Wisconsin Dems to be in Contempt?

First, we don't have a bet. I asked if you wanted to bet, you replied in the affirmative. We have yet to determine the terms of the bet. I propose $500 for the wager. We also have to determine what exactly must occur for one of us to win or lose. I propose that if none of the 14 Democratic Senators are placed in custody by the police under the authority of this resolution, I win. If any of them are placed in custody under authority of this resolution, you win. Deal?

And you don't have the law. You just think you have the law.

awe...poor baby. first its you're right they can, now its whether they will actually do it. what slippery fish. and i don't bet that kind of money unless i know i am positively right. i'm 99% certain i'm right on this and i do have the law. you just look like a petulant fool on this one and too scared to bet a measily avi change for a week.

read em and weep bitch

http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/article_fad6725e-45c7-11e0-8437-001cc4c03286.html
 
awe...poor baby. first its you're right they can, now its whether they will actually do it. what slippery fish. and i don't bet that kind of money unless i know i am positively right. i'm 99% certain i'm right on this and i do have the law. you just look like a petulant fool on this one and too scared to bet a measily avi change for a week.

read em and weep bitch

http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/article_fad6725e-45c7-11e0-8437-001cc4c03286.html

Bolded portion isn't really true (see: $500)
 
awe...poor baby. first its you're right they can, now its whether they will actually do it. what slippery fish. and i don't bet that kind of money unless i know i am positively right. i'm 99% certain i'm right on this and i do have the law. you just look like a petulant fool on this one and too scared to bet a measily avi change for a week.

Obviously, you bet that kind of money when you are positively wrong. Hence, your current indebtedness to me. And I'm not being a slippery fish, I am merely proposing concrete terms for our wager. Do you have a counterproposal? I am open to suggestions.




Like I said, you think you have the law, but you don't. The Senate has already decided how it can compel the attendance of its members through Rule 84 of the Senate Rules:

Senate Rule 84. Sergeant to bring in absentees. The chief clerk shall immediately call the roll of the members, and note the absentees, whose names shall be read, and entered upon the journal in such manner as to show who are absent with leave and who are absent without leave. The chief clerk shall furnish the sergeant at arms with a list of those who are absent without leave, and the sergeant at arms shall forthwith proceed to find and bring in such absentees.

The Sergeant at Arms can find and bring in absentees, but there is no provision in the Senate Rules for the Senate to authorize the police to arrest absent members and compel their attendant. And, I would add, the Sergeant at Arms has limited authority.

But the kicker, my little Crawfish, is the Wisconsin Constitution itself:

“Members of the legislature shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest; nor shall they be subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session.”

Like I said, you think you have the law, but you don't.
 
I think Yurt probably missed this at the top of his "read 'em and weep" post:

The following is a legal summary of the state Senate powers to compel attendance of absent members sent March 3 to Sen. Scott Fitzgerald from James Troupis of the Troupis Law Office.

Here are the political contributions of James Troupis:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/s...and=&all=Y&sort=N&capcode=qpnj7&submit=Submit

Basically, a Republican lawyer said the Republicans could do what the Republicans did and Yurt takes it as the word of the Lord.
 
I think Yurt probably missed this at the top of his "read 'em and weep" post:



Here are the political contributions of James Troupis:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/s...and=&all=Y&sort=N&capcode=qpnj7&submit=Submit

Basically, a Republican lawyer said the Republicans could do what the Republicans did and Yurt takes it as the word of the Lord.

are you saying the cited laws and cases are false?

LOL...how desperate....when you're wrong, attack the source and not the substance which was actual law with citations

what a fool, no wonder you were too afraid to bet
 
OTE=NigelTufnel;782008]Obviously, you bet that kind of money when you are positively wrong. Hence, your current indebtedness to me. And I'm not being a slippery fish, I am merely proposing concrete terms for our wager. Do you have a counterproposal? I am open to suggestions.

oh, so you are going the way of your wife onceler and going to obsessively rant about that till the day you die. like i said before which you always ignore, onceler claimed i truly meant it, however, i only said he SEEMED to support them, but as i said in the sentence, i left that out because he would ignore it, so i made fun of him. but do continue to be a dishonest yapping hairless shitzu...it really makes you and your wife look like fools and if you haven't noticed, most people are sick of it.


Like I said, you think you have the law, but you don't. The Senate has already decided how it can compel the attendance of its members through Rule 84 of the Senate Rules:



The Sergeant at Arms can find and bring in absentees, but there is no provision in the Senate Rules for the Senate to authorize the police to arrest absent members and compel their attendant. And, I would add, the Sergeant at Arms has limited authority.

But the kicker, my little Crawfish, is the Wisconsin Constitution itself:



Like I said, you think you have the law, but you don't.

sorry yapper...you've ignored the law and tried to impose YOUR interpretation on the constitution. you also cherry picked the constitution....you completely ignored the sections cited in the link you bagged on....pity, because i just checked most her sources and she is accurate. you just made a huge ass out of yourself.

if you like, i will quote directly from the ORIGINAL sources, constitution, cases....but since you're the one who tells people to do their own research, you look up and prove her wrong.

Constitutional Authority to Act: Article IV, § 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution, provides that each house "may compel the attendance of absent members in suchmanner and under such penalties as each house may provide." This makes clear that,should each body require, attendance is mandatory. The quorum requirement is not agrant of authority to a minority of the body to prevent it from acting and to frustrate the will of the majority.

Senate Rules Confirm every Senator's Duty to Attend All Sessions: Wisconsin legislators have a non-discretionary duty to attend legislative sessions. The Senate itselfhas reinforced that constitutional duty. Senate Rule 16 provides that "[m]embers of the senate may not be absent from the daily session during the entire day without first obtaining a leave of absence."

Senate Rules Confer Authority to Compel Attendance: Senate Rule 15, "When a roll call discloses the lack of a quorum...the members present may take measures to procure a quorum...." Senate Rule 84, "[t]he chief clerk shall furnish the sergeant at arms with a list of those who are absent without leave, and the sergeant at arms shall forthwith proceed to find and bring in such absentees."

The Senate, and Only the Senate, May Act to Enforce the Duty of Attendance: Article IV, § 8 provides that "each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings, [and] punish for contempt and disorderly behavior." On Wednesday, March 2, the Circuit Court of Oconto County found that Senator Holperin violated hisplain and positive duty to attend Senate Sessions, as provided in Senate Rule 16, but then held that the Senate, and only the Senate, had the right and obligation to enforce the rule of attendance.

Citing Article IV, §8, the court held "t is the State Senate that mustenforce its own rules, if it chooses to do so." Barthel v. Holperin, Case No. 11CV100 (Order, March 2, 2011). All 14 absent Senators are subject to the same Court holding. The Senate has clear legal authority to act to compel the return of its members. The Circuit Court explicitly stated, "‘Each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings...', and may punish for contempt."

In response to a request from the legislature, the Wisconsin Attorney General's Office came to the same conclusion many years ago. "Members of the assembly, regardless of number, in lawful session, can compel attendance of absent members in such manner...as are authorized by the assembly itself." 18 Op. Atty. Gen. 406 (1929)

Other Legislative Bodies have held Wilfully Absent Members in Contempt and Compelled them to Return: United States Senate: United States Senate Rule VI, authorizes a majority of the Senators present to direct the sergeant at arms "to request, and when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators." That Senate rule was invoked in February 1988 when "Capitol Police carried Senator Bob Packwood feet first into the Senate chamber. This occurred after the Senate ordered the arrest of absent senators to maintain a quorum during a filibuster on campaign finance legislation." See U.S. Senate, Compulsory Attendance, at http:// www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Compulsory_Attendance.htm (last visited March 2, 2011).

Alaska. In Schultz v. Sundberg, 759 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1985), Kerttula, president of the state senate, ordered Alaska State Troopers to compel Schultz, an Alaska staterepresentative, to attend a joint session of the state legislature for the purpose of achieving a quorum. Schultz sued and the district court dismissed the case because the defendants were immune from suit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

New Hampshire. The Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives ordered the House Sergeant at Arms to arrest an absent representative and return him to the chamber in order to secure a quorum. Keefe v. Roberts, 116 N.H. 195, 355 A.2d824 (1976). The absent representative sued and the court held that "the right of alegislative body to have the attendance of all its members and to enforce such attendance, if necessary, is one of its most undoubted and important functions" and that the Speaker in trying to secure a quorum was acting in performance of official duties. "
 
Here's what I'll bet on, you communist scum... I'll bet the missing Democrats will either show the fuck up and vote, or be arrested for contempt! This isn't some third-world hoodlumville, this is the United States of America, we have a process and a form of government, and these people are currently OBSTRUCTING it! I don't give a piss that you don't LIKE what Walker is doing, organize the voters and vote him out of office! You can't run away to another state and refuse to participate in democracy! That little "plan" is not going to work... it was cute... it was clever... but the gig is up now, you got your publicity, you riled up the base... now it's time to face the legislative music and do what the people elected you to do.

So put that in your pipe (with your crack rock) and smoke it, Big Boy!

You are just too funny.
 
Well, it certainly looks like someone has been "furiously looking"....

i have no doubt you referring to me and my lengthy citation rebuttal that showed nigel is an idiot...however, i actually had that in the beginning, you should go back and read the posts, i even said it

you look more stupid than usual when you don't....oh wait...you have a reading problem LOOOOOL
 
First, we don't have a bet. I asked if you wanted to bet, you replied in the affirmative. We have yet to determine the terms of the bet. I propose $500 for the wager. We also have to determine what exactly must occur for one of us to win or lose. I propose that if none of the 14 Democratic Senators are placed in custody by the police under the authority of this resolution, I win. If any of them are placed in custody under authority of this resolution, you win. Deal?

And you don't have the law. You just think you have the law.

And if they return, instead of facing arresst??
 
sorry yapper...you've ignored the law and tried to impose YOUR interpretation on the constitution. you also cherry picked the constitution....you completely ignored the sections cited in the link you bagged on....pity, because i just checked most her sources and she is accurate. you just made a huge ass out of yourself.

Yeah, it's crazy that in addressing the question of whether Senators may be arrested for failing to show up for work I quoted the portion of the Wisconsin Constitution addressing the circumstances under which Senators may be arrested. Here it is again:

Members of the legislature shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest; nor shall they be subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session.

And yes, I have cherry picked the Wisconsin Constitution. The portion that I have cherry picked is the relevant portion on this question.


if you like, i will quote directly from the ORIGINAL sources, constitution, cases....but since you're the one who tells people to do their own research, you look up and prove her wrong.

I'm not saying that your sources inaccurately quoted anything. I'm saying it is all irrelevant to the question of whether the Senators may be arrested, as there is a relevant portion of the Wisconsin Constitution directly on point.

Moreover, as I said, to the extent the Senate can enforce its own rules to compel the appearance of its members, it has chosen to do so through the limited means of having the Sergeant at Arms compel their attendance. The Senate Rules do not authorize the extrajudicial arrest of members of the Senate by the police to compel their attendance. It's fairly simple.
 
Yeah, it's crazy that in addressing the question of whether Senators may be arrested for failing to show up for work I quoted the portion of the Wisconsin Constitution addressing the circumstances under which Senators may be arrested. Here it is again:



And yes, I have cherry picked the Wisconsin Constitution. The portion that I have cherry picked is the relevant portion on this question.




I'm not saying that your sources inaccurately quoted anything. I'm saying it is all irrelevant to the question of whether the Senators may be arrested, as there is a relevant portion of the Wisconsin Constitution directly on point.

Moreover, as I said, to the extent the Senate can enforce its own rules to compel the appearance of its members, it has chosen to do so through the limited means of having the Sergeant at Arms compel their attendance. The Senate Rules do not authorize the extrajudicial arrest of members of the Senate by the police to compel their attendance. It's fairly simple.

Art IV section 7 may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide

therefore, they can compel them by arresting them to attend. this does not conflict with your cherry pick. you just want to ignore the law. the AG astutely opined years ago:

"Members of the assembly, regardless of number, in lawful session, can compel attendance of absent members in such manner...as are authorized by the assembly itself." 18 Op. Atty. Gen. 406 (1929)

its thus clear, that if the members want to compel attendance by arrest, they can.

they can be arrested for high speed driving, drunk driving etc...the breach of the peace is broad nigel....and here they likely could be considered breaching the peace...so even if you want to go down that road, you will lose. courts in other jurisdictions have upheld such forcible returns with the same if not similar clause in their constitutions. if you can't use the arrest power, then it is absolutely meaningless to claim they have the power to enforce they own rules and COMPEL attendance. your view would make that law toothless and therefore meaningless.

such an interpretation would likely never win in court. i have case law backing me up...any case supporting you nigel? :)
 
Art IV section 7 may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide

therefore, they can compel them by arresting them to attend. this does not conflict with your cherry pick. you just want to ignore the law. the AG astutely opined years ago:


its thus clear, that if the members want to compel attendance by arrest, they can.

No, even without the constitutional provision I've cited you're incorrect, as the Senate Rules specify the manner that the Senate has provided for compelling the attendance of absent members. I'll quote it again for you:

Senate Rule 84. Sergeant to bring in absentees. The chief clerk shall immediately call the roll of the members, and note the absentees, whose names shall be read, and entered upon the journal in such manner as to show who are absent with leave and who are absent without leave. The chief clerk shall furnish the sergeant at arms with a list of those who are absent without leave, and the sergeant at arms shall forthwith proceed to find and bring in such absentees.

Noting about the police arresting them.


they can be arrested for high speed driving, drunk driving etc...the breach of the peace is broad nigel....and here they are breaching the peace...so even if you want to go down that road, you will lose. courts in other jurisdictions have upheld such forcible returns with the same if not similar clause in their constitutions. if you can't use the arrest power, then it is absolutely meaningless to claim they have the power to enforce they own rules and COMPEL attendance. your view would make that law toothless and therefore meaningless.

First, quote me the Alaska and New Hampshire constitutional provisions barring the arrest of members of the state legislature. Second, travelling to Illinois is not a breach of the peace. Third, they can enforce the rules and attempt to compel attendance absent arrest power. It just might take a while.

such an interpretation would likely never win in court. i have case law backing me up...any case supporting you nigel? :)

Again, you think you have case law backing you up, but you don't. I have the Wisconsin Constitution. You have nothing.
 
just to be clear...i'm not saying they can be arrested out of state


Backtracking motherfucker. The whole point of issuing arrest orders is that they can be enforced beyond the borders of the state. If an arrest warrant issues in Wisconsin, the Illinois police can pick them up and turn them over to Wisconsin authorities.
 
Backtracking motherfucker. The whole point of issuing arrest orders is that they can be enforced beyond the borders of the state. If an arrest warrant issues in Wisconsin, the Illinois police can pick them up and turn them over to Wisconsin authorities.

how is that backtracking? i never said they could go beyond the borders...there have been stories about some of them coming HOME you fucking donkey dingleberry....

good lord, when i make something clear...i'm a backtracking motherfucker...yet, i never said they could go beyond state lines, but i realized some putz like you might claim it....and lo and behold...you did, AFTER, i cleared things up..... nice job putz
 
No, even without the constitutional provision I've cited you're incorrect, as the Senate Rules specify the manner that the Senate has provided for compelling the attendance of absent members. I'll quote it again for you:



Noting about the police arresting them.




First, quote me the Alaska and New Hampshire constitutional provisions barring the arrest of members of the state legislature. Second, travelling to Illinois is not a breach of the peace. Third, they can enforce the rules and attempt to compel attendance absent arrest power. It just might take a while.



Again, you think you have case law backing you up, but you don't. I have the Wisconsin Constitution. You have nothing.

do your own homework nigel. i don't find things for people who demand others find their (meaning YOU) claims on their own...as you said.....google it.

and its hilarious how you proudly proclaim it says nothing about arrest. thats the whole point. you cite a RULE, i cite the CONSTITUTION which says any MANNER....meaning, physically forcing them to come back, if that happens to be arrest....so be it.

what you have in wisconsin is some ambiguity regarding the law. you and i could argue until the wee hours on the finer points of law and who "might" be right. at this point, all you have is a section of the constitution that has NOTHING to do with compelling members to attend as your coat rack. hang your coat on it nigel. though your coat is likely to hit the floor.
 
I'm doubting that police in another state care if they issue orders for contempt. I can't see this being extraditable...
 
Yeah, it's crazy that in addressing the question of whether Senators may be arrested for failing to show up for work I quoted the portion of the Wisconsin Constitution addressing the circumstances under which Senators may be arrested. Here it is again:

Apparently you missed...

"the AG should prosecute: Wis. Stat. sec. 946.12--"Any public officer or public employee who does any of the following is guilty of a Class I felony: Intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer's or employee's office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law. . ."

as well as the parts of WI law that Yurt posted and you ignored.

And yes, I have cherry picked the Wisconsin Constitution. The portion that I have cherry picked is the relevant portion on this question.

Actually you are 100% incorrect on this.


I'm not saying that your sources inaccurately quoted anything. I'm saying it is all irrelevant to the question of whether the Senators may be arrested, as there is a relevant portion of the Wisconsin Constitution directly on point.

Except again your cherry picked portion is not relevant to this.
 
Back
Top