It has been a busy day for those of us following the race for the WI Supreme Court.
1. Greater Wisconsin Committee kicked off the ad war with a spot attacking Gableman’s ethics, with a buy of $186,615 in the Milwaukee market. Apparently the ad alleges that Gableman got his spot on the Burnett County bench as a thank you for raising money for Scott McCallum. I haven’t seen the spot yet, and will decline further comment until I know more.
2. The bombshell release of internal Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee emails by the Wisconsin Club for Growth after an open records request. The emails are full of name-calling and show a general bias against the Gableman campaign and its conservative allies (for instance, Charlie Sykes).
In its review of the email contents, the Club contrasts Committee Chairman Tom Basting’s public comments to Wispolitics on the addition of new members to the internal discussions by the Committee (scroll down to “Basting’s Battle with the Truth“). Frankly, the two are very hard to reconcile – Mr. Basting’s statements are significantly undercut by the email exchanges.
After seeing the emails, the Gableman campaign wrote a letter to Chairman Basting claiming the Committee is “purposefully hostile” to Gableman and citing several of the more disconcerting statements from the emails. This has led to a response from the Butler campaign in news articles and a formal response from the Committee.
The Butler campaign apparently hosted a conference call concerning the affair. The AP story reports that Butler campaign adviser Sachin Chheda called the committee “balanced.” This statement is skating on thin ice- the Club and MJS have documented the biases of Committee members, and these were confirmed by the contents of the emails, the release of which prompted the call! The Butler campaign continues to criticize Gableman for not signing the Committee’s clean campaign pledge, although Gableman’s hesitation in doing so is now even more vindicated.
Meanwhile, Mr. Basting, who is also the State Bar president, responded with a letter to the Gableman camp late this afternoon. The opening line is belittling and patronizing: “I would like to apologize if your feelings were hurt.” Honestly – Darrin Schmitz is a big boy, and his feelings are fine. The campaign’s concerns are not because Darrin felt sad after being identified as the “son of a demon,” but rather, that the “son of a demon” comment is indicative of the mindset of the Committee’s members, namely, anti-Team Gableman.
I will agree with Mr. Basting that Mr. Schmitz is stretching in his characterization of Kraus’ email offering “advice” to the Butler campaign. Mr. Basting notes that “having reviewed all of the emails, as I’m sure you have, it should be obvious to you that it is false.” The same, however, can be said of Mr. Basting’s claim that Mr. Schmitz’s “obfuscation and obstruction” drove the Committee members to such insulting comments, made out of sheer frustration and “exasperation” with Judge Gableman’s “Madison handlers.” If you read all the emails, it “should be obvious to you that [Basting's characterization] is false” – these were attacks not just on Schmitz, but on Charlie Sykes and RJ Reynolds as well, and general disdain for the Gableman campaign and its conservative allies. All I can say is read the emails – it will be quite clear that the vitriol is directed at several individuals and reflects a general dislike, not a specific frustration with the Gableman camp’s refusal to sign the pledge as Basting claims. (UPDATE: The Gableman campaign now has a handy fact-sheet showing that Mr. Basting’s statement that frustration with Gableman’s failure to sign the pledge led to the comments is absolute bunk).
Most importantly, the reply also betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding by Mr. Basting. The comments by Bill Kraus attacking various individuals were, in Mr. Basting’s view, “comments that were made in private by a private citizen exercising his First Amendment right of free speech.” The closing line of the letter had a similar thought: “Your suggestion that WJCIC – a group of private citizens – should ‘stand down’ from participating in the public discussion of this campaign is extraordinarily arrogant.” This is simply not the case – this Committee is NOT just a bunch of private citizens who rely on the moral authority of their past public service – it is explicitly a project of the State Bar, which is an agency of the State of Wisconsin, created and regulated by the Supreme Court. Kraus’ comments were made by a member of a committee of the State Bar to other members of the committee. The State Bar provides extensive staff support, as the emails today further prove. The State Bar president is the Committee’s chairman, and he includes the work of the Committee in his quarterly report to the State Bar Board of Governors. Mr. Basting is using the Bar’s reputation and prestige to advance his pet project. This standing and staff come from the mandatory membership dues of all attorneys in Wisconsin, paid in accordance with the Rules of the Supreme Court. Mr. Basting is the one engaging in “obfuscation” as he continues to mischaracterize the nature of the Committee.
We’ll see how the press plays out – I think the AP story does a much better job explaining the situation than the MJS story. For the moment, looks like Basting and Committee are fighting on unabashed, so at least that’s more fodder for this blog in the future.
3. The first polling that we’ve seen publicly came out today. WISC-TV in Madison hired a professional firm to poll 600 Wisconsin likely voters. In the phone survey conducted last week, 37 percent favored Butler, 29 percent favored Gableman with 34 percent undecided for the April election. In other words, this race is WIDE open.
4. For those who are interested in all this, let me remind you of my post made earlier today, in case you missed it. I challenge the Butler campaign’s consistent characterization of Justice Butler as a recognized legal scholar.
- Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
- C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
- Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
- Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
- Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010
“…the State Bar, which is an agency of the State of Wisconsin…”
Well, no. The State Bar is a private organization, which I’m sure you will realize after you graduate and start paying dues. It get no state funding and is not a State agency.
It is extremely “arrogant” of the Gableman campaign to think they can control a private organization in this manner just because they want free reign to treat a judicial campaign like any other dirty campaign the Schmitz and the others named in the e-mails have conducted over the years.
And all this heavy breathing about the e-mails is ridiculous. It is not inappropriate for the committee members for make themselve aware of the type of political thugs that are on the Gableman/WMC campaign and to make their judgements in light of that.
Now, Dan, go watch the GWC video and tell us all how it doesn’t matter that Gableman bought his way into his current position. Can’t wait to hear how you try to squirm out of that one.
I can’t imagine how anyone anywhere could have a negative opinion of Sykes. He’s such a fine, upstanding example of civility, restraint and conservative values. Not to mention family values!
“I’m sure you will realize after you graduate…”
…that if you want to practice law, the government requires you belong.
Terrence- Just like they require a doctor to have a license. It is a way of ensuring people are qualified.
John, it’s funny how all those mandatory regulations on employment entry (ie, barriers to entry) in particular fields miraculously improve the quality of service, isn’t it? Or not.
John and Michael: Doctors are required to have a license, and the Medical Examining Board is an agency of the State’s Dept. of Regulation and Licensing.
In the same way, the State Bar is a public agency. It is created by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, its rules and procedures are set by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and its membership is mandated by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. It does get state funding to the extent that the State forces lawyers to pay dues every year.
“State agency” is a term of art. Among Wisconsin State Agencies is the Dept. of Regulation and Licensing. Go look there. You won’t find the State Bar either, “in the same way” you’ll find the Medical Examining Board.
Have you taken Administrative Law, Daniel? The State Bar is a creature of the judicial branch, not the executive.
IT: The State Bar is a creature of the judicial branch, and that is precisely my point. It is not, as MP and Mr. Basting say, a private organization – it is a creation of, and controlled by, the State Supreme Court. To say it is a private group like the Elks Club or American Heart Association is simply wrong.
It’s precisely your point that the State Bar is both a creature of the judicial branch and a State executive agency? Evidently precision has undergone a thaumaturgic transformation in the years since I attended the law school.
No, my point is not and has never been that the State Bar is a state executive agency. I have never said that it was a state executive agency.
My original post said that the State Bar is “an agency of the State of Wisconsin, created and regulated by the Supreme Court.”
That is accurate. Why do you automatically assume that only the executive branch can have agencies? It does, certainly, but the other two branches have agencies as well. The Legislative Council and Legislative Reference Bureau, for instance, could accurately be described as agencies of the State. Similarly, the Board of Bar Examiners and the State Bar are agencies of the Supreme Court.
Most importantly, though, this whole discussion is a direct refutation to Basting and MP’s contention that the State Bar is a private organization. IT, you agree with me then that this is wrong – in fact, the State Bar is a creature of the judicial branch.
“Just like they require a doctor to have a license.”
Lawyers have not always also been required to join the bar association. Most recently, membership in the State Bar was voluntary in the late 1980s and early 1990s because of a federal lawsuit on the issue.
The State Bar is an agency of the Wisconsin Supreme Court? Really. That’s fascinating, Daniel. Because if that’s the case, why are you and the good professor complaining about a committee of the State Bar undertaking to interpret the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules? Isn’t that exactly the legal responsibility of an agent? Indeed, isn’t the agent duty-bound to do so?
I am complaining about the Committee for several reasons, IT. One, as I will explain in a post tomorrow, I believe the Committee is illegitimately conceived under the rules governing the State Bar.
Two, the Committee’s membership is biased against one of the candidates in the race for Supreme Court.
Three, is is NOT the duty or responsibility of the State Bar to interpret the Code of Judicial Conduct. That is a responsibility of the Judicial Commission and the Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee.
The State Bar committee was created, according to President Basting, because complaints to the Judicial Commission were private and the process moved too slow. Certainly private citizens have a right to associate together and to announce their opinion on whether judicial candidates are violating the Code. But this is not private citizens exercising their right to associate and speak – this is the State Bar of Wisconsin acting.
Oh, boy, can’t wait.
Incidentally, Daniel, you have a truly remarkable propensity for missing the point entirely. And I mean that in a good way, because there appears to be no end to the comedy here.
For a full list of documents supporting One Wisconsin Now’s ‘Gableman’s Suspicious Appointment,’ feel free to click down below.
http://www.onewisconsinnow.org.....pointment/
And if you haven’t yet, sign up for e-mail updates and become a OWN issue advisor.
“And I mean that in a good way, because there appears to be no end to the comedy here.”
The real comedy is that some hack divorce lawyer or maybe ambulance chaser needs to hide behind an internet moniker when vilifying people he has an intellectual disagreement with.
Every single post of yours “misses the point entirely,” judging by your propensity to belittle and demean Esenberg and Suhr.
Why not be a real man and sign off with your real name? What are you afraid of?
Brian you may want to be careful, the board still has to admit you to the bar after you graduate and there is a mental competence requirement. Sweater vests will not get in alone. Who do you think you are, Lynn Adelman?
The clear and present danger as I see it, Brian, is that you append your real name to each stepwise revelation of incipient buffoonery.
And yes, it’s your brother in Republican shenanigans that has completely missed my point here, which I’ll clarify (although I’ll admit to some astonishment that such clarification might be required — I must be a slow learner too).
If Daniel is unclear as to the legal meaning of “agency,” which has now been presented in this thread in two separate contexts, then how in the world is anyone to attach credibility to his attempts at engaging the considerably more prickly questions presented and addressed in the Supreme Court opinions he purports to critique?
In other words, if a basic legal concept like “agency” presents difficulties, then how well is he equipped to discuss, for example, the application of varying levels of judicial scrutiny to an equal protection challenge?
It’s not an entirely rhetorical question, but pretty darn close to being one.
John, after I graduate from Marquette with a master’s in applied economics I need to be admitted to the State Bar?
What?
BTW – I do not own any sweater vests, either.
iT,
I usually do not find the need to defend those engaged in such dialogue, but your attack on Daniel’s definition of an “agency” is way off base, especially for somebody who claims to be an attorney. Go ahead and dust off that Black’s (7th ed.) and turn to page 63. Under “agency: you will find definition 3, the final definition for that word (1 and 2 relate to agency as a fiduciary and as a place of businss, both not applicable here). Definition 3 reads, “A governmental body with authority to implement and administer particular legislation.” No place does it require that the governmental body be a body of the Executive.
However, if that doesn’t satisfy you, take it from the horse’s mouth and go to the APA (5 USC s.551) where it defines agency in the negative as being any governmental authority that is not Congress, the courts, the government of any territory, or courts-martial. Obviously, the APA is federal legislation and is not controlling for what may pass for an agency in Wisconsin, it certainly adds credence to Daniel’s definition.
Maybe you shouldn’t be so snide in your conclusions, especially when they are wrong–it diminishes any substantive debate points you may have.
Sorry about that, you all look a like in those sweater vests.
Josh, first of all, let me say I’m very disappointed that you don’t share my amusement at this thread. And I wish to apologize to you personally if I’ve been unable to suitably contain my mirth, in that a twinge of facetiousness may have seeped through. I’ll try to do better next time, honest.
I’d also like to add that many of us endeavor to set aside a writer’s stylistic tendencies in order to lay bare his substantive claims. I’m well aware that these matters of style for some observers are an annoying distraction, and they might tend to mislead the reader into thinking the writer is merely engaging in hyperbole.
It’s a risky business, Josh, this balancing act between comedy and substance, but I’m willing to take those risks, living as I do on the razor’s edge.
Now.
Definition 3 reads, “A governmental body with authority to implement and administer particular legislation.”
Yes, I’m aware of that, Josh. Thanks. The State Bar satisfies none of those elements. If you would like to argue that it does, then please demonstrate (1) that the State Bar is a governmental body (2) that the State Bar has authority to implement and administer particular legislation and, for bonus points, (3) the particular legislation the State Bar (as a governmental body) is authorized to implement and administer.
Josh, the State Bar is no more authorized to implement and administer particular legislation than you are when, for example, you’re engaged in obeying the speed limit. (Should you find yourself apprehended for not obeying the speed limit and receive a summons to court, please consider contacting me at iTenant@gmail.com and we can discuss what options, if any, we might pursue in formulating an effective defense).
As for 5 U.S.C. § 551, setting aside your correct observation that this is federal law, let’s assume for a moment that it somehow has something to do with the State Bar of Wisconsin. Here we go:
“agency” means each authority of the Government of [Wisconsin] …
You’re done, Josh. But just for old time’s sake, let’s assume you’re not done, and continue:
["agency"] does not include— … the courts of [Wisconsin]
So now you’re done like dinner (and if you’ve ever had my famous charcoal-brazed Kraft mac ‘n’ cheese, you’d know what I’m talking about).
Because if I’m not mistaken, Mr. Suhr already agreed that if the State Bar was under the purview of any governmental entity at all, it was the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
I also think it’s worth noting that although you will certainly find the Supreme Court Rules pertaining to the State Bar via the Legislative Reference Bureau, those Rules are not legislation per se.
I think this is an important consideration, since one of the reasons Judge Gableman’s supporters highly tout his credentials is because he is a “strict constructionist,” and a “strict constructionist” would never mistake the rules of a court for legislation.
And nobody wants a judge that can’t tell the difference between the rules of her court and legislation; I’m sure you’re with me on that, if nothing else.
Finally, Josh, you appear to have missed my point as well. Here it is, one final time.
If the State Bar is an “agency” of the Supreme Court (which it isn’t), then you cannot complain that a committee of the State Bar has undertaken to perform its legal obligations as an agent which, in this case, would be interpreting the Supreme Court Rules, including those governing the conduct of judicial election campaigns.
Have a great weekend and drive carefully!
Love,
iT (now with 33% less sarcasm)
You can tell lawyers are dominating this discussion; the posters think they have got Daniel because, they say, he misuses words: classic lawyer-think. It makes you think the only thing worse than a pedant is a pedantic lawyer.
I would like to know what, if any, directives the Supreme Court imposes on the State Bar, number one. Mandated spending on social and activist legal groups? Like the ACLU? Or does that come from the Bar itself?
Second, I would like the lwayers on the string to comment on the use of member’s dues by the Bar for political activities – which the Bar says amounts to a minimal part of the whole annual membership fee. Do you lawyers think the Bar is THAT inactive in political affairs? Do you think Bsting’s “integrity” commission should, or should not, count as political activity? Or is this just harmless good government?
Third – and I do not know the answer, something a lawyer shouldn’t do but I’ll ask anyway: are Doctors required to join the Medical Society? The Medical Society does not license them; so why should they be required? The Bar has a monopoly on lawyer licensure, and on representation of lawyers publicly. Why?
Look at the e mails and the one thing that becomes crystal clear is that a bunch of gerontocratic political has-beens are spouting off about politics and how to politically deal with Gabelman and Butler and that spawn of the devil Darren Schmitz etc etc etc. They are as inescapably political as any other bunch of people who are seeking to impose their will on others (i.e. exercise power).
Their lame discussions sound just like any other political discussion behind closed doors, lots of spite, lots of sharing of ideas how to maneuver to get your cause adopted, lots of ego seeking to be heard.
So what makes them so special? So untainted and above it all? As the line goes, who appointed them god? They are political just like the rest of us and should drop the pretense of being goo goo reformers. But….then they’d have to disband. And you can bet when confronted with that prospect they would think “We can’t do that! We’d let Gabelman get away with something.” Now they wouldn’t want that, would they.
iT,
See generally Lathrop v. Donahue, 367 U.S. 820 (1961) (treating the state bar as a state agency–not to mention reciting evidence that the state bar referred to itself as an agency, at 831 n.7–when addressing a Wisconsin attorney’s challenge to the mandatory payment of dues under the First Amendment); but see Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (declining to follow the Cal Supreme Court’s decision to treat its state bar association as a state agency for federal purposes but, obviously, not disturbing the Cal. Supreme Court’s determination that its bar is an agency for state law purposes).
See generally Lathrop v. Donahue … treating the state bar as a state agency …
Hmm, not exactly. The threshold question in Lathrop was whether certain rules and by-laws of the Wisconsin Supreme Court qualified as statutes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), which enables Article III jurisdiction over appeals challenging the (federal) constitutional validity of State statutes.
Justice Brennan and his moonbat liberal friends answered yes, they did, but according to some questionable reasoning based on arguably non-supportive and (IMHO) distinguishable precedent. The Court cited cases where it had previously construed as statutes the actions of actual State agencies, but the question of whether the Wisconsin State Bar is itself a State agency was not before the Court.
Part of the Lathrop Court’s reasoning involved applying its analysis to “the legislative character of the challenged state action,” as opposed to “the nature of the agency of the State performing the act.”
You might argue that this reference to agency was specifically a characterization of the State Bar, but I would disagree, since it’s a general statement of the rule the Court was applying in determining whether the challenged action qualified as statutory.
not to mention reciting evidence that the state bar referred to itself as an agency, at 831 n.7 …
No, it didn’t. Footnote 7 is simply describing the State Bar’s committees, in particular an “Interprofessional and business relations” committee, whose function is to “serve as a liaison agency between the legal profession and other professions and groups[.]” This is agency in its broadest, colloquial sense, i.e., an instrumentality or mechanism.
Well played though, I must say, Josh. I’m not familiar with Keller so I’ll have to look at it later.
Gentlemen:
While SCOTUS’ decision in Lathrop is interesting, much more interesting for our discussion is the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Lathrop, which I think should resolve the question of whether the State Bar is a “state agency.” Consider the following excerpt from the unanimous opinion authored by Justice Currie:
Furthermore, the State Bar is a public and not a private agency. In the annotation entitled, ‘State bar created by act of legislature or rules of court; integrated bar,’ 114 A.L.R. 161, the author states:
State Bar of California v. Superior Court, 1929, 207 Cal. 323, 278 P. 432, 434, and In re Gibson, 1931, 35 N.M. 550, 4 P.2d 643, 653, support the above-quoted statement.
…We can perceive no valid basis for distinguishing that situation from the one here confronting us insofar as constitutionality is concerned. The State Bar is a public agency the same as the Judicial Council. One has been created by the court and the other by the legislature but each was created by state action as a state agency to serve a public purpose.
Lathrop v. Donohue, 102 N.W.2d 404, 411 (Wis. 1960).
Bill:
“I would like to know what, if any, directives the Supreme Court imposes on the State Bar, number one.”
See Supreme Court Rules Chapter 10 on Regulation of the State Bar.
“Second I would like the lwayers on the string to comment on the use of member’s dues by the Bar for political activities – which the Bar says amounts to a minimal part of the whole annual membership fee.
“Do you lawyers think the Bar is THAT inactive in political affairs? Do you think Bsting’s ‘integrity’ commission should, or should not, count as political activity? Or is this just harmless good government?”
The Bar interprets its purpose “to aid the courts in carrying on and improving the administration of justice” broadly. Mr. Basting has said that is the purpose justifying WJCIC. Over time the Bar’s purpose “to provide a forum for the discussion of subjects pertaining to … law reform … and to publish information relating thereto” has turned into the Bar leadership determining what constitutes “reform” and using Bar resources to advocate it. Here’s the Bar’s current positions on pending state legislation.
“Third … The Bar has a monopoly on lawyer licensure, and on representation of lawyers publicly. Why?”
Admission to the Wisconsin bar and State Bar membership are still separate, but practicing law in Wisconsin requires both. When the voluntary bar was replaced by the State Bar, with mandatory membership, the State Bar was given much of the regulatory authority over lawyers, such as disciplining lawyers for unethical conduct. That authority has, over time, been given to new goverment bodies created by the Supreme Court. Membership in the State Bar remains mandatory.
Bill:
Here’s the URL for the SCR Ch. 10 http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/scr.....eqNo=31833
Oy vey. Danny me boy, I’m trying to help you here. The last thing you want is to describe the State Bar as an “agency.”
And — trust me on this — you want to leave that ALR annotation alone, resting peacefully in the middle stacks. Here’s why:
“Typical of the integrated bars is that of Kentucky, created under rules of the court of appeals in compliance with statutory authority, ‘organizing and governing a bar association of the attorneys at law of this state to act as an administrative agency of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky for the purpose of enforcing such rules and regulations as are prescribed, adopted, and promulgated by the court of appeals under this act …’”
Emphasis added.
Take a step back for a moment and consider your less immediate goals: (1) to undermine the legitimacy of the WJCIC and ultimately (2) to promote a so-called “strict constructionist” over a justice who favors a more expansive understanding of legal language.
The more you insist on fishing around in the caselaw and secondary sources for the same usages of agency you’ll find at dictionary.com, the less convincing are your attempts at attacking the WJCIC. If you go by the Kentucky experience, then the State Bar is compelled by the very nature of agency to interpret and enforce the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules governing the conduct of judicial elections, which is exactly what you’re supposed to be attacking.
Focus, Daniel. Be a rebel. These courts and commentators are wrong and their use of agency in these contexts is bordering on the reckless. Courts make mistakes, judges can be sloppy. Surely you don’t want to see Roe v. Wade or Griswold go the way of the dodo because they were correctly decided?
I understand you’re proffering these authorities in support of an argument, but this is not the argument you want to make. Next thing you know, you’ll be running around the Alumni Memorial Union wearing a sandwich board that says, “Obama: An agency of change.”
As for (2), that should be self-evident by now. Justice Brennan? Good grief. And do you know that Republicans used to drive around with “Impeach Earl Warren” bumper stickers stuck on their Edsels and their Corvairs? Lathrop is why!
You want a strict constructionist judge, then demand properly narrow interpretations of legal language. The more emphatic your demand for a strict reading of agency, the more compelling are your claims against the WJCIC. And the stricter your definition of agency, the less ridiculous is your support for a “traditionalist” judge.
IT – the fundamental flaw in your comment is that Wisconsin is NOT Kentucky. Unlike the KY Bar, the Wisconsin State Bar has not been charged with enforcing the ethics rules – we have the ORL and the Judicial Commission for that.
Thus, a brief summary.
1. The State Bar has not been charged with interpreting or enforcing the ethics rules, so the WJCIC is acting outside the normal scope of its parent body’s authority.
2. The State Bar of Wisconsin is an agency of the State. This is not a matter of narrow or expansive, strict or broad, construction of the word agency – it is the ruling of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (and the position of the State Bar itself and of the 7th Circuit US Court of Appeals).
3. Because the State Bar is an agency of the state government, it is wrong for Mr. Basting to characterize the WJCIC, which is a subsidiary of the State Bar, as a “group of private citizens.” That is certainly NOT the case.
Whatever you say Daniel.
The original blog raises the valid question of whether the Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee is doing its job in an even-handed manner.
The comments then depart on an extended — and borderline uncivil — discussion of whether the State Bar of Wisconsin is technically an agency of the State of Wisconsin.
Anyone still wondering why so many people hold lawyers in such low esteem?
[...] want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!We have noted before the difficulty of reconciling the rhetoric from the Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee [...]
[...] is a claim Atty. Plaisted has made before, defending Atty. Basting’s characterization of the WJCIC as a [...]