Electric Lawyer

Probable cause to investigate Governor Walker?

I'm assuming everyone has heard about, listened to, or read a transcript of, the conversation between Governor Scott Walker and gonzo journalist Ian Murphy, who pretended to be David Koch, regarding the Wisconsin teachers' strike.

The question some people are asking is whether Governor Walker committed one or more crimes during the conversation. Let's leave aside the question of his ethics in discussing these issues with a political contributor, or his idiocy in talking with someone who just said he was David Koch.

I want to focus on one part of the conversation:

Koch: [Laughs] Well, I tell you what, Scott: once you crush these bastards I’ll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time.

Walker: All right, that would be outstanding. Thanks for all the support…it’s all about getting our freedoms back…

It would be fair to say that "Koch" promised Walker a free trip and more "once you crush these bastards" and Walker accepted. Is that evidence of a crime?

Once possibility would be a violation of the honest services law (18 U.S.C. sec. 1346), which forbids "a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

Convictions for honest services fraud have been upheld when either bribery of the official or failure to disclose a conflict of interest resulting in personal gain was found. See United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124, 1149-51 (7th Cir.) (public officials received bribes intended to induce special favors and preferential treatment for certain racing interests), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 976, 94 S.Ct. 3183, 41 L.Ed.2d 1146 (1974).

The conversation between "Koch" and Walker raises at least some suspicion that Walker was to be rewarded to taking certain action, or at the very least, had a conflict of interest that had to be disclosed.

Is this enough to convict him of honest services fraud? No. Is it enough to warrant a federal investigation of his communications with the Kochs? I think so. It does not take much smoke to launch an investigation into a fire. There is more than enough here.

Why the Arizona anti-foreigner law is unconstitutional - Part 1

There are so many reasons the new Arizona anti-foreigner law is unconstitutional, but let's start with the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

“The Federal Government has broad constitutional powers in determining what aliens shall be admitted to the United States, the period they may remain, regulation of their conduct before naturalization, and the terms and conditions of their naturalization. Under the Constitution the states are granted no such powers; they can neither add to nor take from the conditions lawfully imposed by Congress upon admission, naturalization and residence of aliens in the United States or the several states. State laws which impose discriminatory burdens upon the entrance or residence of aliens lawfully within the United States conflict with this constitutionally derived federal power to regulate immigration, and have accordingly been held invalid." (Takahashi v. Fish & Game Com'n (1948) 334 U.S. 410, 419.)

These powers arise from Article I section 8, cls 3 and 4, and restrict the powers of the states under the Supremacy Clause:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (Art. VI, cl. 2.)

In other words, whether Arizona believes the United States is not enforcing immigrations laws so as to satisfy the state, it does not have the power to make its own laws. Period.

San Francisco Chronicle letter to the Editor that I love

Every once in a while I see a letter. This one was sent from one Adam Brinklow from San Francisco to the Editor of The San Francisco Chronicle:

"The party whose last three presidents created 70 percent of the national debt tells us they worry that President Obama's health care plan will bankrupt the country. The party that trusts the government with absolute power to suspend civil rights tells us that same government can't be trusted with power over our insurance. I sure hope a health plan is pending, because this makes me sick."

Want to run for Senator, Mr. Brinklow? You sound so much better than Dianne Feinstein.

More good stuff on Judge James Brooks

Stuff just keeps rolling in. Turns out Judge Brooks was admonished by the Commission on Judicial Performance for sarcastically telling a defendant with heart problems his "little ticker might stop" in jail. The Commission published three prior private admonitions. In one, Judge Brooks referred to Latino defendants collectively as "Pedro." In another case he told a defendant that "you have more names than the Tijuana telephone book," and in a third he issued a bench warrant for an Asian-American defendant for "$10,000 or 20,000 yen." The document may be found here.

Now get this: in 1989 the Orange County Constitutional Rights Foundation named him Judge of the Year! What is that about, and who are these folks?

And we think California judges can be strange?

Justice Elizabeth Weaver of the Michigan Supreme Court, in a series of dissents, accuses her colleagues of "bully tactics," "abuses of power" and "grossly unprofessional conduct."

This lady even has her own self-aggrandizing web site, unlike any judge's web presence I've ever seen.