Here We Go Again: Judicial Misconduct II

Share

Earlier this year marked the first time that a sitting Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice was disciplined by her own colleagues on the court. Now, only months after Annette Ziegler received a reprimand, the state Judicial Commission has filed a complaint against Michael Gableman, the empty suit that WMC helped install on the high court in April. The Judicial Commission’€™s complaint centers on a sleazy ad run by Gableman that was widely condemned not only as race baiting but also as being completely false.

Specifically the Gableman ad suggested that Louis Butler, when working as a public defender, got a child molester out of prison, allowing him to commit another sex offense. As a matter of fact, the offender actually remained in prison and did not commit the subsequent crime until after he was released on parole. Gableman’€™s ad was a clear attempt to deceive the public by suggesting that Butler’€™s work somehow resulted in the offender’€™s release. That is simply not true and that is the reason that the Judicial Commission filed the complaint and said the following:

‘€œBy publishing the advertisement in willful violation of (the state’€™s judicial ethics code), Judge Gableman engaged in judicial misconduct.’€

Gableman’€™s ad was not the first time that he attempted to mislead the public about his opponent. Earlier in his low road campaign Gableman sent out a letter referencing another defendant represented at one time by Louis Butler. The letter claimed that this offender was also released back into Milwaukee County because of Butler’€™s work representing him. That statement was also quickly proven false as the offender in question had never even left state custody. Even after these facts were made public the Gableman Campaign refused to correct their misleading letter. So when Gableman produced his deceptive ad that has now lead to a Judicial Commission complaint, it was actually the second time he willfully misrepresented an item of fact.

Although Gableman failed to return calls from the media inquiring about the Judicial Commission’€™s complaint, his former spinster Darrin Schmitz, gave a statement trying his best to change the subject to that of Gableman’€™s right to free speech. Naturally Schmitz is talking about something that is not the issue, neither the Judicial Commission nor anyone else is challenging anyone’€™s right to free speech. The real issue is the state’€™s judicial ethics code to which Gableman should be held accountable. Gableman is not above the law and cannot be allowed to violate very clear judicial ethics rules. That is exactly what he did according to the Judicial Commission’€™s complaint and now he must finally answer for his actions.

# # #