Jeff Mandell

A thread about why the latest conspiracy-theory du jour about the Chinese sending fake ID's to the US so they can create fake absentee votes is complete nonsense. threadreaderapp.com/thread/19350...

Law Forward stands ready, with Governor Evers and all of Wisconsin’s elected officials and state workers, to defend against politically motivated retaliation and to uphold the rule of law. Our democracy depends on it. /end

Threats to silence, intimidate, and even incarcerate perceived political enemies cannot go unanswered, lest they metastasize into unconstitutional actions. This is especially true when those threats emanate from the White House. 8/9

Law Forward exists to defend and advance the rule of law on which our democracy depends. We commend Governor Evers for his leadership and his clear, calm commitment. We proudly joined an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie, and we celebrate the court’s order. 7/9

The court reaffirmed longstanding, core American principles, including that the federal constitution protects the right of everyone in our country to consult an attorney and the right of all attorneys to give independent legal advice, free from government interference. 6/9

Hours after Governor Evers stood up for the rule of law, a federal court in Washington, DC did the same, permanently blocking Executive Order 14230, in which President Trump targeted law firm Perkins Coie LLP. 5/9

instructions the Governor sent to Wisconsin state workers about consulting in-house legal counsel if federal immigration officials make demands at state facilities. Governor Evers explained that the rule of law remains paramount even in moments of intimidation, fear, or shows of force. 4/9

Yesterday, two developments cast this fundamental commitment in stark relief. Here in Wisconsin, Governor Tony Evers stood calm and steadfast in response to implicit but undeniable threats from Trump Administration official Tom Homan, who made those threats in response to common-sense 3/9

Wisconsinites live in a nation, and a state, defined by the rule of law. When we have disputes—whether they arise between private interests, between government actors and a private interest, or between two government actors—we resolve them by recourse to law. 2/9

Law Forward reaffirms commitment to rule of law, commends @govevers.wisconsin.gov's response to White House threats

In response to two major developments yesterday, @lawfwd.bsky.social President & General Counsel Jeff Mandell issued the following statement: 1/9

Wisconsin has a history of fighting injustice. Judge Dugan is the latest example. | Opinion The charges against a Milwaukee judge have echoes of the case of Joshua Glover, an enslaved man who found freedom in Wisconsin and escaped to Canada.

Wisconsin has a history of fighting injustice. Judge Dugan is the latest example.

opinion by @normeisen.bsky.social and @jeffmandell.bsky.social www.jsonline.com/story/opinio...

My latest, with @normeisen.bsky.social, on what's happening in Wisconsin.

A quick Wisconsin review of Trump’s new executive order:
tl;dr – This does *not* change anything for our upcoming election for Supreme Court on April 1. Here’s why: 1/7

Opinion | Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional Where all this goes is still up to us.

“An anti-constitutional act is one that rejects … the premise that sovereignty lies with the people, that ours is a government of limited and enumerated powers and that the officers of that government are bound by law.”

It’s up to us, Wisconsin While the fight might not be coming from national Democrats, Wisconsin voters have a unique opportunity at this moment to send a message to the Trump-Musk administration.

Take seriously what @danshafer.bsky.social says: “The cavalry is not coming. It’s up to us. As the perennial canary in the coal mine of every political issue, of course it’s up to us here in Wisconsin … to save our own democracy.”

As is often true, @joshtpm.bsky.social is precisely on point: “We’re in the midst of an authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government. … [I]f we care about this country, everything we do right now has to be guided toward defeating this takeover.”

I’m on @pbswisconsin.bsky.social’s “Here and Now” with Frederica Freyberg tonight, discussing this week’s debate in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race.

Gableman's attorney is, no later than April 1, to provide OLR with three 2-day periods between now and April 15 on which Gableman is available for deposition. "He needs to appear." No party had any questions, and the Referee said he will be issuing an order in the coming days.

The Referee is giving Gableman one more opportunity to appear for deposition. And the Referee will be available to work through any disagreements about the application of the Fifth Amendment to individual questions.

[After discussion to surmount some technical difficulties, the Referee continued.] He explains that Fifth Amendment claims must be made on a question-by-question basis and it was improper for Gableman to refuse to appear at all b/c a question might implicate the Fifth Amendment.

The Referee says there is no need for OLR to respond, because he is prepared to rule. He begins by noting that OLR's motion papers correctly present the relevant law.

He acknowledges that invoking the Fifth Amendment (against self-incrimination) has consequences.

Gableman's lawyer notes that and "other clients of my firm are being criminally prosecuted due to the efforts of @lawfwd.bsky.social" (He's referring to Jim Troupis.)

Gableman's lawyer concedes that the emails placed on the record by OLR are accurate. He says that he has acted in good faith. He notes that this "is not a run of the mill attorney disciplinary case."

Good morning. There's a motion hearing about to start in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael Gableman, No. 2024AP2356-D. This is the disciplinary action arising from the ethics grievance that @lawfwd.bsky.social filed against Gableman in 2023. I'm listening in and will provide a running account.

If you care about our democracy, you should be alarmed by the prospect of Brad Schimel being on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. All voters who value an impartial, independent judiciary should vote for @crawfordforwi.bsky.social. 4/4

Schimel gestures toward “a string of other cases that the Supreme Court refused to hear before the election that impacted the election that year unquestionably.” That’s simply false; the conservative-dominated WI Supreme Ct expedited election cases to decide them in advance of the 2020 election. 3/4

Schimel refuses to say whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court was correct to honor the will of the voters and rebuff Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. That’s shocking and should be disqualifying. 2/4

Brad Schimel says that, if elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, he’ll be a “support network” for Trump. That’s not only gross but also incompatible with a judge’s obligations to hear cases impartially and to uphold the rule of law. 1/4

A test for judicial independence in Wisconsin Elon Musk is spending big on the state’s Supreme Court race while expressing contempt for independent courts. That’s a worrisome combination.

@robyablon.bsky.social hits the nail on the head in @contrariannews.org: "We now find ourselves in a world in which an outspoken foe of judicial independence is the most prominent financial backer of a candidate for a job that demands that very independence."