would have been. You would also be surprised if the GAB gave a ticket or fine or whatever it is they do to people who commit real election fraud and didn't give one to both sides, even if one side was innocent. I could go on and on. But, you get the idea.