Evidence and Testimony Deemed Not to Exist #2
When it came to what Hack had done and the official record, Sommers received a tip that the Supreme Court was playing with the record. Sommers inquired and found that it appeared that a significant number of transcripts had not been placed in the record, and were not reflected in the official Record Index. This led to an inquiry from Sommers to the Supreme Court. This led to a February 10, 2010 Supreme Court order with an attached purported Record Index in regard to the transcripts in question. (See Attachment #44)
What was provided to Atty. Sommers disingenuously inferred that the transcripts in question, which were identified as being part of the Record Index in the document provided to Sommers (See Attachment #44) were being made part of the record. However, Sommers was tipped off again that the Supreme Court was acting disingenuous, and that Attachment #44 did not mean the transcripts mentioned therein were being placed into the record. Sommers inquired and found out that the tip was accurate, and that the Supreme Court was refusing to include the transcripts from both sets of evidentiary hearings into the record. The Supreme Court’s actions were in clear violation of Wisconsin Statute §809.15(1)8,9,10, Stats. which mandated that the transcripts be included.
Sommers pointed out to the Supreme Court what was mandatory under statute. The Supreme Court then reversed itself…but, not quite. The Supreme Court now entered an order that the transcripts were to be included. However, the Supreme Court refused to enforce its own order, and throughout the briefing stage the transcripts continued to be withheld from the record. It is not known whether these transcripts were ever included. However, it would make no difference, given that the Supreme Court decided that the evidence/ testimony from these evidentiary hearings would not be considered by the Supreme Court when rendering their decisions on the OLR cases related to Raisbeck.
The cost to Atty. Sommers for these evidentiary hearings that were deemed non-existent was exorbitant in time, energy and money. If one reads Chief Justice Abrahamson’s decision, one would have no clue to what actually took place. Dee Hall and the Wisconsin State Journal know exactly what took place; however, they apparently don’t believe the public needs to know.
« PreviousNext »