Who Exactly is Lawless?

 Over the last 240 years, millions of Americans (rich and poor, young and old, male or female, white, black, Hispanic or other) have had their homes, persons or effects searched pursuant to the protections provided by the US Constitution. Because the founders of the republic found such searches to be a significant infringement on personal liberty and privacy, the Constitution required stringent protections before a search could legally be conducted. First, law enforcement (the executive branch of government) had to believe there were reasonable grounds to believe (probable cause) evidence of a crime would be found if a search was conducted. Second, law enforcement had to apply to a court (the judicial branch of government) for permission to conduct the search. When doing that, law enforcement had to tell the judge what evidence it was looking for, why it believed it was likely the evidence would be found in the place to be searched, and what crime or crimes the evidence sought would help to establish. 

Until earlier this week, this exposition of the law was unremarkable and uncontroversial. However, all it took was for law enforcement to execute this kind of routine search against former President Donald Trump for the formerly ‘law and order’ Republicans to lose their collective mind with comparisons to the Gestapo and Watergate. Even richer, some Republicans who for months have been castigating Democrats because a small minority spoke of ‘defunding the police’ in response to actual proven crimes by police are now talking about defunding or even disbanding the FBI in response to its entirely legal - and commonplace - execution of a legal search warrant. Watergate was a scandal precisely because the burglary at the Democratic headquarters and associated wiretap (not to mention the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office) were without any warrant and were thus crimes.

Republicans are also demanding the FBI justify its action. It already did that. In the way required by the Constitution - to a neutral and detached magistrate (a judge). When law enforcement executes a search warrant, it leaves behind at the place searched a copy of the warrant authorizing the search. They also leave behind a list of any and all items of evidence taken pursuant to the warrant. Viewing those documents Donald Trump can see exactly what crime(s) were being investigated and what evidence was found and taken of that (or other) crimes). The FBI has policies forbidding comment on these matters which policies are designed to protect the reputation of citizens. However, before you accept Mr. Trump’s exaggerated protestations at face value it is worth noting that nothing prevents Mr. Trump from making the warrant and list of items seized public so we can all see exactly what crimes are involved and what evidence was seized. Mr. Trump is refusing to do that. His refusal speaks loudly. 

Recess Is Over

 My last blog entry was more than 8 and 1/2 years ago. It seems that is too long ago to merely say “I was busy.” Had I not abandoned this endeavor so long ago, I am sure there would have been numerous events of interest which would have prompted me to sound off. Good grief, I missed out on the opportunity to comment on the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns, elections and administrations, the Covid pandemic and vaccine skeptic madness, several new postseason collapses by the Green Bay Packers Packers, the Zen of Aaron Rodgers, a championship by the Milwaukee Bucks, the rise of the Milwaukee Brewers to post season regulars and more. 

I retired from practicing law at the end of February 2020, about two weeks before Covid shut down the country and everyone else stopped going to the office too. Now that I have figured out how to restart the blog there is no excuse for not taking time to resume these musings. To try and see them shared with a larger audience, I plan to provide a link on my Facebook page when West Coast Wisconsin is updated with a new post. 

Republican Plan to "Reform" Recall in Wisconsin

In the last several days, news reports indicate Wisconsin Republicans are again advancing proposals to change the recall process in Wisconsin.  One such report (from the Washington Post) characterized the proposal as follows: 

On Thursday, legislators will consider proposals to drastically change the standards under which an elected official could be recalled.  One new proposal would only allow a recall of a statewide elected official if the official had either been charged with a serious crime that would be punishable by at least a year in prison, or been accused of a serious ethics violation.  Another proposal would require a member of the legislature to be accused of malfeasance before a recall could proceed.

 

The proposal to limit recall to officials who have been charged with a felony makes little sense.  If an official is convicted of a felony, they are automatically disqualified from office as a result of their conviction anyway.  So what is the point of allowing officials charged with a felony to be recalled when they are going to be out of office anyway if they get convicted?  Second, the standard of being "accused of a serious ethics violation" is odd.  What does the term "accused" mean for that standard?  Accused by whom?  In what setting or venue?   Moreover, what is a "serious" ethic's violation as opposed to one not judged to be "serious?"  Who decides whether the alleged violation is a "serious" one? 

 While these objections are rational reasons to not tinker with the law, I am not sure they would help to sway Republicans intent on forcing the issue out of distaste for the recall attempt on Governor Scott Walker.  What might make a difference is to demonstrate why the change is bad policy by anecdote. 

 

In Canada, the city of Toronto's current mayor is Rob Ford.  Mr. Ford has generated massive amounts of publicity lately for engaging in drunken rampages, admitting to having smoked crack "in a drunken stupor," threatening to "kill" someone on a video, admitting to having purchased illegal drugs within the last two years, and (most recently) being accused of engaging in sexual harassment at the office.  Mr. Ford is an embarrassment to Canada generally and the City of Toronto specifically.  Apparently, however, the Toronto City Council and the voters are unable to force him from office because no "recall" mechanism is in place there.

Perhaps efforts to gut Wisconsin's recall procedure would be defeated if legislators considered that if Rob Ford were the governor of Wisconsin, or a State Legislator or Mayor here, the new recall standards being touted by the Republicans would prevent citizens from acting to recall him from office.  Ford has not been charged with any felony (and likely will not be) and who knows whether what he has been doing constitutes a "serious ethics violation." 

 

Another example from recent Wisconsin history would be former Sheboygan Mayor Bob Ryan who was recalled in 2012 largely due to several incidents of boorish behavior in his personal life toward women while drunk that he was never charged for criminally.  Since it involved activity in his personal life, not in his capacity as Mayor, it wouldn't have constituted a "serious ethics violation." 

 

Wisconsin citizens certainly would want to have the option of recall available in such circumstances.  Republicans are hell bent on trying to prevent such politicians from being recalled.  They should be ashamed of themselves.  Changing a good law due to "sour grapes" is bad policy.  

Ryan Braun & PED use in Baseball

Ryan Braun's suspension has generated waves of controversy throughout Wisconsin and nationwide with much of it centering on what can be done to rid baseball of performance enhancing drug use.  Despite having the strongest penalties in major league sports, baseball continues to have its image tarnished by repeated scandals involving some of its major stars.   

Pundits reason that increasing the penalties even further is not likely to accomplish significant change since the penalties are already severe and the huge salaries being paid provide an incentive to cheat.  In fact, several commentators have argued that despite being suspended and penalized by baseball, Braun and other PED abusers will still reap millions of dollars in profits from the increased contracts attributable to their wrongdoing.  

Despite all the handwringing about how the problem is intractable, there is an easy solution.  If I say so myself, the solution is elegant.  The new system would merely graft an additional layer of punishment on to the existing suspension scheme.  The additional layer of discipline would simply add an additional clause as a standard, required provision in every player contract providing that a first violation of the PED policy would result in the player's contract being reduced to the major league minimum salary for the remainder of the contract term.  

Baseball would also enact a rule that this salary penalty would apply for a minimum of four years, regardless of how long the player had remaining on his existing contract.  This would ensure players who were at the end of their contracts or free agents would also be facing substantial economic disincentive. 

 

A second offense would contain the longer suspension and a provision that the player remain at the league minimum salary for the rest of his career.  A third violation would include a lifetime ban. 

Consider for a moment how such a policy would affect superstars like Ryan Braun.  Under the current penalty scheme, Braun will serve a 65 game suspension that will cost him approximately 3.5 million in lost salary.  However, when he returns, the PED use that enhanced his performance sufficiently to prompt the Brewers to sign him to that 10 year, $120 million dollar contract will still have 7 years remaining.   

Under my revised penalty plan, Ryan's decision to break the rules by using PEDs would cost him dearly.  He would still be bound to the Brewers, but would be playing for the league minimum during next 7 years - usually the most productive (and high paying) of a player's career.  In one fell swoop, this change removes the financial incentive for players to cheat. 

Fahrenheit 451

Almost exactly a year ago (June 17, 2012), I wrote a blog entry about a list of my favorite science fiction books.  I was recently amazed when - out of the blue - a stranger e-mailed me about having read that entry on my blog.  Who knew anyone was reading!  Jack Collins (who wrote) alerted me to a short (only 3 minutes) video about "Fahrenheit 451" - one of the books on my list.  The video is from Academic Earth.  Enjoy!

Link to video

For bonus points, figure out why the book was named Fahrenheit 451!

Pride

The focus of this post is now former Chicago Bear linebacker Brian Urlacher.  As an avid Green Bay Packer fan, you would expect me to hate the Bears and your expectations would be correct.  However, hating the team does not require one to revile its human constituents.  In fact, over the years, I have had a certain respect and fondness for two Bears in particular; former head coach Lovie Smith and Urlacher.  While (on the down side) Urlacher was a Bear, he was also a fierce, talented competitor who was respectful of the sport and his opponents.  I liked that.  He has been a classy guy.  So, I was sorry to see the Bears part ways with Urlacher.

But the subject of this post is pride.  Although it remains to be seen whether my speculation is correct, I think perhaps fault for the divorce between the Bears and Urlacher should be attributed to Urlacher's bruised ego or (if you will) his pride.  Urlacher reported being offended by the Bears stance during contract negotiations.  Urlacher said he and his agent sought an amount significantly higher than they expected to sign for expecting to give some during back and forth negotiations.  What upset Urlacher is not the Bears original position to offer a contract of 2 million per year (which Urlacher admitted knowing to be "a lot of money") but their refusal to negotiate up from that figure.  So, Urlacher concluded, there was no negotiation, the Bears just gave him a "take it or leave it" deal.  He was insulted and offended the Bears would treat him like that.  So far, although media pundits have questioned whether Urlacher can expect to do better on the free agent market, they have generally agreed with Urlacher's view that the way the team handled its non-negotiating "negotiations" treated Urlacher shabbily. 

As Lee Corso is wont to say "not so fast my friend."  For the sake of argument, assume the media pundits are correct it is doubtful free agent Urlacher can find another team willing to pay him 2 million dollars per year or more.   In fact, pundits seem to believe Urlacher will ultimately sign elsewhere for less.  With that background, consider again the Bears offer.  In this light, instead of giving Urlacher an unrealistic low ball initial offer (to offset the unrealistic demand made by Urlacher) the Bears stepped up to the plate and gave Urlacher the respect he deserved as a lifetime Chicago Bear. Instead of trying to save money by trying him to sign for less than he was worth, they offered him a contract for every nickel of the 2 million per year he was worth.  In fact, perhaps we will learn what they offered would have given him a premium to have remained a Bear.  Of course, we won't know until Urlacher signs with another team.

I suspect Urlacher's concession that 2 million a year is "a lot of money" is not quite as candid as it might seem to you or I who will never make anywhere near that much money.  Professional athletes sometimes reach the point where they become blind to the obscene amounts of money they are being paid to play a game and fail to consider they possess no other talent that would allow them to earn so much.  instead, athletes use the salaries they are being paid relative to others in the same sport as a measure of their self worth.  They are "insulted" if a team is proposing to pay them less than a player they consider themselves to be superior to, regardless of whether the player being paid more actually merits that salary.  I suspect what insults Urlacher is that he can't wrap his head around the idea that a long time favorite of Bear fans, a player the Bears have built their defense around, and a future hall of famer should be paid less than the average middle linebacker.  His pride is getting the best of him.  Sad, but understandable. 

UPDATE - News broke on May 22, 2013 that Urlacher announced his retirement.  No team was willing to step up and match or exceed the $2 million the Bears offered Urlacher to return.  For that matter, at least publicly, no team offered him a contract to play even at the league minimum (which for a player with more than 10 years of service would have been $820,000).  I wonder if this proof that the Bears initial offer to Urlacher was exceedingly generous will cause Urlacher - and the public - to reevaluate how Urlacher was being treated by the team.  I would hope so, but I won't hold my breath. 

TEXAS SECESSION

Since the reelection of President Obama, there has been publicity about petitions circulating in approximately 30 states advocating the state secede from the United States.  The most prominent of these petitions is the one in Texas because that petition has garnered more than 65,000 signatures.   

Wow.  That seems impressive until you consider Texas cast 7,850,239 votes for the two presidential candidates on November 6th.  Put another way, less than 2 percent of the 4,555,755 Texans who voted for Romney signed the petition indicating their childishness.  Surveys tell us far more Texans believe in UFOs and support gay marriage.  So, not only is secession not possible, it is another example of right wing nuttery since it is wildly unpopular even among Texans who voted against Obama. 

However, the concept is worth considering.  Maybe it is a good idea.  Where do I sign?  By getting rid of Texas the rest of America won't have to be embarrassed by its propensity to employ the death penalty on innocent people who have been falsely convicted.  We would be freed of the danger of future presidents and presidential candidates from Texas like George W. Bush and Rick Perry.  We would not have to deal with creationist science text books and whitewashed history books approved by Texas educators. 

Moreover, it would be entertaining to see how Texas survives on its own.  What do I mean?  How would secession affect the Texas economy?  Not so good.  I know Texas Romney supporters were never fans of recent federal stimulus spending, but if Texas seceded, there would be a significant anti-stimulus effect.  That huge sucking sound you would hear would be from the lost jobs and damage to the state's economy caused by a federal pull out.

 There are 15 military bases in Texas.  Four are close to San Antonio, three are in the vicinity of Corpus Christi.  Imagine all those military personnel gone and the civilian jobs those people create in the communities gone with them.  NASA alone employs more than 3,000 people in the Houston area.  Nearly all of those jobs are high paying professional positions.  All gone.   

As long ago as 2002, there were more than 13,000 federal law enforcement officers in Texas.  There are certainly more now.  This includes Homeland Security, Immigration & Naturalization, Customs Service, ATF, DEA, FBI and Treasury agents.  All gone.  Who is going to man the Texas borders?  Not just the border with Mexico because now they will have to guard the US border too. 

That gives you some idea of the lost jobs and the negative impact those lost jobs would have on the Texas economy.  But what about other impacts?  Texas has more than 3,000 miles of federal interstate highways and substantially more miles of non-interstate federal highways.  Most of the cost of maintaining those roads has been paid for by the federal government.  Not any more.  Texans better keep their 4 wheel drive vehicles and stock up on shock absorbers.   

What about federal funds supporting education in Texas?  Do you really think all those red neck, small government, secessionist types want to support the "librull" educated snobs in Austin?  The University of Texas and other state colleges will no longer be serious institutions of learning.   

But what about football?  Will American high school football players want to go play college ball in a foreign country?  Will the schools that now play Texas still want to when all of the players, coaches and fans that want to travel to the game will have to have passports?  

Have fun paying for disaster relief when the next hurricane strikes you Texas.  How about all those twisters rolling down tornado alley?  Want to clean up from that next oil spill in the Gulf?  You are on your own.  No FEMA or other federal disaster dollars.  

How about food stamps?  Is Texas sure it wants to leave?  In November of 2011, more than 3,700,000 Texans (more than 1/2 of whom were children) were receiving food stamps.  That is nearly 15% of all people in Texas.  That puts the % of Texans receiving food stamps as second highest in the nation.  Many of them also receive Medicaid.  When Texas secedes, that will all stop.  What about all those retired Texans?  Well, they won't be eligible for Medicaid to pay for their nursing home care anymore.  Texan's getting close to retirement?  When they secede they will be giving up their Social Security, their Medicare AND Medicaid.  All gone. 

 

Yeah, Texas secession.  I am warming to the idea.  Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.