Wisconsin union law published despite court order

[PeaceNikki]

Source: AP

MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin law taking away collective bargaining rights that a court had ordered not to be published by the secretary of state has been published instead by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

The action was noted on the Legislature's home page Friday. It's not immediately clear whether the publication has the force of law. But if legally published, the law takes effect Saturday.

A judge last week issued a temporary restraining order blocking Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law.
But the Reference Bureau says it's required to publish every new law within 10 working days after it's signed by the governor.
Gov. Scott Walker signed the collective bargaining measure March 11.



Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7491624.html

[99th_Monkey]

1. It's high time WI state troopers locked up Walker's criminal nutjob brigade -nt

[idrahaje]

6. to do that, they'd have to lock themselves up first

o_O

now why does it not surprise me that they published it anyway? blah, whats a court order. might what a great role model. Setting precedent to break the law.

[99th_Monkey]

12. How so?

"they'd have to lock themselves up first" i don't get what you mean. WHO would have to lock themselves up first? and why?

[Angry Dragon]

2. I would say it is not legal until published by the SoS

[xchrom]

3. Giving 'face' to legitimacy. It's all they need. Nt

[lonestarnot]

34. Didn't they attempt that with bushitler stealing the election not once but twice?

[Tx4obama]

4. I hope the court finds his ass in contempt of court and throws his ass in jail! n/t

[Snoutport]

5. that would be sweet!

we can dream, can't we?

[24601]

49. First you have to find that someone violated the court order. The

SoS apparently did not publish it and would not be charged. The LRS had no court order against it and would not be charged.

[PeaceNikki]

7. Letter from SoS to LRB rescinding the publication date.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51567181/secretary-of-state-letter

[iwishiwas]

14. Walker went behind the SOS's back! Whow, that petty man is just

plain mean.

[DeSwiss]

8. Violation of a TRO....

...is contempt of court.

- The judge needs to send someone to jail......

K&R

[plumbob]

21. Yep, the only two judges I ever knew personally took their orders

quite seriously. I hope this one does, too, and LOCKS SOMEBODY UP for a few weeks or months and see how they like it.

[littlewolf]

22. actually ... it was published by

the reference bureau in accordance to WI law which requires the legislative reference bureau to publish every act within 10 working days after its
date of enactment. and it appears that the reference bureau was not included in the TRO ...

[Faygo Kid]

9. Direct orders by the Kochs?

Pretty rough stuff to defy a direct court order.

Somebody's pissed off about not getting their way. Somebody or some group used to ALWAYS getting their way.

That judge is going to be targeted; how, we will have to wait to see. He pissed off the wrong guys, apparently.

[L. Coyote]

10. Wisconsin Statutes: Violation of state statute 946.12 is a Class I felony.

Wisconsin Statutes: Violation of state statute 946.12 is a Class I felony.

Wisconsin Statutes: Violation of state statute 946.12 is a Class I felony.

Violation of state statute 946.12 is a Class I felony.

http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2010/946/946.12.html

946.12
Misconduct in public office. Any public officer or public employee who does any of the following is guilty of a Class I felony:

946.12(1)
(1) Intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer's or employee's office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law; or

946.12(2)
(2) In the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee, does an act which the officer or employee knows is in excess of the officer's or employee's lawful authority or which the officer or employee knows the officer or employee is forbidden by law to do in the officer's or employee's official capacity; or

946.12(3)
(3) Whether by act of commission or omission, in the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee exercises a discretionary power in a manner inconsistent with the duties of the officer's or employee's office or employment or the rights of others and with intent to obtain a dishonest advantage for the officer or employee or another; or

946.12(4)
(4) In the officer's or employee's capacity as such officer or employee, makes an entry in an account or record book or return, certificate, report or statement which in a material respect the officer or employee intentionally falsifies; or

946.12(5)
(5) Under color of the officer's or employee's office or employment, intentionally solicits or accepts for the performance of any service or duty anything of value which the officer or employee knows is greater or less than is fixed by law.

http://www.gjs.net/946-12ss.htm

[mokawanis]

11. I am so enraged right now

Walker, Fitzgerlad and their band of law-breaking bullies ought to be tossed in jail right now. These guys are the most corrupt group I've seen in 30 yrs. of living in Madison. This is an outrage.

[iwishiwas]

13. OMg!!what next!!

[Demeter]

15. It's High Noon at the OK Corral

And the Koch brothers are going to meet their Maker.

[Rex]

16. Wow, they cannot WAIT to break the law!

Fucking SOP for GOPuker scumbags.

[iwishiwas]

17. The right leaning Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has the story

also. It is depressing to read the comments. Most of the first page is laughing and demeaning Democrats. I did not read comments past the first page.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118677754.html?page=1

[NeoConsSuck]

20. It's the middle class demeaning the middle class

that's what these imbeciles don't comprehend. The republican endgame is elimination of the middle class, the unions were the last protectors of the middle class.

These middle class teabaggers are going to see their economic standing sink lower and lower. Who will they blame next??

Teabaggers: French Revolution in reverse.

[Blacksheep214]

23. I refuse to believe

that many of the letters are from Wisconsin locals.

I heard that Rove and Drudge have their minions spamming sites nationwide. They do show up like a bright red nose, don't they?

[iwishiwas]

18. Here is the illegally published bill.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/acts/11Act10.pdf

[Iliyah]

19. I think the WI gopers

realizes that they are in a losing battle in the end and thats why they are rushing everything. This smells totally illegal but they are right now in power and eff the rule of law.

Repeal, repeal and replace.

Oh, these same tea brats gopers making hay day of this act, are making fun of the working class. It's ashame they are against their own interest. I have no pitty for them.

[caseymoz]

24. This is so weird.

Why would they openly defy or evade a court order? What were they thinking? It couldn't have worked. If Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald is doing this, it might end his career. If Walker's behind this, WI might get him out before they can recall him.

If they expect to win with this maneuver it tells me that something really odd is going on in Wisconsin, and in Michigan as well.

[mcctatas]

25. I'm seriously thinking about packing up the spawn and driving down to

the capital, teach them a lesson about participatory Democracy :)

[Ellipsis]

30. You mean demon spawn don't you?

:evilgrin:




...run away..... run away!:yoiks:


Take the little critters to The Children's Museum on state street if you go... the capital will make them freak too, especially the rotunda.

It'll be a good trip for 'em and something they will remember for the rest of their lives.

Tomorrow is going to be an intriguing day.

Take care dearie,

mark

[Sonicwall]

26. if the Secretary of State rescinded his order to be law on March 25th

in compliance with court order, then it is not law yet due to procedural matters.

If Walker did an end-around, then he needs to be indicted for that Class I felony x the # of union members of Wisconsin that he screwed.

He'll serve the rest of his life in prison.

And make sure it's a unsanitary one.

Worst prison in Wisconsin is too kind for Walker.

[Chipster]

27. WI Dept. of Justice Statement on Publication

Excerpt: "The Wisconsin Department of Justice will evaluate how the lawful publication of Act 10 affects pending litigation. We have no further comment at this time. We will keep you apprised of any further developments in the pending litigation."

Read full statement.

[deminks]

28. Republicans saying it is legally published, now it is law. Dems saying not legally published.

http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_f22629e6-572a-11e0-ab2f-001cc4c002e0.html

(snip)

Bill Cosh, a state Department of Justice spokesman, said no action by the secretary of state was required for the Reference Bureau to act, adding that La Follette did not direct the publication of the law and thus is not in violation of a temporary court order barring him from publishing the law.

And the governor and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, said flatly Friday that the law will take effect on Saturday.

But officials with the nonpartisan Reference Bureau and the Legislative Council - the Legislature's drafting and research agency and its legal service, respectively - said publication of the act online was only an administrative step.

(end snip)

[Sonicwall]

47. Republicans are going to be prepared to go to prison for 100,000 years

if the Class I felony charges against each complicit Republicans, x the # of union members that they harmed.

3.5 years is the max for the Class I felony.

So I figure 100,000 years is a minimum sentence.

[no_hypocrisy]

29. Contempt of court. The Court intended no publication in any form.

[Jester Messiah]

31. Is it time yet? [nt]

[snot]

32. It's critical to know what the court order actually says.

Per http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_f22629e6-572a-11e0-ab2f-001cc4c002e0.html , the court order says, "I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10," Sumi said, according to a transcript. "The next step in implementation of that law would be the publication of that law by the secretary of state. He is restrained and enjoined from such publication until further order of this court."

Based on this language, it would appear to me that the order should be construed to have enjoined ANY publication. To conclude otherwise, you basically have to hold that "I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10" was meaningless and should be ignored, which seems unreasonable.

So those violating the law should be found to be in contempt of court. If they're not, courts really do risk rendering themselves irrelevant -- what if the Supreme Court issued orders, and no one enforced them?

It would also be interesting to know whether the proponents of the bill have argued in other courts that the restraining order should be lifted BECAUSE it prevented publication -- depending on the language used in their arguments, it might tend to show that they too understood existing law to require publication by the SoS, not elsewhere.

[PeaceNikki]

35. Legislative Reference Bureau director Steve Miller insisted that the action won’t result in the law

taking effect today. He said that won’t happen until Secretary of State Doug La Follette orders the law published in a newspaper.

“It’s not implementation at all,” Miller said. “It’s simply a matter of forwarding an official copy to the secretary of state.

But La Follette wasn’t so sure, saying it wasn’t clear what the action means. “I think we’re going to have to get some legal opinion on this,” he said.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said the action means the law takes effect today.

From: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2011/03/26/wisconsin-officials-split-on-labor-law-start-date.html?sid=101

The DoJ is still unsure. We'll have to see what the courts rule next week. The plot thickens.

[snot]

37. So it sounds like, either it IS implementation, which means it IS in contempt of court; or

it's NOT implementation, which means the law is NOT effective.

Hopefully, all they've done is generate some smoke. Let's just hope it doesn't give cover for anything else.

[femrap]

33. Little Scotty Walker

just does whatever he wants to do.

We are no longer a country of laws.

Just rules for the little people who are treated like dirt.

[Blue Owl]

36. The King has decreed...

that all must bow down before him or be cast into slavedom.

HAIL KING WALKER. LONG LIVE THE KING OF WISCONSIN.

:sarcasm:

(I'm going to go projectile vomit now) :puke:

[Chipster]

38. Union law published despite restraining order

Source: Journal Sentinel Online

Madison — In a stunning twist, Gov. Scott Walker's legislation limiting collective bargaining for public workers was published Friday despite a judge's hold on the measure, prompting a dispute over whether it takes effect Saturday.

The measure was published to the Legislature's website with a footnote that acknowledges the restraining order by a Dane County judge. But the posting says state law "requires the Legislative Reference Bureau to publish every act within 10 working days after its date of enactment."

The measure sparked protests at the Capitol and lawsuits by opponents because it would eliminate the ability of most public workers to bargain over anything but wages.

The restraining order was issued against Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette. But the bill was published by the reference bureau, which was not named in the restraining order.

Read more: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118677754.html

---

Article goes a long way in clarifying the events and what various players say they mean.

The director of the Legislative Research Bureau contends that the publication is "ministerial" and that the Secretary of State must publish the law in the state newspaper for it to become effective.

After the court's restraining order, the Secretary of State directed the Legislative Research Bureau not to publish the law until further notice from him.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Fitzgerald contacted the director of the Legislative Research Bureau to urge him to publish the act. The director says that state law requires his agency to publish the law ten days after enactment.

The publisher of the state newspaper said that the law was scheduled to be published, but was canceled. He didn't elaborate.

A court hearing on the matter is scheduled for Tuesday.

A third lawsuit has been filed, too.

[Tx4obama]

39. Sec of State Follette sent a letter to the referencing bureau ordering the bill to NOT be published

SNIP

After the restraining order was issued on March 18, La Follette sent a letter that same day to the reference bureau rescinding earlier instructions to publish the bill on Friday. "I further instruct you to remove all reference to March 25, 2011, as the publication date and not to proceed with publication until I contact you with a new publication date," his letter said.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/wi-republicans-publish-collective-bargaini

[midnight]

40. Good to know there will be a hearing about this law not

being restrained until further notice....

[Tx4obama]

41. MORE INFO !!! Looks like the JUDGE will win this one!

SNIP

Most of the debate has been over who's right on this issue of who can pull the trigger, as it were, to make a law go into effect. (See our report for the details of the dispute.) But as we note in our story, the actual transcript of the judge's ruling seems much broader than that.

A transcript of the judge's ruling reads: "I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10. The next step in implementation of that law would be the publication of that law by the secretary of state. He is restrained and enjoined from such publication until further order of this court."

I want to be clear that not only am I not an expert on Wisconsin state law but that each of these controversies seems to move the state further into uncharted legal and even constitutional territory. So every judgment must be tentative. But a plain reading of the judge's order suggests a very broad injunction. Not only did she bar the specific modality of implementation. She seemed to enjoin any steps to put the law into effect. "I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10." And if that's the case, all these technical questions on who can 'publish' the law seem moot.

SNIP

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/03/a_bit_more_detail.php#more?ref=fpblg

[Tamara in Madison]

42. Just because it's the letter of the law does not make it right

The quote from an unnamed demonstrator in Madison at the end of this article puts the collective bargaining issue in a larger perspective than most media can: http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-madison/wisc-collective-bargaining-law-published-despite-court-order

It's not a matter of what fits the letter of the law, it's a matter of what is right and wrong.

T in Madison

[tomp]

43. i'm sorry, but i think a restraining order trumps law.

i'm no legal scholar but i think someone is in contempt of court.

[lsewpershad]

44. What the hell

is going in this country? Are repukes above the law? Why isn't this gov held in contempt? How is it that the repukes can do whatever they want and the dems seems helpless or make excuses?

[Zorra]

45. A collective bargaining process should be begun immediately if possible.

This would lead to serious confrontations and this would be totally major national news.

Keeping my fingers crossed.
:popcorn:

[savalez]

46. When in doubt, check with Uppity

"Yesterday, I heard from a good source that the head of the LRB would never publish the bill under the current circumstances on their own-- that there was clearly pressure from Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald to publish the bill."

http://uppitywis.org/blogarticle/lrb-fitzgerald-ordered-bill-be-published

[DiverDave]

48. My reply to the article:

Are you people so blind to not see that your "savior" is a tool of the rich?

Do you actually believe that he cares about YOU??

He is toeing the teabagger line, give (MORE!) tax cuts to the rich, while selling (YOUR!) state assets to the same rich.

When your taxes and fees and tolls go up, and they will, who will your savior blame then?


You voted for this thief and you will see the consequences of that short sighted action.

I wonder what it will take for you all to see just how much this guy hates you and loves the guy with the big bucks.

You do know that they are laughing at you all, doing their work for them and making them richer...
You will learn, too late, but you will.

So, deride me if you must (and you will, it's ingrained, isnt it?), It'll make you feel in control, but remember what I said.

Now where is that bag of popcorn?