Götterdämmerung

So Tivo nabs me some soccer - and I speed watch my way through Chelsea humiliating themselves - then move onto the Champions League match.

Inter vs. Schalke.

Yeah, fricking Inter vs Schalke (which in German means "we're just glad to be here").

At the frickin' San Siro.

Calling Schalke the underdog is akin to calling Alan Greenspan an asshole. Sure, it's accurate, but it just doesn't seem... y'know...enough.

So, anyway I fire up the game, expecting to see Inter toy with the Germans before dispatching them 1-0. Yawn.

Sixteen seconds in, I see this sh!t:


An inexact transcript of the commentary I got on my network was.

Oh!

....WHOA!

Oh My EFFING CHRIST!!! WHAT THE SCREAMING F&*$! WAS THAT???

That would be Inter's Dejan Stanković volleying a ball from just inside the center line, over the keeper into the net - 25 seconds from kick off.

That was the opener. At this point bookies are sending out their enforcers to collect from people who had Schalke losing by only a goal. Twenty five goddamn seconds and this game is over.

Except nobody tells this to Schalke. They equalize sixteen minutes later. A total POS slob goal off a corner.

Okay, so Inter grabs another one sixteen minutes later. 2-1, Inter. Thanks for playing.

Then Edu nets just a sick goal five minutes before half. 2-2!

Then five minutes into the second half Raul scores on an even sicker move. 3-2 Schalke!

Then an own goal by Inter. 4-2. Schalke!

Four minutes later, Inter's Chivu gets sent off with a second yellow. Blood in the water. Italian fans start to eat each other...

Then Edu puts a stake into Inter with his second of the night. 5-2. Mother-effing-Schalke!

Inter...spanked. By three. At the San Siro. By Schalke!

God, but I need a drink...

Hung By Their Own PSA

(Via The Big Picture)

Barry points out another case where (wonder of wonders) a securitization trust is permanently barred from foreclosing on a house because they didn't obey the rules of their own Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

Brief explanation (as far as I understand it)

In order to turn a home loan into an investment (to securitize it), a number of things must happen:

1. The loan must stop being owned by orginating bank
2. The loan must start being owned by a trust, a Special Purpose Vehicle or other legal construct
3. There must be a written record of the transfer of ownership of the loan
4. The record of title transfer must meet the exacting specifications contained in a document called a Pooling and Servicing Agreement, typically they require that all the documents establishing transfer of the mortage note be completed within 60-90 days.

Why all this rigamarole?
Two big reasons are who owns the loan and taxes.

In order for an investor to invest in a security, they want to know that the thing the are investing in is truly theirs. In theory, if the home loan goes bad - they want to know that at least they will get the property in a foreclosure. If an investor knows that there are other entities that could claim to own the home loan - then their back up plan of foreclosure is now worth less, (and may be impossible). If the bank who made the original loan doesn't provide documentation that it no longer has any right to a home loan - there is a chance that that bank could show up and demand a share of the the loan's value (or of the resulting foreclosure).

Now taxes:
The SPV allows ownership of the loan by a trust without subjecting its payments or distributions to investors to taxation. This is a big deal because if the money passing through an SPV was taxed - it would make mortgage backed securites much less attractive as investments because investors would see their money taxed twice. Once as the money flows through the SPV and then again as the investors get paid. This is an intentional loophole, as the SPV is just a pass-through legal construct, it takes no profits - it just passes along the payments it gets.

The price of getting this nice loophole is complying with a very strict agreement called a Pooling and Servicing Agreement. If you don't comply with the PSA bad things can happen. Like, the tax rate on money going through the SPV goes from 0% to 100%

Investors will hate that with the heat of a nova.

And when home loans go bad - and the SPV moves to foreclose they had better have a chain of ownership that shows that they own the loan in question.

Otherwise something like this Alabama ruling will happen - Phyllis Horace vs. LaSalle Bank National Association et. el.:

Following hearing and review of all submissions from the parties the Court has come to two conclusions necessary for the disposition of this case:

First, the Court is surprised to the point of astonishment that the defendant trust (LaSalle Bank National Association) did not comply with the terms of its own Pooling and Servicing Agreement and further did not comply with New York Law in attempting to obtain assignment of plaintiff Horace's note and mortgage.

Second, plaintiff Horace is a third party beneficiary of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement created by the defendant trust (LaSalle Bank National Association). Indeed without such Pooling and Servicing Agreements, plaintiff Horace and other mortgagors similarly situated would never have been able to obtain financing.

Consequently, plaintiff's motion for summary judgement is granted to the extent that defendant trust (LaSalle Bank National Association) is permanently enjoined from foreclosing on the property...
...Further, the Court is of the opinion there is no reason for further delay as to the entry of final judgment concerning the issue of foreclosure by the trust (LaSalle Bank National Association).

That notice shall issue to the parties.
DONE this the 25th day of March, 2011.

ALBERT L. JOHNSON, CIRCUIT JUDGE

Counsel for the investors...start your engines! You will be suing the bejeezus out of LaSalle Bank National Association et. el., because the secured loans you invested in are unsecured because the trust can't prove they own the loans.

Also, your client's pass-through tax exemption is at risk. Huzzah!

LaSalle says they will appeal - although they'd better confine it to the bit about the plaintiff being ruled a third party beneficiary of the PSA, because they look seriously owned on any argument that they met their PSA obligations.

If you believe Barry and the crew, there are many, many loans out there in the same condition as this one just waiting for an enterprising attorney to detonate them.

I'll quote Barry from an earlier post of his:

Understand this precisely: This was not a case of slipshod handling, of sloppy paperwork, or bad management. This was a willful decision to break the law in order to save expenses and be more profitable.

The bank's PR machine can play whack-a-mole, but these cases are going to bubble out all over the place. They can't appeal all of them, and by rights they should lose most of them.

When does this mess reach critical mass?

Portrait of a Beatdown

Lest you think I was exaggerating in my prior post - here's some of the relevant court transcript from HSBC Bank USA, NA as Trustee for Nomura AAC vs Orlando Eslava.

Yves calls it "a doozy."

I call it art. Some artists work in clay, some work in oils, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey works her magic in righteous indignation. Unlike the rest of us, Judge Bailey is empowered to act on her indignation.

By way of prologue HSBC Bank has previously been ordered by the court to post a bond to indemnify the defendant - whose house they have foreclosed on despite not having the mortgage note that establishes that the house is rightfully theirs. The deadline has passed without the bond being posted. The court is not amused.

HSBC Bank is represented by a Mr. William Huffman, the Florida Default Group by Ms. Suzanne Hill, and the (reserved and presumably gleeful) attorney for the defendant, Orlando Eslava is a Ms. Sheleen Kahn.

The curtain rises

THE COURT: And so then you know what you do? You file - if you have a problem with the court order and you get inconsistent directions from your client, you file a motion for extension of the time to file the bond, you come forth and say to the Court the case is in loss mit[igation] hold, can we postpone the filing of the bond? Can we give up the sale date so that I can give it to somebody else who really needs to sell ap piece of property on the courthouse steps? Instead of just ignoring a court order, because that's what happened here.

MS HILL: I don't disagree that it could have been handled much better. I do agree to that.

THE COURT: I appreciate your diplomatic response, but is there any reason why the Court should not issue sanctions in this case? I mean, the court order was simply, based on what you're telling me, ignored because the client took the file in loss mit[igation] hold.

MS. HILL: Well, it was not complied with, that is correct, your Honor. And it was because it was on hold.
     And Mr. Huffman honestly believed that if the case was still on hold, he had no objection to having the case dismissed.
     As far as opposition at that hearing, Mr. Huffman believed he conveyed instructions to the local counsel that the case was on hold and there was no opposition.
     I can't speak to what was said at that hearing --

THE COURT: Let me just be clear. I'm not going to sanction Mr. Huffman. Mr. Huffman, you know, he's just doing what the e-mails tell him to do. I know that.
     At some level there is responsibility on the part of this court to make sure that notwithstanding whatever kind of sloppy operation the plaintiff is running, that court orders are complied with.
     And Mr. Huffman, at the end of the day, this trust is going to be over and at the end of the day some day this foreclosure crisis is going to be over. And you need to decide what kind of lawyer you're going to be. Because at the end of the day you're responsible for your client's compliance with court orders.
     And saying, oh, well, my client told me this, is not a defensible position because you swore an oath to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure and to follow the rule of law. And at the end of the day when they bury you, the words "HSBC Bank USA, NA as Trustee for Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Mortgage Pass-through Certificates Series 2006--ARI will probably appear nowhere in your obituary.
     So, you know, the bottom line - and I'm not giving you a lecture that I am not routinely delivering to foreclosure lawyers at this point in my career, which is, all lawyers have is your reputations. We don't make widgets, we don't buil[d] clocks, we don't build cars. We have nothing but the pleadings we file and sign our name to to evidence the quality and integrity of who we are.
     And when you get a court order that says post a bond -- and you're being required to post a bond for a very logical reason. It's a trust. It's going to expire by its terms.
It's not the Bank of America. I don't know if it's going to be there in six years. And you've lost the note and you're required to indemnify the defendant and therefore you have to post a bond.
     When that order is simply ignored and further motions for clarifications with the Court are not sought, you know, yes, do I understand completely that this is the client not knowing the left hand from the right had, yes; but at the end of the day, you're the lawyer, you're responsible.

MR. HUFFMAN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: How many people currently work in your office?

MR. HUFFMAN: Attorneys or --

THE COURT: Attorneys.

MR. HUFFMAN: Fifty.

THE COURT: How many files are you currently responsible for?

MR. HUFFMAN: I don't have that number. I'm not sure.

THE COURT: How many cases can you tell me you know anything in detail about the loss mitigation status of the file?

MR. HUFFMAN: Well, the way it's set up, the bank handles the loss mitigation separately.

THE COURT: So the answer is zero. You're filing pleadings in court every day and you don't even know what's going on with the case.
     And see, the really interesting thing to me as a judge is that in no other species or kind of law would that be remotely acceptable or, frankly, anything short of malpractice. But somehow in Foreclosure World everybody things that that's just fine, that you can know absolutely nothing about your files and walk in here and ask judges for things left and right without even knowing what's going on.
     And, you know, ultimately, the law firms are going to start doing that at their [peril].

[........]

THE COURT: ...And I'm not trying to crucify Mr. Huffman just because he happens to be the guy that I hauled in here today, but the upshot of it is the bond was not posted. How much was the amount of the final judgment?

MS KHAN: Judge, if I may look in the file?

MS HILL: [$]207,238.72

THE COURT: Did the plaintiff acquire title [to Mr.Eslava's house] at [the foreclosure ] sale?

MS. HILL: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: What's the status of the property? Does anybody know?

MS. KAHN: Your Honor, Sheleen Khan for the defendant.
The defendant is paying on direct debit from his account every month. This will be his fifth payment under the HAMP program, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. I think as a sanction what would be appropriate is to direct HSBC, who failed to comply with the Court's order, the only -- there's nobody here from HSBC to offer any --

MS. HILL: Well, Mr. Huffman is here on behalf of HSBC today, as well.

THE COURT: But he doesn't know anything about the loss mitigation status. I just asked him.

MS. HILL: It's our understanding in this case that it is still under loss mitigation, it is being reviewed by HAMP for permanent modification.

THE COURT: Mr. Huffman, please rais your right hand.

(Thereupon, William Ward Huffman, III Esq. was duly sworn by the Court.)

THE COURT: What's your name?

MR. HUFFMAN: Bill Huffman.

THE COURT: What was the loss mitigation status on March 4, 2010?

MR. HUFFMAN: It was on hold for --

THE COURT: Tell me what was going on. How much had the defendant paid in? Had the defendant made any HAMP payments? Was the defendant formally enrolled in a HAMP program? Was the defendant in a HAMP trial period for HAMP?

MR. HUFFMAN: I knew the defendant was in a trial period for HAMP.

THE COURT: When was the defendant put into a trial period for HAMP?

MR. HUFFMAN: My file went on hold November 6 of 2009, so I knew they had been in the trial period since that time. I didn't know the exact date.

THE COURT: December what?

MR. HUFFMAN: It was November 6, I believe, 2009.

THE COURT: What was the date of the final judgment? December 9, 2009.

MR. HUFFMAN: The hearing was, I believe, November 5 and the judgment was signed December 9.

THE COURT: So you have a final judgment hearing on November 5 and the file went on hold November 6?

MR. HUFFMAN: Correct.

THE COURT: When was the file HAMP approved?

MR. HUFFMAN: It hasn't been fully approved at this time.

THE COURT: When was the file HAMP approved for trial modification?

MR. HUFFMAN: From my knowledge, it was November 6.

THE COURT: But I'm not asking you about your knowledge. Because you're here to testify on behalf of your client.

MR. HUFFMAN: Okay.

THE COURT: So on behalf of HSBC Bank USA, NA as Trustees for Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Mortgage Pass-through Certificates Series 2006-ARI, when was Mr. Eslava's HAMP documentation accepted?

MR. HUFFMAN: I don't have -- I didn't see the doc to see when he actually signed the preliminary mods. I don't know the exact date. I just know that I was notified on November 6 to place my file on hold.

THE COURT: Mr. Huffman, respectfully, can't answer the questions I have because --
I'm going to sanction the bank. I'm not going to sanction Mr. Huffman. I could because I think Mr. Hoffman's conduct was contemptuous of a court order. But I'm also keenly aware that a comtempt finding from a judge has ramifications throughout the rest fo a laywer's career, and I'm really trying to avoid that.
     What I'm trying to give is, for lawyers that handle these cases, a wake-up call to say this is your life, this is your career on the hook and you guys better wake up and smell the coffee.
     But he cannot answer the questions for me to tell me the nature of the contempt.
Why wasn't a bond posted in this case pursuant to the court order?

MR. HUFFMAN: When I saw the order from March 4, I kind of read it --

THE COURT: Why wasn't the order -- the bond was ordered posted -- when did I order the bond? March 4. Okay.
Why wasn't a bond posted by April 4?

MR. HUFFMAN: When I saw the language, I thought it had two options, either post the bond by April 4 or have the case dismissed. Because our file was still on hold April 4, I just chose to allow the case to be dismissed.
     Instead of posting the bond, I though that was an option I had. I thought it would be in the best interest of all parties. I didn't want to incur any more fees for the defendant in this case by moving the case forward.

THE COURT: Okay. Then as a sanction, the Court will follow the path chosen by Mr. Huffman. I will dismiss the case. I will dismiss the case with prejudice.
The note, which was canceled by this Court pursuant to a final judgment is null and void.    
     Mr. Eslava is relieved of the debt.

     The title shall be conveyed back to Mr. Eslava by the bank -- by the trust -- as the legal liability for the note no longer exists.
     The basis for this sanction is the contemptuous noncompliance with the Court's order to post the bond.
     Should, however, any claim ever be pursued against Mr. Eslava on the note which was the subject of this case, since the note was lost, HSBC Bank USA, NA, as Trustee for Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation, Mortage Pass-through Certificates Series 2006-ARI shall jointly and liablely (sic) with Florida Default Law Group, PL, and any successor law firm, be responsible to hold harmless and indemnify Mr. Eslava from any liability should the orginal appear in the context of another case.

MS. HILL: Your Honor, if I may just briefly respond?
     I believe under the case law that in order to award sanctions, there has to be a finding of willfullness and bad faith on the part of Mr. Huffman.

THE COURT: No, this is on behalf of HSBC. I'm finding wilfulness because -- I'm not making Mr. Huffman responsible for the $207,238.72. I'm saying HSBC has been offered an opportunity to come and testify to this Court about why all this confusion erupted. They have given me Mr. Huffman. Mr. Huffman respectfully, can't answer very many of my questions in detail because all he knows is that the file was put on hold. It was put on hold the day after a final judgment was entered at the behest of the bank.
     Now, I would like to know why the bank came in here one day to get a final judgment and the next day to put a file on hold. But that's really a sideshow. Really the big question is why didn't they comply with the order of March 9? Why did they simply ignore it.
     And that answer is ["]we put the file on hold["]. That's a contemptuous answer. A bank does not have the authority or a trust does not have the authority to ignore a court order simploy because they are making business decisions on a file. And that's really where we are at.

MS. HILL: Respectfully, I understand, your Honor.
     In this case, Florida Default Law Group is taking responsibility for its actions. And I would respectfully submit that canceling the underlying indebtedness woudl not seem to fit the failure of Florida Default in this case on behalf of the bank in complying with the order. Florida Default is more than willing to stand before you and apologize.

THE COURT: No. No. No. This is way beyond -- you know, look, I don't want apologies. I want performance. I want responsible attorneys who meet the basic standards of knowing what the Sam Hill is going on in their files.
     I want acknowledgment that says, look, we understand that the court system is facing a massive number of foreclosures and we are not going to contribute to that burden by causing useless work by the Court.
     Which is really what I just got told.
What I got told is, Judge, the guy was already approved for HAMP by November 6, so the hearing on November 5, you really didn't need to do that.
     Because for every hearing that I do on these cases, the reason why I get this packet is I check service on every defendant, I look at the note, I make sure there's an endorsement. The fastest I can do one of these is about seven minutes. The slowest I can do it, if it's out of order, if it's disorganized, if there's things missing, which may well be the case in this case because the hearing was November 5 and the order wasn't entered until December, which means that there may have been missing items, it can take as much as 15 minutes or a half an hour. So the bank wasted my time on that.
     They wasted my time -- and I don't care about my time because I'm paid the enormously high sum of $144,000 to be here every day.
     But the second waste of time was then they come in and opposed the defendant's motion to cancel the sale. And we had a hearing and we talked about that. An I would imagine that took somewhere between 12 to 17 minutes, depending on how it went.
     And then they come in and walk in a motion to cancel the sale.
That's three useless, completely idiotic events. And if Florida Default wants to make HSBC whole in this, then that's between them and their carrier.
     But the bottom line is that's the sanction that the Court has ordered. Mortgage foreclosure is an quitable remedy. The plaintiff in this instance, whether it's through its own conduct -- because, frankly, I can't -- what Florida Default is telling me is we're just doing what they're telling us to do. They told us to put a file on hold.
     If this is how a bank is going to conduct its business, then the bank should be bearing the sanctions. Florida Default can cut whatever deal it wants to cut with them, but at the end of the day, the bank is responsible for this.
     Thank You.

MS. HILL: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: I need the transcript ordered, please, and a simple order attached that adopts the transcript as my order, because I think that's going to be the cleanest way to do that. And I will direct that the transfer of title occur within 30 days.

Then the attorney for the defense realizes this is her moment.

MS. KAHN: Your Honor, if I may add, I have an affidavit in support of fees, attorneys fees, reasonable fees.

THE COURT: How much?

MS. KAHN: [$]1,222, your Honor. 6.11 hours.

To the surprise of no one, Ms. Kahn gets her money.

Fade to black.

Fin.

Hit Them Where Their Heart Would Be, If They Had One

(Via Naked Capitalism)

Short version:

• Foreclosure mill moves against homeowner.
• Foreclosure mill is forced to admit to a bankruptcy judge that they are moving to foreclose, sans paperwork.
• Bankruptcy judge puts her foot in said mill's ass so hard, they're spitting up shoe leather.

A thing of beauty from any angle, but really, read the whole account. I'm focusing on the 2010 case before Judge Bailey, but a more recent case is what Yves is trying to track down. As in Have judges finally starting giving out free houses to address clear instances of foreclosure fraud?

Stay tuned.

Judge Sumi Loses Her Patience - Declares WI Act 10 as Unpublished

Pressed by an Administration that insisted on squeezing through every potential loophole, Dane County Circuit Judge Sumi released a third restraining order declaring WI Act 10 as unpublished. She repeats her earlier TRO language and adds:

FURTHER, based on the briefs of counsel, the uncontroverted testimony, and the evidence received at the March 29, 2011 evidentiary hearing, it is hereby DECLARED that the 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 has not been published within the meaning of Wis. Stats. 991.11, 35.095(1)(b) and 35.095(3)(b), and is therefore not in effect.
SO ORDERED this 31st day of March 2011, at 8:15 am.

For my own tastes, I would think she would have been better served using language specifying that this TRO was to preserve the status quo pending the completion of testimony on tomorrow's hearing.

There was a bit of urgency in stopping what could be a runaway train - but more restraint in the language would serve this judge well.

I fully expect, despite their assurances that they'll fall in line, the administration is going to press hard on the WI Supreme Court to intervene at the earliest possible opportunity.

Honest to Pete... what next?

Seriously.

Late Edit: Also, for people interested in the legal wrangling over the publishing statutes, illusory tenant offers a great summary of the relevant bits.

And people interested in the relevant caselaw being bandied about concerting whether or not a judge can meddle in these affairs - I'd go no further than the WI Court of Appeals referral of the case to the WI Supreme Court. They list four cases that are pertinent and nicely summarize each of them.


(H/t The Wheeler Report, obviously)

WI Act 10 Litigation Recap

Because it helps me to spell these things out.

Ismael R Ozanne vs. Jeff Fitzgerald et al 2011CV1244

March 18, 2011 - Issues a Temporary Restraining Order

Appealed to WI Court of Appeals

March 24, 2011 - WI Court of Appeals refers case to the WI Supreme Court

No word from the WI Supreme Court

March 25, 2011 - WI Sen. Majority Leader meets with LRB chief to ask/insist that WI Act 10 be published.
WI Legislative Reference Bureau publishes WI Act 10 with a disclaimer

Dane County DA Ozanne asks for a court order to have WI Act 10 taken down. The duty judge, Judge Sarah O'Brien, reviews the situation and decides a judicial order would be irrelevant and denies it. Essentially, the status quo will be unaffected by the LRB's "display" of WI Act 10 on their website.


March 29, 2011 - The Wisconsin Dept of Justice asks the WI Court of Appeals to withdraw the case that has been referred to the WI Supreme Court because WI Act 10 is now "published" (in the WI DOJ's eyes, the case is moot). The WI Court of Appeals denies this motion.

also on March 29, 2011 - Judge Sumi holds a day long hearing and issues an amended Temporary Restraining Order and threatens government officials who violate it with judical sanctions.

But what about the other, neglected child? The case that the unions have brought directly against the state?

Dane County et al vs. State of Wisconsin et al - 2011AP613LV

The got a hearing about consolidating two cases into one, but not a lot of ink...

Tone and Undertone

Following WI Judge Sumi's reiteration of her restraining order, you would think a certain amount of conservative face-saving would be in order.

"You're wrong" shouts the WI Dane County GOP:

For those people that don’t know, the state of Wisconsin has an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. The executive branch has the job of carrying out the laws and setting the agenda for his administration. The legislative branch has the job of passing laws. And the judicial branch has the job of interpreting and applying the laws and ensuring their constitutionality.

By Judge Sumi’s action today, it is apparent that she has forgotten those roles and she thinks that her job is to be a member of all three branches. The Republican Party of Dane County believes it is time for the judicial branch to stop being judicial activists. If they want to legislate the laws, they need to run for political office not judicial office.

But those are words of political hacks. You expect them to be snide and petty.

But the outright defiance by those serving in government is pretty surprising:

But minutes [after Judge Sumi re-issued her restraining order], outside the court room, Assistant Attorney General Steven Means said the legislation "absolutely" is still in effect.

Last night on Maddow, WI Sec. of State suggested that the GOP might not have the votes if Act 10 is voided for the open meetings violation. Whether or not that's true - that would be perhaps the strongest possible motivator for brass knuckles tactics to get Act 10 over the finish line now.

The WI Dept of Administration is publishing new access rules for the Wisconsin capitol building again.

And the hairs are going up on the back of my neck. Judge Sumi has a hearing on the union lawsuits today, and the follow up to the open meetings lawsuit this Friday.

What are these guys up to?

Against the Advice of Counsel

(Via NOLA)

[Isaiah] Doyle, of Harvey, was convicted Thursday of murdering a store clerk during a robbery in Marrero in 2005. The same jury that convicted him of first-degree murder will decide if he should be executed for the crime.

Doyle told the jury that he shot store clerk Hwa Lee four times only because the gun jammed and prevented him shooting her more.
"The only reason she was shot four times is because the gun jammed,'' he said. "Otherwise I would have emptied the gun in her f--- head.''

Later, he told the jury that he would kill them all if he had an AK-47 and pointed to one juror and said he wanted to cut off his head.

I'm picturing this man's attorney as he says this.

Too late for the crazy defense...?

WI Gov. Walker Asks For Federal Funds For More Trains

No, you are not reading that wrong. See?

Several months after rejecting federal funds to build high-speed rail across Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker is now asking for at least $150 million to add trains for an existing Milwaukee-to-Chicago line.
Walker said Tuesday the federal funds would be used to buy two train sets and eight locomotives as well as build a maintenance facility in Milwaukee.

It's like... Scott Walker's on a quest to make everyone hate him or something. All those people who went to bat for him on the high speed rail thing... how ya feeling now?

(H/t WSJ)

Maneuver and Chase

The battle over the anti-union law (2011 Wisconsin Act 10) continues...

Via the Milwaukee Journal:

Three cases are continuing over the new law, leaving the courts as the final arbiter of whether the law is in effect, whether it was adopted properly and whether aspects of it are constitutional. Huebsch said he would abide by court rulings if he is ordered to stop implementation of the law.

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, filed a complaint this month to block the law. He contended that a committee of lawmakers violated the open meetings law when it approved the measure, which was a key step to advancing it to the GOP-controlled Assembly and Senate.

Republicans argue they did not violate the meetings law.

Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi on March 18 said Ozanne's case was likely to succeed and blocked Democratic Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law.

But on Friday, the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau - which was not under the court order - published the law.

The director of the reference bureau, Stephen Miller, said Friday that statutes required him to take that step, but that he does not believe the law takes effect until the secretary of state acts.

Last week, the Department of Justice appealed Sumi's temporary restraining order. The appeals court panel said the state Supreme Court should take the case, but the high court hasn't ruled on whether it will take it.

On Monday, the Department of Justice asked to withdraw its appeal, saying the law had now been published. It also asked Sumi to vacate the temporary restraining order, withdraw Tuesday's hearing and dismiss La Follette from the case.

Ozanne, meanwhile, asked Sumi to declare that the reference bureau's actions did not constitute publication of the law under the state constitution and that the bureau is subject to and had violated the restraining order. He further asked the judge to order the reference bureau to remove the act from the Legislature's website.

The WI DoJ's attempt to withdraw its appeal (because it belives the law is in effect and the appeal is moot) was denied (pdf) with the court saying, in effect, "we don't have the right to yank a case away from the WI Supreme Court." As in, sorry, fellas. You asked us to give it to them so we did, we're not taking it away from them because you've changed your mind.

Ozanne's request that the LRB be ordered to "unpublish" Act 10 was denied - with Judge Sumi's proxy saying that the LRB's publication did not change the status quo.

Assuming I'm reading this right, this leaves two pending cases:

• Ozanne's public meetings violation case before Judge Sumi; and
• the appeal of Judge Sumi's restraining order sitting on the desk of the WI Supreme Court.

With Judge Sumi's hearing going on right now, it'll be interesting to know if the WI Supreme Court will let this play out before they decide whether or not to step in (it would seem to make sense, but if they believe the restraining order is in error - they might jump in now).

All in all, quite the mess.

(H/t The Wheeler Report)

Late Edit: Today's testimony ended, sounds like there will be an amended restraining order, and testimony will continue on Friday. via @madisoninfo/dcc

Wisconsin's First Honest Budget

Hardly

A report released Monday by the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau showed the state would spend a proposed $64.1 billion in state and federal dollars over two years after including amounts that are being transferred to quasi-public authorities like the University of Wisconsin-Madison. That would amount to $609.5 million more over the 2011-'13 budget.

When Walker unveiled his budget proposal on March 1, he said it would cut spending of all dollars by more than $4 billion, or 6%. But those amounts didn't include spending cuts that simply amounted to transferring entities like UW-Madison and a new agency to replace the state Department of Commerce off the state's books.

Plus ca change...

Unringing a Bell

(Via The Wheeler Report)

Wisconsin just keeps on with the crazy. You would think there would be little ambiguity about how a piece of legislation goes into effect.

The bill is passed, signed and becomes law.

But there's more procedure than that and the bill is not law until it is published.

And (following a complaint) Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issues a temporary restraining order

I do, therefore, restrain and enjoin the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10.

Judge Sumi schedules a hearing for March 29, and goes out of the state.

As everybody now knows, the State's Legislative Reference Bureau publishes the Act with this disclaimer:

* Section 991.11, WISCONSIN STATUTES 2009−10 : Effective date of acts. “Every act and every portion of an act enacted by the legislature over the governor’s partial veto which does not expressly prescribe the time when it takes effect shall take effect on the day after its date of publication as designated” by the secretary of state [the date of publication may not be more than 10 working days after the date of enactment].

† Pursuant to section 35.095 (3) (b), Wis. Stats., the secretary of state designated March 25, 2011, as the date of publication for this act. On March 18, 2011, the Dane County Circuit Court enjoined the secretary of state from publishing 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 until further order of the court. Section 35.095 (3) (a), Wis. Stats., requires the Legislative Reference Bureau to publish every act within 10 working days after its date of enactment.

Litigants rush to court and demand a temporary restraining order be issued to the LRB, making them “un-publish” and bizarrely, the GOP Majority leader makes multiple statements that the LRB publication puts the law in effect.

With Judge Sumi unavailable, it falls to Dane County Circuit Judge Sarah B. O’Brien to release a statement denying a temporary restraining order – because – as she puts it:

There will likely be questions raised in the underlying lawsuit about the significance of the “publication” by the Legislative Reference Bureau in light of the existence of the restraining order issued by Judge Sumi. I am not taking any position on whether the LRB has effectively “published” the act, nor on the effect of the LRB’s action in regard to a potential effective date of the bill. However there is no critical urgency to resolving those questions. Restraining orders are issued to protect the status quo. As Judge Sumi said in issuing the temporary restraining order enjoining publication of the bill on March 18, 2011: Finally, the necessity to preserve the status quo. I think relief is essential to preserve the status quo, which is what exists here and now. The bill has passed. But it has not been published.

1 I am using quotation marks around the word “published” to make clear that this is not a ruling on whether the Act has now been legally published.

Whatever the significance of it may be, the LRB acted today by putting the bill on its website. That bell cannot be “unrung”. Ordering that the bill be taken off the website, as I believe Attorney Ozanne would like to request, would have no legal significance. Therefore I am declining to hold a hearing in this matter

The judge is studiously avoiding the publication issue, but is implicitly saying that Judge Sumi's order preserved the status quo "which is what exists here and now." i.e. Ain't nothing changed, so I'm not issuing another order that will in no way affect the legal status of Act 10.

Taken as a whole you have a series of things that just don't follow each other so good:

• Judge Sumi restraining further implementation of Act 10
• a state agency doing something it is legally obligated to do and that has no implementation significance, 
• GOP leadership claiming that the law has been implemented
• and the WI Department of Administration Secretary saying his department is moving forward with implementing the Act

A very generous soul might excuse Sen. Fitzgerald's statements as mere grandstanding, but I would think the WI DoA would be flirting with contempt.

Madness.

If You Strike, We Won't Help You Eat

Are you F*&%#-ing kidding me?

Buried Provision in House GOP Bill Would Cut Off Food Stamps to Entire Families if One Member Strikes

H.R. 1135 contains this provision:

That's a family wide ban, for the actions of a single working member.


GOP to American Workers: "You'll take what we give and like it...and what we're giving - is taking."

(H/t Naked Capitalism)

Late Edit: Joke's on us, I guess... The law has read this way since 1981. Which raises the obvious question - if this is current law - why is this in the House bill?

Wisconsin GOP Goes Fishing

On March 15, University of Wisconsin Professor William Cronon writes a blog post analysing the origins of the current wave of anti-union legislation at the state level. He later follows this up with an Op Ed in the NYT.

But two days after the blog post the Wisconsin GOP contacts the UW with a Freedom of Information Act request for all of Prof. Cronon's emails that mention any of these terms:

Republican, Scott Walker, recall, collective bargaining, AFSCME, WEAC, rally, union, Alberta Darling, Randy Hopper, Dan Kapanke, Rob Cowles, Scott Fitzgerald, Sheila Harsdorf, Luther Olsen, Glenn Grothman, Mary Lazich, Jeff Fitzgerald, Marty Beil, or Mary Bell.

Zero points for subtlety here - this is a naked attempt to make the professor squirm. We're going to read your email...Do you have anything to hide?

Think about how you'd respond to that. The political organization behind the current governor and majorities in both state houses wants copies of your email that include these terms.

Tactically, there are a number of clever aspects to this.

First, there's the chilling effect. You get a message like that, you might decide that your current line of research isn't worth the hassle of a legal struggle or a public war of words over your reputation. A win for the GOP without a lot of investment.

Second, there's the narrative win: You get any hit on these terms that results in an unflatteringly partisan message - you post them and announce that you've discovered this person is partisan, so any research they produce is bogus, and there is confirmation that university professors are liberal partisans infecting the youth of America.

Fun experiment: search your own email for these terms and see what comes up. Would those emails be justified to establish the truth of a hypothetical GOP claim that you were using email for improper purposes? Would you be comfortable handing those messages over to your political opposites? Discuss.

Third, you get to watch the professor and their university go into public contortions as they attempt to resist the FOIA request. See!! They don't want to answer questions!!.

And finally, the news cycle is occupied with something other than Why the hell is the GOP suddenly pushing anti-union legislation as a top priority?

Read Prof. Cronon's response - it's a marvelous summary of what is at stake.

He also includes an devastatingly appropriate visual aid:

Seems to me I've seen that plaque before...

(H/t TPM)

4-3 vs 3-4, Nothing More

The Awl's Abe Sauer has another great post on the Wisconsin situation: Wisconsin's Nasty Spring Election: Impartiality with Its Sleeves Rolled

After pointing out that that current Wisconsin supreme court judge David Prosser was oh-so-happy to be identified with incoming Governor Scott Walker before the whole flap over collective bargaining - now he seems to have second thoughts. He's his own man. We need impartiality in all things.


Witness the WI GOP asking Wisconsin's Chief Justice to Recuse herself from ruling on the union busting law because she's received political donations from unions. Cos' y'know the GOP is all about appearing above board in all things.


Sauer goes on to shine a harsh light on judge Prosser's impartiality (as well as his contempt for his opponent):

In February he was the keynote speaker "on behalf of" the Outagamie County Republican Party at its annual Lincoln Day dinner. A video posted on the Rock County Republican Party Facebook Page shows Prosser at its dinner mocking his challenger about how, as a prosecutor for the Dept. of Natural Resources, she has wasted her time… charging those violating environmental regulations. Prosser said: "She's very concerned about individuals who violate the rules on docks." The crowd laughs. "And she wants some people not to have any docks at all!" The crowd laughs more.


...


Prosser's scorn for what is essentially a prosecutor doing her job is stunning, considering Prosser's own history as a prosecutor. In 2008, Prosser was forced to recuse himself from a case involving sexually abused minors and the Catholic Church because, while serving as district attorney of Outagamie County in 1979, Prosser had refused to prosecute a Green Bay priest accused of sexually molesting two brothers. His reasoning? It would have been too hard on the boys. (In 2004 the priest, then 81, was imprisoned after abusing an unknown further number of children.) In 2008, the victim told the Journal Sentinel, "[Prosser] said it would be too embarrassing for a kid my age and said what jury would believe a kid testifying against a priest? Then he said, what really makes it bad is that [the priest's] brother, Joe, sang on the Lawrence Welk show and everybody watched that back then."

So which former district attorney would you rather have on the high court bench: the anal retentive prosecutor charging people with extending their lake docks two feet longer than allowed by the law or the guy who doesn't prosecute a child molester because the priest's brother was once on the Lawrence Welk Show?

Nicely put.

Read the full post.

Equal Justice

Just read this:

David Weidner has an excellent column on the unfortunate case of Sergey Aleynikov, better known as the guy who stole computer code from Goldman Sachs.
Last week, a federal judge handed Aleynikov got eight-plus years in prison for the theft. The fact is, Aleynikov is a thief, and Weidner makes sure you know he’s not minimizing that fact. But he contextualizes it, and it’s enlightening:

On March 18, the same day that U.S. District Judge Denise Cote handed down Mr. Aleynikov’s sentence of eight years and a month in prison, a different judge sent William J. Cannon, 22, of Ukiah, Calif., to prison for seven years. Mr. Cannon was convicted of the attempted rape of a 16-year-old girl.

Rodney Williams, 42, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in Norfolk, Va., for shooting his victim eight times in a fight outside a sports bar, got 12 months in prison and a $2,500 fine.

Moral: Work for Wall Street, you're above the law.

Steal from Wall Street, and you are going down harder than rapists and killers.

Our Kind of Sicko

Mother Jones calls it "The Best Journalism Want-Ad Ever, Ever"

And I'd have to second that.

Just read it.

...if you’re the type of sicko who likes holing up in a tiny, closed  office with reporters of questionable hygiene to build databases from scratch by hand-entering thousands of pages of documents to take on powerful people and institutions that wish you were dead, all for the glorious reward of having readers pick up the paper and glance at your potential prize-winning epic as they flip their way to the Jumble… well, if that sounds like journalism Heaven, then you’re our kind of sicko.

(H/t Felix Salmon)

Madison Time Lapse

I'm sure to the social networking types, this is old news - but if you haven't seen it yet-

-it's totally worth a look.

H/t E

Low Bidders

Q: Aren't you a little young to be international arms dealers?
A: Yes. Yes we are.

Just read this:

...[Efraim] Diveroli and [David] Packouz soon got the break they were looking for. On July 28th, 2006, the Army Sustainment Command in Rock Island, Illinois, posted a 44-page document titled "A Solicitation for Nonstandard Ammunition." It looked like any other government form on fbo.gov, with blank spaces for names and telephone numbers and hundreds of squares to be filled in. But the document actually represented a semi-covert operation by the Bush administration to prop up the Afghan National Army. Rather than face a public debate over the war in Afghanistan, which was going very badly indeed, the Pentagon issued what is known as a "pseudo case" — a solicitation that permitted it to allocate defense funds without the approval of Congress. The pseudo case wasn't secret, precisely, but the only place it was publicized was on fbo.gov. No press release was issued, and there was no public debate. The money was only available for two years, so it had to be spent quickly. And unlike most federal contracts, there was no dollar limit posted; companies vying for the deal could bid whatever they wanted.

Based on the numbers, it looked like it was going to be a lot of money. The Army wanted to buy a dizzying array of weapons — ammunition for AK-47 assault rifles and SVD Dragunov sniper rifles, GP 30 grenades, 82 mm Russian mortars, S-KO aviation rockets. The quantities were enormous — enough ammo to literally create an army — and the entire contract would go to a single bidder. "One firm fixed-price award, on an all-or-none basis, will be made as a result of this solicitation," the tender offer said.

The solicitation was only up for a matter of minutes before Diveroli spotted it, reading the terms with increasing excitement. He immediately called Packouz, who was driving along the interstate.

"I've found the perfect contract for us," Diveroli said. "It's enormous — far, far bigger than anything we've done before. But it's right up our alley."

The pair met at Diveroli's apartment to smoke a joint and discuss strategy. Supplying the contract would mean buying up hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ammunition for the kind of Eastern Bloc weapons that the Afghans used. Because such weapons were traded in the gray market — a world populated by illegal arms dealers, gun runners and warlords — the Pentagon couldn't go out and buy the ammo itself without causing a public relations disaster. Whoever won the contract to arm the Afghans would essentially be serving as an official front operation, laundering shady arms for the Pentagon.

...

The Pentagon can be a slow-moving bureaucracy, a place where paperwork goes to die. But because the Afghanistan solicitation was a "pseudo case," it had been designed to move swiftly. On the evening of January 26th, 2007, Packouz was parking his beat-up old Mazda Protege when Diveroli called.

"I have good news and bad news," Diveroli said.

"What's the bad news?" Packouz asked.

"Our first order is only for $600,000."

"So we won the contract?" Packouz asked in disbelief.

"Fuck yeah!" said Diveroli.

...and this is where I point out that Packouz is 25 years old and Diveroli is 21.

Seriously.
H/t Felix Salmon

Still Looking For A Clear Picture of Fukushima Daiichi

Latest status report from JAIF:

Latest photo of workers in the Fukushima control room:

And (via VOA's Steve Herman) a report by Austrian scientists projecting the radiation levels. Herman the guy who posted the story on high levels of radiation in Iitate, Japan that equalled a chest x-ray every hour. I'm still not convinced he's not an outlier or missing a larger picture - but he posting sources that make you wonder.

Like this bit from the report:

"The nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl had a source term of iodine-131 at 1.76 x 10^18 becquerels of cesium-137 at 8.5 x 10^16 bequerels," the statement added. "The estimated for Fukushima source terms are thus at 20 percent of Chernobyl for iodine, and 20-60 percent of Chernobyl for cesium."

The lead Austrian researcher speculates that levels may in fact be higher - in part because of a delay in collecting data and gaps in the data collected.

Still room for things to not be bad - but a 77 foot tsunami and people being told to avoid giving tap water to infants is pretty damn bad enough.

Fukushima Parody

Oh sweet mother of God...

Alternate Headline: Sen. Graham is a media whore

Because, really... what would a nuclear crisis be without Sen. Graham leveraging it for his own visibility?

The Young Ones Theme Song

If you're like the Awl's Dave Bry, (and myself) you thought the Brit-Com The Young Ones was about the funniest thing on late 80's TV. University Challenge still kills.

Anyway, I never knew (and Bry's post points out) that the Young Ones theme song was a Cliff Richards cover, Makes sense, but any Young Ones fans out there might be just as surprised as I was to hear the original version by Cliff Richards and the Shadows:

Supremes to Fed: Spill It

I'll be buggered. Mark Pittman's wins his FOIA lawsuit, posthumously.

Yemen: Ground Level Account

(Via the Telegraph)

On the other side of what the demonstrators have begun to call "Taghyir" or "Change" Square, others stripped off their jackets and advanced towards the ever more relentless gunfire, pointing towards their chests as if in an invitation to shoot.

As the carnage continued, killing 52 and wounding hundreds more, victims were brought to a nearby mosque that had been turned into makeshift hospital.

Photographs showed the dead, identity cards and miniatures of the Koran laid on their corpses, lain in rows across the carpeted floor on an inner prayer room.

One young boy, barefoot and dressed in an Arsenal football club T-shirt, had been shot just above the eye. Another photograph showed a veiled woman cradling the body of her young son, his arms outstretched as if in supplication.

In one video, a man holding the body of his dead brother is shown making a tearful telephone call to his mother to tell her, in a faltering voice, that her son is dead.

Nearly all the bodies in the photographs had bullet wounds either in the forehead, neck or in the back of the head. There seems little doubt that this was the work of trained marksmen.

Yet President Saleh, while expressing his sorrow, claimed that the gunmen were either the demonstrators themselves or irate residents neighbouring the university who had grown tired of the noise of the protests – a claim denied by the residents themselves.

The opposition coalition at the forefront of the protests accused Mr Saleh, a key US ally against al-Qaeda, of perpetrating crimes against humanity.

"It is a massacre," said opposition spokesman Mohammed al-Sabri. "This is part of a criminal plan to kill off the protesters, and the president and his relatives are responsible for the bloodshed."

Much of the sniper fire emanated from a building allegedly owned by a regional governor close to President Saleh, further evidence, the opposition said, of the regime's involvement in the killings.

Video footage showed a masked man crouching behind a balustrade on the building's roof.

As the gunfire continued unabated, a group of protesters stormed the rooftop, braving gunfire to capture 10 of the snipers – seven of whom were said to have possessed government identification papers.

One of the suspected snipers was dragged into the streets, where he was beaten and clubbed by protesters, while a second was allegedly flung off the edge of the building.

Ye gods.

VOA: Radiation Levels Equal a Chest X-Ray Every Hour

Posting this because this jumped out of the Voice Of America article I was reading:

The Fukushima Prefectural Government tells VOA News that for the second day in a row the highest radiation level it registered outside the plant was in the village of Iitate, 40 kilometers northwest of the nuclear facility. The reading there, very slightly elevated from Friday, was 21.80 micro-sieverts per hour at 6 p.m. Saturday. Assuming these levels are staying consistent throughout the day, that means residents there are receiving about the equivalent of a plain film chest X-ray every hour.

40 kilometers would be double the official evacuation zone.

That seems like it would get more attention than just the VOA.

I found another account (also based on the VOA correspondent Steve Herman) that points out that this report is causing confusion. But seriously, if they really are picking up radiation levels this high - it would be a fairly big deal.

Do You Prefer "Mrs. God" or "Goddess?"

(Via the Awl)

Okay, this needs some explanation and context: God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost

Debtor's Prison? Seriously?!

CJR's Ryan Chittum picks out a WSJ piece about - of all things - debtor's prison in the US.
The WSJ points out "More than a third of all U.S. states allow borrowers who can't or won't pay to be jailed."

The money quote:

Your hundreds of billions of dollars of bailouts at work:

In September 2009, Jeffrey Stearns, a concrete-company owner, answered a knock at the door from a Hancock County, Ind., deputy sheriff. The deputy was holding a warrant to arrest Mr. Stearns for not paying $4,024.88 owed to a unit of American International Group Inc. on a loan for his pickup truck.

After being handcuffed in front of his four children, Mr. Stearns, 29 years old, spent two nights in jail, where he said he was strip-searched and sprayed for lice. Court records show he was released after agreeing to pay $1,500 to the loan company. “I didn’t even know I was being sued,” he said, though he doesn’t dispute owing the money. “It’s the scariest thing that ever happened to me.”

AIG, of course, got hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts from taxpayers. Now it’s having those taxpayers thrown in jail. Nice.

Yeah, Nice.

Fukushima Infographics

If you've been glued to the coverage of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis - you could do worse than to check out the infographics put out by JAIF

It's been easy to lose the sequence of events by switching news sources - having the series of graphics makes it very clear.

2011-03-15

2011-03-16

Not comforting, mind you - but clear.

How Do You Say "Oh Sh!t" in Japanese?

(Via the NYT)

Japan faced the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident Tuesday morning, as an explosion at the most crippled of three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station damaged its crucial steel containment structure, emergency workers were withdrawn from the plant, and much larger emissions of radioactive materials appeared immiment [sic], according to official statements and industry executives informed about the developments....

The sharp deterioration came after government officials said the containment structure of the No. 2 reactor, the most seriously damaged of three reactors at the Daichi plant, had suffered damage during an explosion shortly after 6 a.m. on Tuesday.

They initially suggested that the damage was limited and that emergency operations aimed at cooling the nuclear fuel at three stricken reactors with seawater would continue. But industry executives said that in fact the situation had spiraled out of control and that all plant workers needed to leave the plant to avoid excessive exposure to radioactive leaks.

If all workers do in fact leave the plant, the nuclear fuel in all three reactors is likely to melt down, which would lead to wholesale releases of radioactive material — by far the largest accident of its kind since the Chernobyl disaster 25 years ago.

Wisconsin Union-Busting: The Aftermath

The Awl' Abe Sauer has been writing some seriously good sh!t about the whole Wisconsin mess.

Here's an opener from A Blueprint for a Takeover: Wisconsin Republicans Lied While the Kochs Schemed:

The simple rhetoric of the Wisconsin budget battle is that the Democrats are just "thug" unions—and that Republicans are carrying water for wealthy corporate sleaze. It's more complicated than that. For one, several teachers' unions endorsed Wisconsin Republicans last year—unions are hardly the unthinking automatons of the left they're now depicted to be. Why would they do that? Quite simply, those Republicans looked into the face of their constituents… and lied.

He follows this up with A Guide to American Majority's Plan to Dismantle Public Schools where he discusses the astroturfing firm's efforts to bend public education to their will:

We mentioned the activist training done by American Majority, including its most recent event in Madison on March 5th. American Majority even provides "A Wisconsin School Board Primer" about what a school board is, how to run for it, and suggestions on reforming your school district. These suggestions, surprise, are carbon copies of both the education reforms introduced in Scott Walker's budget bill as well as the campaigning points for candidiates such as Sauk County Tea Party president and 2011 Baraboo school board hopeful John Meegan, who, as we pointed out, has been working closely with American Majority since last year.

The video of American Majority seminar on guerilla internet tactics is especially nice.

Here's a sample:

American Majority Instructor: So what do we do? We become digital activists. We identify the medium, we learn the medium, we manipulate the medium. It was printing presses [in the revolutionary war era] it's the internet now. That's where we influence the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. The Tea Party's got us running up the hills, American Majority is trying to give you the tools, the muskets, right? So, here's what I do: I get on Amazon, I type in "liberal books" I go through and I say 1-star, 1-star, 1-star...The flip side is you need to go to conservative, libertarian, whatever um...you need to go to their products and give them 5 stars. So, literally 80% of the books I put a star on - I don't read. So, that's how it works."

A  visual aid might be in order, here.

This is what a political movement is according to American Majority:

Note the white tablecloths

And this is what a political movement actually looks like:

And finally, Sauer gives us some great interviews in his latest post: Wisconsequences: What Happened This Week and What's Next (Up First: the Voter ID Bill) (emphasis added):

In the last few weeks as Walker has claimed that he's giving local leaders the tools they need, more and more of these leaders have come forward to declare that they did not ask for a berth as wide as Walker means to provide. Miles Turner, executive director of the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, told the Isthmus: "We've sought significant modifications in bargaining laws, but we've never sought to eliminate collective bargaining rights." Turner reiterated that his organization, which represents nearly all 424 Wisconsin school districts, did not support eliminating collective bargaining.

The Isthmus also spoke with Dan Thompson, executive director of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, representative of nearly 600 of the state's towns, who said, "The governor gave us a great deal more flexibility than we asked for." Thompson pointed out that the bill's limitation to cost-of-living increases will cripple abilities to compete with the private sector, the exact kind of commutative equality Walker claims his bill promotes.

So, to be perfectly clear, despite how Walker's cuts and union dissolving measures are pitched as being undertaken because Wisconsin had "no choice," it was all about choice. Wisconsin looked at its budget, and it chose to make massive cuts to education. Instead of making across the board, equilateral cuts, including minor tax increases and union concessions, Walker chose to balance his entire budget on the back of education. That's it. It was a conscious decision. They should own it.

On Wednesday and Thursday of this week, Republicans owned it. They owned the hell out of it.

His blow by blow account of the rushed vote is a must read.

Great stuff.

WI GOP Legislators Come Clean

WI GOP before Today - "These provisions gutting workers rights are necessary to balance the budget. This is financial legislation"

WI GOP Today -  "This is not about the budget, so we'll pass it without a financial quorum (that we can't get)."

And just in case there's any doubt this was about a political power struggle, here's WI Majority Leader Fitzgerald fessing up (emphasis added):

FITZGERALD: Well if they flip the state senate, which is obviously their goal with eight recalls going on right now, they can take control of the labor unions. If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the unions, certainly what you’re going to find is President Obama is going to have a much difficult, much more difficult time getting elected and winning the state of Wisconsin.

Badgers, get your recall pens ready. These people have to go down - hard.

We're Coming For You...

Three points back, with a game in hand - against West Bromwich Albion.

Sorry Baggies, you gotta go down.

...And Liverpool, I knew I could Kuyt on you!

Go Gunners!

Credit Card Interchange Reform

Not exactly a barn burner of a subject line - but here's a great way to draw someone's interest into why this subject matters, courtesy of Rortybomb:

“Credit cards are the lifeline of my business as customers use plastic for everything from; a cup of coffee, to a pack of gum, to a tank of gasoline. Credit cards and debit cards are easy to use, but what customers don’t know is that every time they use a credit card, I pay a fee. For example, a customer purchases a local newspaper (75 cent retail) my profit is 9 cents. If the customer is using a debit card I would pay 25 cent for the transaction fee plus .08% interchange fee. If the customer puts down a Visa credit card the transaction fee would be 19 cents plus 1.68% interchange fee. Regardless of the payment option I lose money on the sale.”
–Jinger Duryea, President of CN Brown which owns Big Apple convenience stores across Maine

A minimum charge by the credit card companies eats retail vendors lunch.

Credit card companies don't care - but there are more merchants than credit card companies. You would think that would make them care.

But you'd never get that from corporate shill like Edward Wyatt

Memo to Gov. Walker

You aren't Reagan, the teachers aren't PATCO, and the Berlin wall has been down for decades.

Also, if you're taking your cues from Reagan - he didn't agree with you either:

"These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland … They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."
- Reagan in 1980 discussing Polish workers standing up to the Soviets.

Teachers vs. Wall Street

Only because this was too perfect...

Hey, I wonder how those same people who would have the government limit teacher pay and benefits would feel about the government limiting CEO pay at bailed-out-with-taxpayer-money firms?
-Jon Stewart

Oh and Fox News Business Contributor Tracy Byrnes? You get my vote for hypocrite of the year.

Reaching Out

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published a letter from Dane County District Judge John Albert to the union protesters:

Members of the Rotunda Community:

Today, I have ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs concerning the issues before me on access to the State Capitol of Wisconsin. After three days of testimony, the record establishes that the recent protest was unprecedented in the history of the state of Wisconsin. Thousands of people peacefully protested for two weeks and no injuries or damage to personal or government property occurred.

I credit that to the restraint and discipline of the protesters. I further commend law enforcement supervisors and every individual policeman or policewoman for the discipline and restraint shown during these unusual times.

The order that I will issue granting the Plaintiff's relief will contain what I consider to be a reasonable restraint on the time, place and manner of future demonstrations and protests. The restraint is as follows. Staying after the building is closed, is prohibited. Protests and demonstrations can be held at any time when the Capitol is open during normal business hours and, of course, if either house of the legislature is in session or any public hearing is being held.

I have attached a copy of a Notice requiring that you peacably vacate the State Capitol after business hours today. My intent is to facilitate the reopening of the Capitol consistent with the free assembly and free speech provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution as well as the parallel provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

It is my sincere hope that you honor the Notice and do your part to adhere to the principals of non-violent protest that has characterized these events.

Civil disobedience is always a citizen's option but understandably brings consequences to those exercising that right. If you stay you can expect that you will be removed in a humane manner and without excessive force.

In the interest of avoiding injury to anyone, please obey the Order.

Judge John C. Albert.

Siege and Standoff

(Via The Wheeler Report)

Okay, there's an awful lot of stuff hitting the wire about the Wisconsin State Capitol building.

Image via WaxingAmerica

Supposedly, the building is being locked up, people are being denied entrance, barriers have been erected, and windows are being bolted shut. (the bolted windows story appears to be crap)

This, apparently in defiance of a court order that the building be open.

What the hell is going on?

Well, if you read the WI DofA memo - whoever is calling the shots has decided to get the last remaining protesters out of the capitol by denying them essentials and waiting until they leave.

All access to the capitol in the meantime is strictly controlled until these holdouts give up the ghost. On the one hand you could say this is good policing - certainly preferable to going in and dragging people out. On the other hand, there are reports that state GOP legislators do not seem subject to these new access procedures, nor are attendees to a party for the Joint Finance Committee (this per State Rep. Mark Pocan's open letter).

Trust between the sides is nonexistent.

So, the position of the administration that is essentially "Leave, and then we'll let everyone back in" is a very hard sell. Apparently a judge has ordered the capitol open by Monday, March 7 - (but even then, there's noises from Dems like it will be open tomorrow) after the protesters are removed.

So we could have arrests, or other confrontation with the remaining capitol protesters. Or not.

And to top it all off - we have the WI Senate issuing orders to detain the missing Democratic State Senators.

Which is an interesting escalation, since (at least according to law firm Cullen, Weston, Pines & Bach) it is illegal to do so (emphasis added):

Members of the legislature shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest: nor shall they be subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session.

This is not an absolute bar against sanction - Wisconsin Statues Section 13.26 spells out a brief list of things that the legislature can punish "...contempt, by imprisonment, a breach of its privileges or the privileges of its members..."

Here's the first item on that list:

(a) Arresting a member or officer of the house, or procuring such member or officer to be arrested in violation of the member's privilege from arrest.

And, thus we have an interesting dilemma for WI State troopers.

And Wisconsin is no closer to ending this mess anytime soon.

Late Edit: Dane County Circuit Court Judge John Albert has ruled that the state's restrictions on access are illegal- and that the protesters must leave the capitol when the building is closed.

Which seems very reasonable.

It remains to be seen if the new restrictions on capitol access that follow this order are equally reasonable. Restricting protests to the ground floor seems very unreasonable.

About Damn Time

George R. R. Martin finally announces a publishing date for A Dance With Dragons.

Any excitement is tempered by the realization that (at this rate) I'll be in my sixties by the time he finishes the damn series.

O'Reilly, Fox News: Still Full of It

(H/t to AK)

Oh this is art. O'Reilly runs a clip supposedly from the protests in Wisconsin -

-and it features palm trees.

Seriously.



As a UW alum... I seem to have missed all the palm trees around the capitol building.

Ye Gods.

If People Do Not Know, They Cannot Care

While I'm listening to Gov. Walker's pep rally/Bullsh!t festival, I pulled up the Awl's great post about the misreading of the ground game in Madison, WI:

If the events in Wisconsin prove one thing, it is that the mainstream media has become journalistically irrelevant when it comes to national issues and coverage. Broadcast media is incapable of explaining anything outside a macropatriotic framework and has proven allergic to anything that puts off even the slightest whiff of the class warfare that scares away big-market advertorial. Meanwhile, the other side is cable news' partisan echo chamber of regurgitated self-assurance, where no blow is too low and no fact needs sourcing before being leveraged to make a prearranged point. Cable news reporting on Wisconsin is like going to a whorehouse and then bragging to your buddies about this girl you seduced.

It's hard to watch Walker's happy talk (punctuated by his minions eagerly applauding every break in the blather) and not wonder if Wisconsin's Union protesters are reaching the eyeballs they need.

Whose House Is It?

To watch Wisconsin politics now, you'd think the place had been invaded by aliens. The sedate Midwest lifestyle has degenerated into this

Capitol access was restricted over the weekend and again this morning, following days in which the building had been crowded with protesters. The Wisconsin State Employees Union, along with the AFL-CIO and AFSCME, filed the suit against the state of Wisconsin yesterday. Today, Judge Daniel Moeser ordered the building reopened.

There was a hearing today at 2:15 to sort out the particulars. Haven't heard what the net result was but then there was this bit:

Meanwhile, Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney also spoke at the news conference. He addressed questions about the removal of Dane County sheriff's deputies from security around the Capitol.

"We pulled our deputies out of Capitol security yesterday when we determined they were going to limit access to the Capitol. We did not want to serve as 'palace guards' at the Capitol. We are still assisting with security outside the Capitol, making sure protesters stay safe," he said.

Gov. Walker speaks at 4PM Central.

This should be interesting.

AT&T is Not A Person...

...which would explain their consistent inhumanity to man.

Point being, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled today in FCC v. AT&T (No. 09-1279) that corporations do not have personal privacy rights.

That anything should slow the legal march towards corporate personhood is more than a little stunning, but here's the kicker: The Chief Justice even served up a bit of judicial snark:

The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.

Zing!

(H/t Mom)