Who Was Appointed by OLR to Investigate into Whether Dane County ADA Paul Humphrey Suborned Perjury?

Under oath, Mr. Sellen conceded the obvious when he acknowledged that OLR’s investigation into whether Paul Humphrey had knowingly elicited false testimony from Robert Krenz could lead to both being criminally charged. (See Attachment #37)

Commonsense would seem to dictate that an impartial investigator be appointed by OLR to do the investigation.  Mr. Sellen on behalf of his bosses, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, would surely agree to this.  The attorney he appointed was Margery Mebane Tibbetts, then of the inside law firm Brennan, Steil, Bastings & MacDougall SC; and now of the inside firm, Murphy Desmond SC.

Atty. Tibbetts was an attorney of record in an effort to prohibit convicted defendants from litigating their responsibility in subsequent civil actions related to the traffic accident, i.e. Ambrose v. Continental Insurance Co., 96-1522.  If this raises eyebrows, it pales in comparison to what is below.

At the time Sellen appointed Atty. Tibbetts to investigate whether Humphrey had elicited false testimony from Krenz, Tibbetts was in a business relationship with Krenz.  She was utilizing him as an expert in Green County Case No. 04 CV 255. (See Attachment #84)

Under oath, Sellen first tried to evade his knowledge and claimed that he did not have knowledge of the case for which Tibbetts retained Krenz as an expert prior to his testimony that day.[1]  However, he was then forced to revise his testimony and concede that he had traded emails with Wisconsin State Journal reporter Dee Hall, wherein he had been informed that Atty. Tibbetts had retained Krenz in the aforementioned case. (See Attachment #38)

Dee Hall was present during Sellen’s testimony.  Neither she nor her paper have felt obligated to inform the public.  Nor has she or her paper felt obligated to inform the public to what follows.

[1] Sellen’s evasion was but one of a number of steps he took to close off any inquiry into whether Tibbetts had a conflict of interest pertaining to Krenz.  The Supreme Court has been fully advised to all of this.  Their response has been to refuse to even acknowledge what they’ve been appraised of.

« PreviousNext »