Hw did the midnight police raids against conservatives by WI Dem police get started?

[Little-Acorn]

The Wisconsin police raids against the homes of leaders of conservatives causes supporting Scott Walker, started with a relatively legitimate police investigation of documented embezzlement by a known suspect. But it suddenly spiraled out of control, exploding into Kristallnacht-style investigations and late-night raids of the houses of law-abiding people having nothing to do with the embezzlement... but who were all leaders of various conservative groups supporting causes that Democrats and union thugs didn't like.

Such things routinely happen in dictatorships, third-world countries, and other banana republics.

The Democrats seem to be trying everything they can, to transform the United States into another such third-world country.

---------------------------------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisconsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french

Wisconsin’s Shame: ‘I Thought It Was a Home Invasion’

by David French
April 20, 2015 4:00 AM

For dozens of conservatives, the years since Scott Walker’s first election as governor of Wisconsin transformed the state — known for pro-football championships, good cheese, and a population with a reputation for being unfailingly polite — into a place where conservatives have faced early-morning raids, multi-year secretive criminal investigations, slanderous and selective leaks to sympathetic media, and intrusive electronic snooping.

Yes, Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement and home of the “Wisconsin idea” — the marriage of state governments and state universities to govern through technocratic reform — was giving birth to a new progressive idea, the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents, and ruin lives.

Most Americans have never heard of these raids, or of the lengthy criminal investigations of Wisconsin conservatives. For good reason. Bound by comprehensive secrecy orders, conservatives were left to suffer in silence as leaks ruined their reputations, as neighbors, looking through windows and dismayed at the massive police presence, the lights shining down on targets’ homes, wondered, no doubt, What on earth did that family do?

This was the on-the-ground reality of the so-called John Doe investigations, expansive and secret criminal proceedings that directly targeted Wisconsin residents because of their relationship to Scott Walker, their support for Act 10, and their advocacy of conservative reform. Largely hidden from the public eye, this traumatic process, however, is now heading toward a legal climax, with two key rulings expected in the late spring or early summer.

The first ruling, from the Wisconsin supreme court, could halt the investigations for good, in part by declaring that the “misconduct” being investigated isn’t misconduct at all but the simple exercise of First Amendment rights. The second ruling, from the United States Supreme Court, could grant review on a federal lawsuit brought by Wisconsin political activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, the first conservatives to challenge the investigations head-on. If the Court grants review, it could not only halt the investigations but also begin the process of holding accountable those public officials who have so abused their powers.

But no matter the outcome of these court hearings, the damage has been done. In the words of Mr. O’Keefe, “The process is the punishment.”

It all began innocently enough. In 2009, officials from the office of the Milwaukee County executive contacted the office of the Milwaukee district attorney, headed by John Chisholm, to investigate the disappearance of $11,242.24 from the Milwaukee chapter of the Order of the Purple Heart. The matter was routine, with witnesses willing and able to testify against the principal suspect, a man named Kevin Kavanaugh.

What followed, however, was anything but routine. Chisholm failed to act promptly on the report, and when he did act, he refused to conduct a conventional criminal investigation but instead petitioned, in May 2010, to open a “John Doe” investigation, a proceeding under Wisconsin law that permits Wisconsin officials to conduct extensive investigations while keeping the target’s identity secret (hence the designation “John Doe”).

John Doe investigations alter typical criminal procedure in two important ways: First, they remove grand juries from the investigative process, replacing the ordinary citizens of a grand jury with a supervising judge. Second, they can include strict secrecy requirements not just on the prosecution but also on the targets of the investigation. In practice, this means that, while the prosecution cannot make public comments about the investigation, it can take public actions indicating criminal suspicion (such as raiding businesses and homes in full view of the community) while preventing the targets of the raids from defending against or even discussing the prosecution’s claims.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[LongTermGuy]

The Wisconsin police raids against the homes of leaders of conservatives causes supporting Scott Walker, started with a relatively legitimate police investigation of documented embezzlement by a known suspect. But it suddenly spiraled out of control, exploding into Kristallnacht-style investigations and late-night raids of the houses of law-abiding people having nothing to do with the embezzlement... but who were all leaders of various conservative groups supporting causes that Democrats and union thugs didn't like.

Such things routinely happen in dictatorships, third-world countries, and other banana republics.

The Democrats seem to be trying everything they can, to transform the United States into another such third-world country.

---------------------------------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisconsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french

Wisconsin’s Shame: ‘I Thought It Was a Home Invasion’

by David French
April 20, 2015 4:00 AM

For dozens of conservatives, the years since Scott Walker’s first election as governor of Wisconsin transformed the state — known for pro-football championships, good cheese, and a population with a reputation for being unfailingly polite — into a place where conservatives have faced early-morning raids, multi-year secretive criminal investigations, slanderous and selective leaks to sympathetic media, and intrusive electronic snooping.

Yes, Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement and home of the “Wisconsin idea” — the marriage of state governments and state universities to govern through technocratic reform — was giving birth to a new progressive idea, the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents, and ruin lives.

Most Americans have never heard of these raids, or of the lengthy criminal investigations of Wisconsin conservatives. For good reason. Bound by comprehensive secrecy orders, conservatives were left to suffer in silence as leaks ruined their reputations, as neighbors, looking through windows and dismayed at the massive police presence, the lights shining down on targets’ homes, wondered, no doubt, What on earth did that family do?

This was the on-the-ground reality of the so-called John Doe investigations, expansive and secret criminal proceedings that directly targeted Wisconsin residents because of their relationship to Scott Walker, their support for Act 10, and their advocacy of conservative reform. Largely hidden from the public eye, this traumatic process, however, is now heading toward a legal climax, with two key rulings expected in the late spring or early summer.

The first ruling, from the Wisconsin supreme court, could halt the investigations for good, in part by declaring that the “misconduct” being investigated isn’t misconduct at all but the simple exercise of First Amendment rights. The second ruling, from the United States Supreme Court, could grant review on a federal lawsuit brought by Wisconsin political activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, the first conservatives to challenge the investigations head-on. If the Court grants review, it could not only halt the investigations but also begin the process of holding accountable those public officials who have so abused their powers.

But no matter the outcome of these court hearings, the damage has been done. In the words of Mr. O’Keefe, “The process is the punishment.”

It all began innocently enough. In 2009, officials from the office of the Milwaukee County executive contacted the office of the Milwaukee district attorney, headed by John Chisholm, to investigate the disappearance of $11,242.24 from the Milwaukee chapter of the Order of the Purple Heart. The matter was routine, with witnesses willing and able to testify against the principal suspect, a man named Kevin Kavanaugh.

What followed, however, was anything but routine. Chisholm failed to act promptly on the report, and when he did act, he refused to conduct a conventional criminal investigation but instead petitioned, in May 2010, to open a “John Doe” investigation, a proceeding under Wisconsin law that permits Wisconsin officials to conduct extensive investigations while keeping the target’s identity secret (hence the designation “John Doe”).

John Doe investigations alter typical criminal procedure in two important ways: First, they remove grand juries from the investigative process, replacing the ordinary citizens of a grand jury with a supervising judge. Second, they can include strict secrecy requirements not just on the prosecution but also on the targets of the investigation. In practice, this means that, while the prosecution cannot make public comments about the investigation, it can take public actions indicating criminal suspicion (such as raiding businesses and homes in full view of the community) while preventing the targets of the raids from defending against or even discussing the prosecution’s claims.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)


`Heard about this....just this afternoon....Disgusting...Thanks for posting for all to see.

[DLT]

The Wisconsin police raids against the homes of leaders of conservatives causes supporting Scott Walker, started with a relatively legitimate police investigation of documented embezzlement by a known suspect. But it suddenly spiraled out of control, exploding into Kristallnacht-style investigations and late-night raids of the houses of law-abiding people having nothing to do with the embezzlement... but who were all leaders of various conservative groups supporting causes that Democrats and union thugs didn't like.

Such things routinely happen in dictatorships, third-world countries, and other banana republics.

The Democrats seem to be trying everything they can, to transform the United States into another such third-world country.

---------------------------------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisconsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french

Wisconsin’s Shame: ‘I Thought It Was a Home Invasion’

by David French
April 20, 2015 4:00 AM

For dozens of conservatives, the years since Scott Walker’s first election as governor of Wisconsin transformed the state — known for pro-football championships, good cheese, and a population with a reputation for being unfailingly polite — into a place where conservatives have faced early-morning raids, multi-year secretive criminal investigations, slanderous and selective leaks to sympathetic media, and intrusive electronic snooping.

Yes, Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement and home of the “Wisconsin idea” — the marriage of state governments and state universities to govern through technocratic reform — was giving birth to a new progressive idea, the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents, and ruin lives.

Most Americans have never heard of these raids, or of the lengthy criminal investigations of Wisconsin conservatives. For good reason. Bound by comprehensive secrecy orders, conservatives were left to suffer in silence as leaks ruined their reputations, as neighbors, looking through windows and dismayed at the massive police presence, the lights shining down on targets’ homes, wondered, no doubt, What on earth did that family do?

This was the on-the-ground reality of the so-called John Doe investigations, expansive and secret criminal proceedings that directly targeted Wisconsin residents because of their relationship to Scott Walker, their support for Act 10, and their advocacy of conservative reform. Largely hidden from the public eye, this traumatic process, however, is now heading toward a legal climax, with two key rulings expected in the late spring or early summer.

The first ruling, from the Wisconsin supreme court, could halt the investigations for good, in part by declaring that the “misconduct” being investigated isn’t misconduct at all but the simple exercise of First Amendment rights. The second ruling, from the United States Supreme Court, could grant review on a federal lawsuit brought by Wisconsin political activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, the first conservatives to challenge the investigations head-on. If the Court grants review, it could not only halt the investigations but also begin the process of holding accountable those public officials who have so abused their powers.

But no matter the outcome of these court hearings, the damage has been done. In the words of Mr. O’Keefe, “The process is the punishment.”

It all began innocently enough. In 2009, officials from the office of the Milwaukee County executive contacted the office of the Milwaukee district attorney, headed by John Chisholm, to investigate the disappearance of $11,242.24 from the Milwaukee chapter of the Order of the Purple Heart. The matter was routine, with witnesses willing and able to testify against the principal suspect, a man named Kevin Kavanaugh.

What followed, however, was anything but routine. Chisholm failed to act promptly on the report, and when he did act, he refused to conduct a conventional criminal investigation but instead petitioned, in May 2010, to open a “John Doe” investigation, a proceeding under Wisconsin law that permits Wisconsin officials to conduct extensive investigations while keeping the target’s identity secret (hence the designation “John Doe”).

John Doe investigations alter typical criminal procedure in two important ways: First, they remove grand juries from the investigative process, replacing the ordinary citizens of a grand jury with a supervising judge. Second, they can include strict secrecy requirements not just on the prosecution but also on the targets of the investigation. In practice, this means that, while the prosecution cannot make public comments about the investigation, it can take public actions indicating criminal suspicion (such as raiding businesses and homes in full view of the community) while preventing the targets of the raids from defending against or even discussing the prosecution’s claims.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

Sounds to me like that "John Doe" BS law needs to be changed...ASAP. I wonder if any other states have such a conveniently fascist tool for the left to use against us. We need to find out. And change it, if so.

[Little-Acorn]

The article mentioned that Wisconsin is one of three states that have such a law.

Though horribly open to abuse, the law itself is probably not prima facie unconstitutional. I would imagine that it assumes the 4th amendment would be followed.

The 4th calls for "no unreasonable search or seizure". And it requires that a warrant be issued... by a judge. In other words, someone with the knowledge, wisdom, and intent to respect the citizen's rights, can exercise veto power over each search and seizure, and prevent bad ones from taking place, on a case-by-case basis.

Where Wisconsin went wrong, was in electing Democrats to the position of Prosecutor and Judge, who must make those decisions. As we have seen over and over for the last six years, Democrats have no interest in obeying the law or respecting people's rights, especially when the victim is a conservative who disagrees with their agenda (which includes nearly all normal Americans). Democrats in the IRS targeting conservatives, in the NSA spying on huge numbers of law-abiding Americans, and in Congress passing unconstitutional laws such as Obamacare to punish Americans for not signing up for health care plans the liberals thought they should have, are just a few examples.

A proper legal system cannot be run without providing room for officials to judge whether a law is being obeyed or disobeyed. That's why the 4th amendment (and other provisions) are worded the way they are.

And Democrats have shown time and again, why they should not be elected to those offices of public trust. These midnight raids of people who did nothing more than oppose extreme Democrat policies, demonstrate once again that Democrats must not be trusted with the power of government.

[Kathianne]

The article mentioned that Wisconsin is one of three states that have such a law.

Though horribly open to abuse, the law itself is probably not prima facie unconstitutional. I would imagine that it assumes the 4th amendment would be followed.

The 4th calls for "no unreasonable search or seizure". And it requires that a warrant be issued... by a judge. In other words, someone with the knowledge, wisdom, and intent to respect the citizen's rights, can exercise veto power over each search and seizure, and prevent bad ones from taking place, on a case-by-case basis.

Where Wisconsin went wrong, was in electing Democrats to the position of Prosecutor and Judge, who must make those decisions. As we have seen over and over for the last six years, Democrats have no interest in obeying the law or respecting people's rights, especially when the victim is a conservative who disagrees with their agenda (which includes nearly all normal Americans). Democrats in the IRS targeting conservatives, in the NSA spying on huge numbers of law-abiding Americans, and in Congress passing unconstitutional laws such as Obamacare to punish Americans for not signing up for health care plans the liberals thought they should have, are just a few examples.

A proper legal system cannot be run without providing room for officials to judge whether a law is being obeyed or disobeyed. That's why the 4th amendment (and other provisions) are worded the way they are.

And Democrats have shown time and again, why they should not be elected to those offices of public trust. These midnight raids of people who did nothing more than oppose extreme Democrat policies, demonstrate once again that Democrats must not be trusted with the power of government.

Are you saying that all Democrats should be removed from office?

[Little-Acorn]

Are you saying that all Democrats should be removed from office?

I said they shouldn't be elected in the first place, and I gave plentiful reasons why.

Removal is another matter, for courts and impeachment panels. Unfortunately, guess who staffs and runs a lot of those panels in Wisconsin: Democrats.

My point stands.

[Kathianne]

I said they shouldn't be elected in the first place, and I gave plentiful reasons why.

Removal is another matter, for courts and impeachment panels. Unfortunately, guess who staffs and runs a lot of those panels in Wisconsin: Democrats.

My point stands.
So you are seriously of the belief that a one party would be better? What about the people that elected those whom you believe should be removed en toto?

[Kathianne]

Oh well, before someone calls me a 'liberal' or something worse, here's what I'm talking about:


Worth a Thousand Words
by JAY NORDLINGER April 22, 2015 8:55 AM

In Impromptus today, I have a photo — or rather, a link to an article that is accompanied by a photo: here. The photo shows our president, Barack Obama, beaming at Raúl Castro, the Cuban dictator (or the fraternal frontman for the real dictator, or whatever). I write of Obama, “Can you imagine him lighting up like this at Benjamin Netanyahu, Mitch McConnell, or some other democrat?

I’m not sure he gives so delighted and loving a look even to Michelle.”

There are all sorts of things a president has to do to advance or protect American interests in a dangerous world. But a president does not have to engage in a love-in with the Cuban dictator. That is strictly voluntary.

Here on the Corner, I’d like to link to some other presidential photos. It is slightly cheap to do so, but only slightly. Here is George W. Bush with Mario Chanes de Armas. Chanes de Armas was a co-revolutionary with the Castros, but then he was their political prisoner, for almost 30 years. Here is Bush with the children of Oscar Elías Biscet. Here, too. Here he is with Biscet’s wife, Elsa Morejón. In 2007, Bush awarded Biscet the Presidential Medal of Freedom, in absentia. Biscet was a political prisoner at the time.

...

At the Latin American summit in 2009, Daniel Ortega went off on a tirade against America, particularly our operation at the Bay of Pigs. He excused Obama from it, though. Our guy replied, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

At the recent summit in Panama, Raúl Castro went off on his own tirade against America. And then apologized to Obama. “President Obama has no responsibility for this,” he said. “In my opinion, President Obama is an honest man.”...

This is what I’d like to add here in the Corner: Obama is “not interested” in “having battles” that started before he was born — some battles, that is. Other battles, he is interested in having: the overthrow of Mosaddegh; the Crusades; the Inquisition … What a beauty, our president — America’s choice, twice. That’s the problem, as Václav Klaus and others have pointed out, not Obama as an individual. An Obama-electing electorate: That is the problem.

One can rant and rave about vote corruption and the media, but like it or not these tools keep getting elected. Those with better ideas need to find a way to make themselves heard and it starts with not saying things that turn off the majority of people.

[Little-Acorn]

So you are seriously of the belief that a one party would be better?
Trying to ascribe to me things I did not say?

Kathianne, I expected better of you.

[Kathianne]

Trying to ascribe to me things I did not say?

Kathianne, I expected better of you.

Sorry, when you don't write, 'many' or 'some' or 'too many examples of' you are ascribing the behavior on all. That's just illogical and I too expect better of you.

[tailfins]

Oh well, before someone calls me a 'liberal' or something worse, here's what I'm talking about:



One can rant and rave about vote corruption and the media, but like it or not these tools keep getting elected. Those with better ideas need to find a way to make themselves heard and it starts with not saying things that turn off the majority of people.

You are correct. When one posts, it is done on a stage. If I have an opponent that belittles, insults and becomes dismissive, I win by saying nothing. One wins in the eyes of the "studio audience", meaning members and lurkers.

[Kathianne]

Friday SCOTUS will rule whether to grant certioriari or not on WI case:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/wisconsin-goes-to-the-supremes-1429744522


Wisconsin Goes to the Supremes

The U.S. Justices should hear a major First Amendment case.

April 22, 2015 7:15 p.m. ET

Wisconsin’s attempt to criminalize political speech is destined to become a case study on the use of election law to silence political opponents. Whether it is a cautionary tale or a blueprint for nationwide imitation is now up to the Supreme Court.

On Friday the Justices will consider whether to hear O’Keefe v. Chisholm, a Section 1983 civil-rights lawsuit brought by Wisconsin Club for Growth director Eric O’Keefe against Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm and other prosecutors. The suit charges the prosecutors with a multi-year campaign to silence and intimidate conservative groups whose political speech they don’t like.

The Supreme Court has made great strides in restoring First Amendment protections, and the Wisconsin case will test whether citizens can seek federal recourse when they are targeted and investigated for exercising those rights.

...