Illegal Campaigning Activity – Statutory Interpretation – Supervisory Writ Petition

Listen to this article

Civil

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Illegal Campaigning Activity – Statutory Interpretation – Supervisory Writ Petition

2013AP296-OA, 2014AP417-W through 2014AP421-W, 2013AP2504-W through 2013AP508-W

Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Gregory A. Peterson

Francis D. Schmitz v. Honorable Gregory A. Peterson

Investigation led by special prosecutor dismissed for lack of factual or legal support. Court defines “political purposes” as construed in Wis. Stat. §11.01(16). Reserve Judge’s accepting appointment as reserve judge, appointing a special prosecutor and convening a multi-county John Doe proceeding not held to violate plain legal duty.

“To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law. Consequently, the investigation is closed. Consistent with our decision and the order entered by Reserve Judge Peterson, we order that the special prosecutor and the district attorneys involved in this investigation must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation. All Unnamed Movants are relieved of any duty to cooperate further with the investigation.”

“Although the circumstances surrounding the formation of the John Doe investigation raise serious concerns, and although the appointment of the special prosecutor may well have been improper, such concerns do not satisfy the stringent preconditions for a supervisory writ.10 Put another way, were we to grant the supervisory writ in this case, we would risk “transform[ing] the writ into an all-purpose alternative to the appellate review process,” which we cannot do. Id. Accordingly, we deny the supervisory writ and affirm the decision of the court of appeals.”

Supervisory Writ Denied

Circuit Court DecisionAffirmed

MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J.

Concurring: PROSSER, J., ROGGENSACK, C.J. (joining Sections IV and V), ZIEGLER, J. (joining Section IV) and GABLEMAN, J. (joining Section IV) concur (Opinion filed). ZIEGLER, J. concurs (Opinion filed).

Dissenting: ABRAHAMSON, J. concurs and dissents (Opinion filed). CROOKS, J. concurs and dissents (Opinion filed).

BRADLEY, J., did not participate.

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing attorney at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.