Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Justice Prosser's Conduct: Wrong, Right or Just Right-Wing?

I began researching this post by reading the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct, which readers can peruse for themselves here.  (A special thanks to my favorite lawyer for his assistance in understanding what I read.)  Both the Dane County Sheriff's office (at the request of the Capital Police) and the Wisconsin State Judicial Commission have found sufficient grounds to open two investigations into the accusations.

Justice David Prosser, Jr. was accused last week of behavior which if true, was possibly misconduct at the very least, illegal at worst.  Justice Ann Bradley has accused Justice Prosser of putting his hands on her in an unwelcome and intimidating manner during a dispute in which he was asked to leave her office, and did not do so.

This alleged act was witnessed by six of the seven Supreme Court Justices; all but one appears to have confirmed the accusation of Justice Bradley.  Justice Bradley has been very specific and clear in her accusation, which you can read here, courtesy of  JSOnline:
"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold. Those are the facts and you can try to spin those facts and try to make it sound like I ran up to him and threw my neck into his hands, but that's only spin.
Matters of abusive behavior in the workplace aren't resolved by competing press releases..
I'm confident the appropriate authorities will conduct a thorough investigation of this incident involving abusive behavior in the workplace."
It is worth noting that it was Justice Bradley who called out Justice Prosser for his verbal abuse of Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.  It was her emails becoming public which eventually led to Prosser admitting he made the 'intemperate remarks', but he blamed the victim of his attack rather than taking responsibility for his own behavior. 

Again, from JSOnline, The conflict with Chief Justice Abrahamson was, it should be noted in order to properly understand this subsequent conflict, the possible recusal of Justice Michael Gableman from ruling on a criminal case.  The justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court who are perceived as more liberal held to the higher ethical standard of Justice Gableman not ruling on a criminal case, and also over an ethics violation by Judge Gableman for not being honest and factual in campaign ads.  Justice Prosser has also opposed Justice Abrahamason over an ethics issue, where Justice Ziegler was formally reprimanded for violating the judicial ethics code.  I think it would be a fair statement that Justice Prosser tends to consistently favor a lower or lesser bar for conduct in the context of the judicial ethics code, rather than the higher standard of interpretation.  This appears to be reflected in his own conduct as well.
Justice Prosser's statement in response to the choking accusation by Justice Bradley, is here.
Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false. Until then I will refrain from further public comment.
As additional context to this specific accusation, is the assertion that the improperly aggressive conduct by Justice Prosser is not recent, and that it is part of a larger pattern of conduct.  Justice Bradley had written in emails and described in interviews:
In a March interview, Bradley said Prosser had flashes of extreme anger on and off over the years.

"It's been going on for years off and on," she said.

After Prosser's outburst, Bradley sent an email to him and other justices saying the behavior was unacceptable. She said this March that from the time of her email until then there had been no incidents of similar magnitude.

She said she sent the email in an effort to stop Prosser from behaving inappropriately.

"I've been trying over the years to (figure out) best how to deal with it and one way is to call it out, and that's what this email was," Bradley said in March. "I've thought of other ways that have been unsuccessful. This was to describe it as it is and then you can deal with it." "This . . . for me at least in part is about the institution," she added. "This behavior shouldn't be occurring at the workplace."

An hour and a half before sending her Feb. 18, 2010, email to all the justices, Bradley sent an email to Abrahamson and Crooks expressing her frustration with Prosser's outbursts.
"As you both know, I am no longer willing to tolerate Prosser's abusive behavior," Bradley wrote. "I have been at a loss just how to proceed."
Just because Justice Prosser has had anger issues, which appear to be documented by conflicts outside the Supreme Court as well as within it, does not prove that Justice Prosser battered Justice Bradley.  But it does raise concerns in the context of the Judicial Code of Conduct as to his behavior.

While Justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court have described Justice Bradley as aggressive in presenting her point of view, and even as provocative, I cannot find any similar pattern of Justice Bradley or Chief Justice Abrahamson having lost their self-control, or resorting to swearing, or threats and intimidation, or a similarly physical aggressiveness.  The following youtube video presents actual footage of Justice Prosser in action:


I could find no comparable video footage of either Justice Abrahamson or Justice Bradley acting in anger.  But what I did find was that Chief Justice Abrahamson was named Wisconsin's best justice in 2009 by the Wisconsin Law Journal, as shown in this video.  This is the woman that Justice Prosser called a bitch and threatened to destroy Abrahamson, with the bizarre and enigmatic additional statement that it 'wouldn't be a ground war', whatever the heck that means.  :


Additionally, in March, former Democratic Governor Lucey, who had been the CO-Chair of his re-election campaign, left that campaign, and gave his support to Prosser's competition, JoAnne Kloppenburg:
MADISON, Wis. -- Former Democratic Gov. Patrick Lucey is withdrawing his support for incumbent Justice David Prosser for Wisconsin Supreme Court and is throwing it to Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg.

Lucey released a statement to the media Thursday evening saying the campaign has revealed what he called "a disturbing distemper and lack of civility" in Prosser, though he did not cite specifics.  "I have followed with increasing dismay and now alarm the campaign of Justice David Prosser, whom I endorsed at the outset of his campaign and in whose campaign I serve as the honorary co-chairman," Lucey said in the statement. "I can no longer in good conscience lend my name and support to Justice Prosser's candidacy. Too much has come to light that Justice Prosser has lost that most crucial of characteristics for a Supreme Court Justice -- as for any judge -- even-handed impartiality. Along with that failing has come a disturbing distemper and lack of civility that does not bode well for the High Court in the face of demands that are sure to be placed on it in these times of great political and legal volatility."
At the same time, Lucey said he has continued to be impressed by Kloppenburg, saying she has shown the proper judicial temperament.
While I commend many of my conservative friends and colleagues for their vehement opposition to any form of violence against women, there is what appears to me to be a significant atmosphere of threats and intimidation against women on the bench in Wisconsin, that appears partisan in nature.  The cumulative effect of the apparently chronic loss of self control and anger management issues attributed to Justice Prosser, in conjunction with his lower standards for judicial ethics strongly suggests to me that there are some serious problems with behavior issues for Prosser.
 
There have been threats of violence on both sides of the political divide in Wisconsin; a 26 year old teacher was arrested for making death threats by email to Republican legislators, for which she was charged.  The woman told investigators that she had no intention of carrying out the threat, which parallels some (but not all) of the threats against Democratic federal law makers over the passage of health care reform.  However, as the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct notes, the judiciary is held to a higher standard of conduct that other people, which should be kept in mind as we await the outcome of the dual investigations of Justice Prosser.

2 comments:

  1. Ugly.

    That’s the only word that can describe the situation.

    Politics aside, this is an individual who continues to display anger management issues. There should be concerns for his spouse and family.
    If he was a subordinate, a boss should address the employee ( from experience, I know this is not easy ) … if he was a peer, a group intervention is possible … but when it is a “member of the ruling class”, it rarely happens.
    Obviously, the situation must have been very uncomfortable for Justice Ann Walsh Bradley to file the complaint … knowing that in the end, the matter would come before her in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

    If I was a voter, I would have had concerns based on the prior complaint, but unfortunately, Justice Prosser became a pawn in a bigger game. Voters were not making a judgment based on his merits, rulings and temperment, but instead on the Walker / worker’s rights debate … with tons of money coming in from outside the state.

    At this stage, the outcome is uncertain … but Justice Prosser could be replaced and that should be the focus … the replacement process.
    I don’t know the Wisconsin laws, but if it is the same as Minnesota, the power is too heavily vested in the Governor in appointing replacements. I wrote a commentary when Governor Pawlenty appointed David Stras to the MNSC …previously Governor Pawlenty had appointed his former lawyer, a former law partner and a former lawyer for the Republican Party to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The question posed in the commentary was : Supreme Court Justice Bachmann … it could happen.

    A better system would be to use a merit-selection commission to screen potential candidates and submit recommended finalists for final selection by the Governor. Once appointed, the recommendations of the Quie Commission should be enacted … retention through retention elections. Judges would be subject to a performance review seeking objective grading of judicial performance in the timeliness, conscientiousness, and courteous resolution of their judicial tasks. Judicial service would be maintained through “retention elections.” The election would include a ballot question asking whether a specific judge should be retained. Rather than run against a specific opponent, the incumbent would run on her or his record of service. If voted out of office, the incumbent would be replaced through the merit selection process.

    For the most part, Minnesota judges run unopposed and are retained … yet, there are “poor performing” judges who retain their jobs for years.
    Case in point, the Minnesota Board on Judicial Standards ruled that District Judge Warren Litynski violated professional standards when he issued a $1 fine against a man who abandoned five puppies in freezing weather by saying ''God ordained the killing of animals''. “Judge” Litynksi was reprimanded for expressing religious beliefs in court. In his ruling, Litynski noted that God ''killed animals to provide skins for Adam and Eve after they sinned.'' I was in the courtroom and was shocked by the “Judge’s” reasoning … “Judge” Litynksi complained that people were more concerned with animal abuse than abortions. BTW, the puppies were found and saved … re-united with their mother and five other siblings … and eventually all found homes through the Blue Earth-Nicollet County Humane Society.
    In every election from that 1991 incident until “Judge” Litynksi’s retirement in 2005, I wanted to vote against the man … but he was unapposed … in the end, his career outlived the Mother Dog and her puppies (as well as the defendent).

    There is a better way … we need merit selection and retention elections.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are absolutely correct Mac.

    This is not really about politics. I tried to go deeper in researching this, to get a sense of who each of these people are, to look for any evidence that they had a history of anger issues.

    The only one who did was Prosser, and those seem to be worsening as he gets older. I was particularly struck by former supporters (not just Lucey) who had expressed growing concerns about Prosser's anger and loss of self-control.

    This shouldn't be about politics, it shouldn't be about right and left. Prosser should be assessed as an individual, not as a conservative and not as a supporter of Walker.

    But in the larger context of the divisive controversy in Wisconsin, he was not.

    Watching what this man does with his hands, his fists, when he is angry, watching how belligerant, how threatening and intimidatingly he behaves in the videos, and then reading the supporting statements from people who observed instances first hand, Prosser is not fully in control of himself. He becomes very physical when angry, he lashes out in a physical way.

    Not all men respond well or appropriately to women as equals when they are in positions of power or authority. Every woman I know who has been in a supervisory position over male subordinates has encountered men who did not deal well with taking direction from a woman. It seems to be more common with men who are much older, who formed their ideas about gender relationships during an era prior to female equality becoming more mainstream. I don't know if this is the case with Prosser, but it could be given his age.

    Because of my work with training dogs, particularly with working with aggressive and timid problem behaviors with dogs, I'm more sensitive to body language than most of my clients have been. Not just dog body language, but the importance human body language, because dogs are inherently more non-verbal. Relative body positions, proximity triggers, eye contact, how one holds their arms and hands, body tension and posture, and other factors, are more important. Some are obvious, some are very subtle. How people react to each other, to which a dog responds, not just the direct human interaction with the dog, is very important to doing this.

    What I see in Prosser appears to me to indicate he doesn't have good control; at best he has incomplete control. It also suggests that his method of getting what he wants is intimidation.

    ReplyDelete