Special prosecutor named in Prosser/Bradley altercation

Source: Journal Sentinal

Special prosecutor named in Prosser/Bradley altercation
Allegations of chokehold in Wisconsin Supreme Court chambers to be investigated
By Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel

Madison - Sauk County District Attorney Patricia Barrett will serve as special prosecutor in the investigation of a physical altercation between two state Supreme Court justices.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley has said Justice David Prosser put her in a "chokehold" during a June argument over a case in her chambers. Others have said Bradley came at Prosser with fists raised and he put up his hands to block her or push her back.

The incident occurred June 13, a day before the deeply divided court issued a 4-3 ruling upholding Republican Gov. Scott Walker's legislation curtailing collective bargaining for public employees. That case started when Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne brought a lawsuit claiming a legislative committee violated the state's open meetings law in March in forwarding the legislation to the state Senate. Ozanne sought to invalidate the law, and implementing it was delayed for months while the case was pending.

The high court ultimately ruled key parts of the meetings law do not apply to lawmakers.

Read more: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/127742888.html

No injuries, no harm, no criminal charges filed because it did not occur in a public space (which would be called "disturbing the peace" in California.) Just two hot-heads who lack the maturity to comport themselves as adults - A eggs B on until B does something, then A complains, B calls A a tattletale. The adults get annoyed and send both A and B to their rooms to cool off.

the MSM saying democrats are just as radical as republicans. Equivalence. I call bs on equivalence but you are probably correct on what will be the end result. Rightwingers are never brought to justice for their crimes in an equivalent world.
tib

Your prediction is exactly like... ...the MSM saying democrats are just as radical as republicans.

I think that is a bogus analogy. We're talking about a scuffle between two individuals here, not the general traits of two large groups of people.

Rightwingers are never brought to justice for their crimes in an equivalent world.

You've set yourself up to automatically reject any conclusion that doesn't match your preconceived idea, no matter what information is presented.

...that's exactly how Prosser described it. It is the classic abuser's line: "She made me do it!"

She may have a sharp tongue, I don't know. There is a good deal of distance, legally speaking, between making sarcastic comments and putting your hands around someone's neck. Reports indicate there are witnesses to the hands-around-the-neck thing; assuming that is true, I don't see it as a he-said / she-said case, or as "just two hot-heads". Judges by and large are lawyers, and lawyers argue. It's what they do. They argue about matters that are boring and they argue about matters that are contentious. They do not, in general, come to blows or choke one another during said arguments. It is not a behavior that should be tolerated among judges nor anyone else for that matter.

i.e. two willing participants; the point being that both parties have to make a choice not to do what it takes to avoid a fight.

It is the classic abuser's line: "She made me do it!"

Yes, that is true. My ex-wife used that rationalization for assaulting me multiple times.

But the situation we're discussing here isn't a dysfunctional interpersonal relationship. It's a one-time row between two powerful individuals, two people who are at the top of the social pecking order within their occupations.

I hope the investigation gives a clear picture of what really happened.

...between potentially sharp words and physical assault?

Interesting.

I don't know what actually happened in that room, and neither do you. That's what the investigation is supposed to determine.

We both have access to the same third-hand information, none of which is sworn testimony or indisputable fact such as physical evidence. I'm taking everything I hear or read about it with a heavy dose of salt.

Judge Bradley made this statement to the Milwaukee Journal:

"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold," Bradley told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

While Judge Prosser had this to say:

"Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false. Until then I will refrain from further public comment." (emphasis mine)

Hmmm, which one to believe? He claims that a public statement made by his colleague is an anonymous claim. Maybe he hopes no one will notice the name attached to the statement?

In any event, hers is a first-hand account, and there were witnesses. Of course, the witnesses are very partisan on a bitterly divided court. But even his defenders agree that Prosser's hands ended up around Bradley's neck; they claim that she "charged him" and then somehow his hands just ended up around her neck. It's not that anyone actually did any choking, choking just sort of happened.

Right.

You didn't speak with Judge Bradley directly. (And I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that in context she might have selectively omitted some information that would weaken her allegation of assault.)