Saturday, September 29, 2012

Walkergate: John Doe Comes Loaded For Weasel

With all the excitement stemming from the fact that the trial for Kelly Rindfleisch is finally coming up in just two short weeks, it's easy to forget that there are areas of Walkergate that are also still in play.

Just this past Thursday, Brian Pierick also had a day in court. Pierick is the long time partner of Tim Russell who is charged with child enticement and causing a child to expose their genitalia for purposes of sexual gratification. He was busted as a tangent to the main Walkergate investigation.

The hearing on Thursday was regarding a motion to suppress a statement Pierick gave to investigators.

Pierick is the third Walkergate defendant to try to get something suppressed. And just like with Rindfleisch and Tim Russell, his motion was denied.

I should point out that Russell is named as a co-conspirator in the Pierick case, but has not been charged for that particular crime. Yet.

And speaking of Russell, there's been some minor actions there as well.

The prosecutors have filed a number of documents, including a witness list, a "Notice of Intent to Use Certificates Pursuant to Wisconsin Statutes 909.02(12) and Wisconsin Supreme Court Order No. 04-09, 283 WIS.2d XV (2005)," and proposed Subpoena Duces Tecum, which is a subpoena for a document.

This is the second time that the DA's office has filed one of these. Apparently not everything had made it into the Dumpster O'Fun after all.

They were probably able to file the witness list so fast because it's probably very much like the one they filed for the Rindfleisch case.

Also, keep in mind that while all this behind the scenes action is taking place, somewhere off stage, Darlene Wink is warming up her vocal cords to keep her part of the plea bargain.

And since we've been discussing Pierick and Russell so much, I'll just leave off with this visual reminder of things yet to come:



12 comments:

  1. When is Walker going to be brought in for questioning? He is the boss after all!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anon 722 - Walker is on the witness list for Rindfleisch's trial. Other than that...we have no idea. If I were a betting man, I'd say the DA and/or Feds are waiting for these "layer 1" trials to wrap up (if anything, just Rindfleish's and Russell's) before they more on any other targets. I guess it's also possible that the DA is withholding charging Russell with the other crimes (enticement/campaigning on county time) in order to maintain leverage if Walker looks like he's going to pardon him prior to Walker being charged.

    Also, for those keeping count:
    Kelly Rindfleisch
    10-11-2012 - Hearing
    10-15-2012 - Jury Trial
    Judge: Hansher, David A.

    Kevin Kavanaugh
    10-08-2012 - Jury Trial
    Judge: Guolee, Michael D.

    Brian Pierick
    01-24-2013 - Jury Status Hearing
    01-29-2013 - Jury Trial
    Judge: Haughney, Patrick C.

    Darlene Wink
    11-21-2012 - Sentencing
    Judge: Konkol, Daniel L.

    Tim Russell
    10-22-2012 - Final Pre-Trial
    11-02-2012 - Motion Hearing
    12-03-2012 - Jury Trial
    Judge: Hansher, David A.

    I'd like to point out, again, that Russell and Rindfleisch have the same judge. I can't help but think that will work in the DA's favor, as the Judge will already have a extensive working knowledge of these shenanigans.

    It will also be interesting to see what Kavanaugh has to say about Russell during his trial...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I especially got a kick out of this:

    "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and to disqualify all Wisconsin Prosecutors from Handling this Case"

    Now that really is one hell of a legal Hail Mary pass. I'm willing to bet that a motion like that has never been filed before in a Wisconsin court.



    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for including the names of the judges. I have all these dates on my calendar.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Upon further reflection I think that the filing of frivolous and outright idiotic motions may be an attempt to aggravate the Judge into making an intemperate remark at which point a motion to disqualify the Judge would be filed.

    I'm expecting Russell to develop a medical condition, fake heart attack or mental breakdown that would require a delay in the trial. Just a hunch, because they haven't tried that one yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that all of the delays are just a sign that the DA has a solid case against the defendants and the defense attorneys are just trying to earn their keep by keeping their clients out of the hoosegow for as along as they can.

      Delete
  6. Wisconsin Supreme Court Order No. 04-09, 283 WIS.2d XV (2005) is discussed here:

    http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rsb/code/scorders/04-09.pdf

    Wisconsin Statutes 909.02(12) is discussed here:

    http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/909/02/12

    The statute has to do with domestic records and how they're entered into the case. The WISC ruling has to do with evidence gathering and "conforms Wisconsin's rule to the 2000 amendment of Rule 803 (6) of the Federal Rule of Evidence."

    Thoughts? Which domestic records are of concern in Russell's case?




    ReplyDelete
  7. Speaking of witness lists -- in an unrelated case, but a case that has been news here before: Capper, I read on Whallah! that Bucher has filed his witness list in the divorce case that is not being reported by the media anymore, not even the major media outlet that is headlining other problems for a certain police chief. Is anyone on this, I wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's going to be a rough fall for the Wis. GOP. Walker's former staff will get their due process handed to them. Kelly & Tim should be doing their Christmas shopping now, otherwise they'll be doing mail orders out of the prison catalogs. And poor Paul Ryan is going to get his butt handed to him and his running mate in another five weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Domestic records: Bank accounts, credit card records, receipts of purchase, mortgage payments, Caribbean vacation photos? Stuff the jury can look at to see where the money went.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phone records, text message records, bank records,etc which might provide evidence concerning the child enticement charges.

      It's one thing that some readers here and on other blogs have read the charge docs and so forth. It will be a whole different kind of hurt when the national media reports on the trial. Lots of Fark and Wonkette fodder.



      Delete