Sunday, April 10, 2011

Among Other Defects in Kangaroo Sumi's Court...

....or is that supposed to be "Sumi's Kangaroo Court"....?

Van Hollen finally (FINALLY!!!) opened up the 105's and let 'em rip in what's called a "Petition for Supervisory Writ."

And I mean "let 'em rip":

Among the black letter law and clearly enunciated jurisprudence ignored by Judge Sumi in issuing three TROs which purport to invalidate the Budget Repair Bill and enjoin it from becoming law are the following:

* Legislators are immune to civil process during the legislative session and are therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.
* The TROs purport to enjoin actions by parties not named in the action.
* The last TRO purports to make a declaration of law, an act which is unlawful on its face.
* The TROs were issued without the Court having even considered the threshhold issues as to whether it had jurisdiction to consider the claims before it.
* The remedy sought–and granted–is not available under the Open Meetings Law.
* DAs do not have the Constitutional authority to bring actions challenging the constitutionality of statutes.
* The courts are have no power under the state constitution to “intermeddle” in the legislative process prior to a bill becoming law, a process which is not complete under Wisconsin law until the bill is published, the very act the TROs purport to enjoin.
* Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent plainly states that legislation may only be invalidated where it violates the constitution beyond a reasonable doubt
* Legislative procedures which are not constitutionally guaranteed rights are subject only to political remedies; the Open Meetings Law, a statute, is not one such and treating it as one amounts to an amendment to the state Constitution
* Attempting to enjoin the Secretary of State is invalid under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which the Secretary may not waive.

I'd like to see her courtroom reduced to a smoking pile of sandy rubble.

This ignorant politician scumbag (and the ditto DA) have to be made to understand that if they choose to invalidate the rule of law, they have chosen hemlock.



James Pawlak said...

If you are serious about the courtroom, I can send you a design for a small fuel-air bomb which will "do the trick".

There do seem to be some laws against progressing beyond the intellectual exercise of a mere design.

Anonymous said...

I bet She is just going to get her hand slapped, nothing more, and she will be back later on to pull more crap like this. It is the Democrat, Communist, Socialist, totalitarian way!

Anonymous said...

I don't have the legal crystal ball that some have and thus it is difficult to predict how this will all shake out. A lot of interesting questions are raised, particularly with respect to the lawfulness of a prior restraint. An argument can be made that the law should have been published and then invalidated under s. 19.97.

The old Goodland case may have been modified by the legislature itself which chose to include itself, for the most part, within the Open Meetings Law. The rules of statutory construction say that when the legislature enacts new law it does so with knowledge of existing law and that its acts are presumptively constitutional. The legislature itself may have engaged in waiver, which it can do, by choosing not to exempt itself from the voidability provisions of the Open Meetings Law.

There is a lot to this and, as I said, you'll have to wait for things to shake out.

Anonymous said...

"I'd like to see her courtroom reduced to a smoking pile of sandy rubble."

I see you're invoking the ghost of Timothy McVeigh. How mighty civil of you!

Why don't you get your anony friend who advocates sodomy to do your handiwork?