Section III: It’s Too Scary

Evidence and Testimony Deemed Not to Exist #1

When accused by OLR, Atty. Sommers drafted a counterclaim and simultaneously provided documentation substantiating numerous OLR falsifications regarding what had taken place in Raisbeck.

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson replied to Sommers in a letter dated February 12, 2007. (See Attachment #43)  In her letter, Chief Justice Abrahamson asserted that any investigation into OLR misconduct would be stayed until after the disciplinary proceedings relating to Raisbeck.  She also asserted that the referee could consider the allegations against OLR “in the form of a counterclaim.”  Her letter was cc’d to the referee.

The referee, the Supreme Court’s hand-picked judicial official, was Russell Hanson.  Pursuant to Chief Justice Abrahamson’s letter, Hanson granted Atty. Sommers a counterclaim against OLR.  However, shortly before the scheduled evidentiary hearings, Hanson reversed himself and now claimed that Sommers could not have a counterclaim because Hanson had no authorization to permit a counterclaim.  Hanson further claimed that he had never ruled otherwise.  However, Hanson’s assertions were bizarre in that they were not only blatantly false, they could be proven as such by merely reviewing transcript pages.

After Sommers informed the Wisconsin Supreme Court about Hanson’s flip-flop and provided the transcripts pages, Hanson was replaced as the referee.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court now hand-picked Stanley Hack.

Hack held that Sommers could not have a counterclaim, but over OLR opposition, he held that Sommers could have an affirmative defense.  Hack defined an affirmative defense as meaning that Sommers could present the same evidence as if he had a counterclaim, and that the referee, i.e. Hack, would make findings of facts based upon the evidence submitted.  All that Sommers would lose by having an affirmative defense versus a counterclaim was that the referee could not enforce any punishment against OLR.  Hack asserted that it would be up to the Supreme Court to act or not act upon the findings he would make in regard to OLR’s falsifications and misconduct.  Sommers thus agreed to have his counterclaim modified to an affirmative defense.

Two sets of evidentiary hearings took place related to the affirmative defense.  These hearings involved evidence on the Dane County DA’s Office falsifying expert analysis in Raisbeck, hiding subpoenaed evidence, and OLR’s falsification of facts in order to obscure what had taken place and to falsely accuse Sommers.  The first set of hearings took place in autumn of 2008, with Dee Hall of the Wisconsin State Journal in attendance.  The second set took place in May of 2009.

Upon the conclusion of the first set of hearings, Referee Hack was persuaded by Atty. Crooks (representing Robert Krenz) that Hack had no authority to make any factual findings on whether Krenz had committed perjury on behalf of the Dane County DA’s office, and to whether this had been covered up by OLR.  Hack’s reversal came with the inadvertent disclosure that Hack and Atty. Crooks had engaged in multiple ex parte contacts.

Upon the conclusion of the second set of hearings, Hack again reversed himself, and now ruled on OLR’s behalf, that he had no authority to make rulings or findings of fact related to misconduct on the part of Dane County judges, the Dane County DA’s Office and OLR.  Hack also ruled that Sommers could put on the same evidence at the final hearing set for the middle of June, but Hack would not utilize any evidence related to misconduct on the part of the Dane County judges, the Dane County DA’s Office or OLR.

Hack eventually drafted a report and recommendation dated October 1, 2009.  This 27 page document inferred that it was a blow-by-blow account of the proceedings in front of Hack.  However, this document did not contain a single reference to any evidence/ testimony from either set of the aforementioned evidentiary hearings.  In fact, the names of Krenz and Gnacinski, let alone their actions, were never referenced a single time.

However disingenuous Hack was, he would be far surpassed by his superiors in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, as shown next.