A Supreme Conflict Of Interest
June 30, 2015

kelly_rindfleisch-500px
As previously reported, Kelly Rindfleisch, a former aide to Scott Walker when he was Milwaukee County Executive, was charged and convicted of illegal politicking during government time and using government equipment. She appealed the proceedings and subsequent conviction numerous times to no avail. One of her latest appeal attempts went to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which declined to hear her case on a 6-0 vote (Justice David "Choke hold" Prosser recused himself.) Rindfleisch is now almost halfway through "serving her sentence." (More on that later.)

Rindfleisch has since made an appeal to the United Supreme Court, continuing her argument that the subpoenas were too broad and too vague and thus unconstitutional. She hasn't won on that argument yet, but what they hey?

Following that, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, one of the four corporate-controlled conservative justices, in an unprecedented move, asked his fellow justices to consider revisiting the Rindfleisch appeal:

On Thursday, a memo was filed from Gableman asking that the high court revisit the issue when it next meets in private. He did not explain why he wants to take the issue up in his one-paragraph memo.

Such a move is highly unusual, if not unprecedented. The original decision not to take the case was agreed to by all the justices except David Prosser, who did not participate in the case.

At first glance, the gentle reader might suspect that Gableman's unusual and questionable request came as a favor to one of his main benefactors, Wisconsin Club for Growth (WCfG). WCfG has a number of cases pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court regarding the John Doe investigation into the illegal collaboration between them and Scott Walker.

If WCfG could pull some money strings and get the Supreme Court to overturn Rindfleisch's conviction, this would set a precedent and give strength to their own cases.

To strengthen one's suspicions, one of the dark money propaganda groups, which has written over 200 articles about Rindlfeisch and labels her a "political prisoner," has revealed that Rindfleisch, who was given work release privileges from her home confinement (talk about doing hard time!), is working for Eric O'Keefe, the head of WCfG:

A deputy in Sauk County’s Huber, or work release, division, confirms that Rindfleisch is being monitored with an ankle bracelet and living with her sister in Sauk County. She is confined to the home, but has Huber privileges, including the right to work.

Rindfleisch is working for none other than Eric O’Keefe, the long-time conservative activist who has filed multiple lawsuits against Chisholm and two of his assistants alleging prosecutors trampled conservatives’ First Amendment rights with their politically charged John Doe investigations.

Wisconsin Watchdog has confirmed that Rindfleisch works for O’Keefe’s E&L Corp., a Spring Green-based company that O’Keefe has operated since 1993.

Rindfleisch, according to the Huber division, is picking up the cost of the monitoring device, at $17 a day.

O’Keefe, director of the limited-government group Wisconsin Club for Growth, has come to the defense of Rindfleisch, who was convicted in 2012 on a nebulous charged of misconduct in office. Rindfleisch served as deputy chief of staff for Walker when Walker was Milwaukee County Executive.

So, the former Walker aide who was convicted of illegal politicking ends up working for a Walker ally who is under investigation for illegal collaboration with Walker. And now, a Supreme Court Justice, who has ethical issues that he is still under investigation for and who has received financial support from WCfG, wants to reopen a case he originally voted not to hear.

Yeah, nothing to see here, right?

The real kicker is that if these four conservative justices, including Gableman, had even a modicum of ethics themselves, they would have already recused themselves from all of these cases due to their own conflicts of interest, as the Supreme Court of the United States had already ruled.

Discussion

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.
Mastodon