I did a post on the story of the chambermaid who was allegedly attacked by Dominique Strauss-Khan, the French former head of the IMF. That case is still before the courts. The man claims it was consensual (a lot of men make the same claim and then try to smear the woman and this one could get very ugly for the women who is a native of the African country Guinea). At the time one of my readers mentioned that he had qualms about the case because of the propensity for false allegations. Well I agree with Carlyle on that score, because it is true, that thousands of men and women are the subject of false claims in the workplace. The man is more vulnerable when it comes to false claims, especially claims involving touching. However, there are other times such as in the Weiner case where the man is as guilty as sin and “It is the cover-up” that is their undoing. This leads to the case of the brawling WI Supreme Court justices. Someone is being falsely accused, and someone has lied to the press about what took place and then there is the lack of decorum in releasing the story in the first place.
Here is a recap of the story: the WI Supreme Court was due to hand down a decision that would reverse the illogical Sumi decision on the State Workers bill, which involves limiting the collective bargaining rights of Wisconsis state employees. This is the bill that has caused the Wisconsin circus for the past few months starting with the Democrat fleebaggers who fled across the border into Illinois so that they could avoid a vote on the bill – an extremely childish tactic that should have seen all of them recalled and thrown out on their butts. Justice David Prosser (who won his right to another term against the left wing dopey Kloppenburg, who wanted a recount when she was 7000 votes behind) wanted the announcement of the decision to be delayed by about a week so that there was no political taint, and he thought that Abrahamson, who is the chief justice of the Court had agreed, but she had failed to meet with the justices on the subject. Prosser and the other justices hunted down Abrahamson who was in Bradley’s office, and the 4 of them were at the door, not within the office. Prosser expressed his lack of faith in Abrahamson (probably called her a bitch at the time), and Bradley rushed at Prosser with her fists. He put up his hands to deflect her fists, contacted with her shoulders, and his fingers might have just touched her neck. Bradley claimed that Prosser had tried to choke her, but another justice stated at the time that this was not true. Somebody who was a party to the whole thing used a writer (not a journalist) with extreme left wing tendencies and a member of the Soros funded outfit in Wisconsin, by the name of Leuders, who released the Bradley side of the story. However, Leuders is an extremely lazy individual and he did no investigation on the story.
The whole incident is the subject of investigation, but how can an investigation be untainted if the investigator has had a known association with the people making the allegation? It is simply not possible for an untainted outcome. If the investigation had been turned over to law enforcement outside of the county it might at least be a little bit more respectable. At the same time there is another investigation by the law commission in Wisconsin (the one that usually investigates lawyers and justices). This was initiated by David Prosser, who made a complaint to them, whereas Bradley involved police investigators, but she has not laid charges.
Law professors Ann Althouse and William Jacobsen have been covering the story, and they have been asking the right questions. Professor Jacobsen has linked to the National Review online story that gives a bit more of an investigative perspective on the story.
This is a case that sounds very much like the man in the story is being intentionally slimed by the woman. In this story the real aggressor is the woman, who came at the man with her fists ready to pummell him. The man acted in self-defence by putting up his hands. She then slimes him by making the claim that he put her in a chokehold, but a witness to the incident at the time stated that it was not true, and the witness stated the same thing again. The woman then called in the police, Tubbs, who met with the justices behind closed doors. In this interview the chief justice was the one who allegedly demonstrated what was supposed to have taken place. There was something like 4 days in which Bradley and Abrahamson could come together to concoct their version of the story for Tubbs. The chief of police (or whatever he happens to be) who has a known association with Abrahamson, Bradley and Kloppenburg handed over the investigation to Mahoney, who also has a known association with those three individuals in the political sense.
In the typical leftist way, of using psychological projection, Bradley demanded that Prosser be forced into anger management, even though it was Bradley who flew at him with her fists flailing, intending to hit him!! The other justices refused to fall into line. It seems that the “or else” has been the leaking of the story to the Soros funded Leuders, and it was Leuders who wrote the story based upon the “facts” given by 3 unnamed sources (most likely Abrahamson, Bradley and a third unknown person).
The story as leaked by Leuders was a set-up. It has been designed to taint and damage David Prosser. If he did call Abrahamson a bitch, that is his right to state what he feels. It is not something that indicates that he needs anger management. However, have a look at Bradley and Abrahamson, because Prosser declared his lack of faith in the Chief justice, due in part to her extreme left politics. Both women were angry because Prosser won re-election despite their initial efforts to slime him. There was the debacle of the recount that should not have been necessary because he did win by a very healthy slim margin of 7000 votes. The recount did not change the margin by much (and if anything the recount could have included votes that were suspicious judging by the efforts to exclude bags of votes that went Prosser’s way). So these two women, who are outnumbered by the conservative justices, have made yet another attempt to slime Prosser.
This is the kind of allegation that most men must fear the most because it involves a defensive action to a woman’s aggression, that has in turn led to an allegation that appears on the surface to be an outright lie.
How will this end? We will just have to wait and see what happens with the “investigation”. I suspect that the law commission investigation will be impartial and that somebody will be found to have made a false allegation. It should end with calls for several people to step down, and if they do not step down then they should be impeached. This might not end very well for Bradley if she is caught out for lying.