Video: Powerful New Prosser Ad May Be A Game-Changer

John Nolte at Big Government writes:

As is the case with any important election, events are happening fast as we approach the final weekend prior to the crucial Tuesday April 5 vote that will ultimately decide the future of Wisconsin for a generation to come. In one corner, you have sitting State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, a reliable 4-to3 tie-breaking vote in favor of judicial restraint. In the other corner, Joanne Kloppenburg, a die-hard lefty with zero judicial experience who has all but promised the state’s thuggish public unions that she will be their firewall in stopping Governor Walker’s reforms via judicial fiat.

We all know Democrats and public unions plays dirty. That’s not the question. The question is only how dirty, and in their bid to get Kloppenburg on the court, they played it as dirty as anyone can — going so far as to exploit a victim of sexual abuse.

You can watch the offensive ad at Big Government.

Now the victim speaks out in an ad for Justice Prosser:

Video via Breitbart TV.

UPDATE: Merryfield’s more in depth statement to the media about the ad, here.

I can’t think of anything slimier than accusing someone with enabling pedophilia, knowing it’s a false charge, but doing it anyway for raw political power. This is how Democrats operate. Just when you think they can’t get any lower….they come out and surprise you with something like this.

The Prosser/Kloppenburg  race is much closer than it should be because of such underhanded tactics. Hopefully this ad will help.

A woman who would allow such a vile lie to stand, smearing a good man’s name, while exploiting the victims of a crime a second time, has no business sitting on the bench. All Wisconsinites should know that, whether pro-union, or not.

UPDATE:

For TBogg’s readers, who despite this powerful evidence to the contrary, are trying to argue in the comments that Prosser is NAMBLA’s choice:

This is the story on which the Kloppenburg ad is basing its smear:

When Prosser was a district attorney, a Catholic priest was accused of improperly touching two boys in their home — running his hand across their chests, but nothing more. Creepy, yes, but probably not prosecutable. With no more evidence than that to go on, with one witness refusing to testify, and with the family not  keen on sending its young children to the witness stand in a case in which it would be practically impossible to prove a serious crime had been committed, Prosser, with the family’s agreement, declined to file charges. He reported the incident to the diocese and asked that the priest be removed. Long after Prosser was out of office — 14 years, in fact — further accusations against the priest came to light: accusations of which the prosecutor had known, and could have known, nothing. For this, the union-backed Greater Wisconsin Committee accuses him of conspiring to protect pedophiles from justice. That is a shameful libel — even Politifact, generally hostile to Republicans, gave the claim a low rating on its Truth-O-Meter.

Even the boys in the case denounced the ad as the exploitative fraud it is, and one averred that he’d vote for Prosser. But what is the suffering of exploited children when there are union dues on the line?

By the way TBogg readers. I would love to hear your thoughts on the union extortion that’s going on in Wisconsin. Not that it isn’t  fascinating enough to watch people  twist themselves into pretzels defending an obvious smear – I’m morbidly curious about what the lunatic left would say in defense of union bullying of Wisconsin businesses.

Linked by Michelle Malkin in Buzzworthy, and  Doug Ross, and Lonely Conservative, thanks.

Share

444 thoughts on “Video: Powerful New Prosser Ad May Be A Game-Changer

  1. Pingback: Victimized Twice | The Lonely Conservative

  2. What about the charge is false? The guy that Prosser refused to prosecute was later convicted of child molestation. Prosser let him molest more kids. That is a fact. Your tough-on-crime, law ‘n’ order boy there let a pedophile go. Complain all you like, but it remains true.

    Like

  3. Hi, thank you for your hard work exposing the lies that have penetrated Americas fabric. Stand tall for you are a Patriot. A true American which America can count on in the time of trouble 🙂

    Like

  4. Mr. Merryfield said the exact opposite in 2008 to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. What caused him to change his mind? Inquiring minds want to know.
    The ad was never endorsed by Kloppenburg. It’s a third-party ad. Is it even running anymore? I haven’t seen it for a long time.

    Like

  5. Pingback: Can Wisconsin Democrats And Unions Get Any Scummier? « Common Sense Political Thought

  6. Have the democRATS no sense of decency? We need more men like Justice Prosser on the benches of our courts–men who are willing to protect our Christian churches from whiney kids who want to turn a bit of innocent spartan wrestling with their priests into “abuse”.

    Like

  7. We need an organization with the resources and manpower to fight this smear campaingn Has NAMBLA seen this ad?

    Like

  8. The ad is a distraction. I doubt most people even know what it’s about.
    Prosser’s allies should be focusing on the real issue.
    An unqualified political hack in the pockets of public employee unions is trying to get on the court so she can overturn the will of the voters.
    The election has nothing to do with child abuse.

    Like

  9. Let’s get NAMBLA to defend Prosser. But NeoKong is right. Prosser is a political hack and we have the chance to get someone who didn’t come from partisan politics on the court.

    Like

  10. Wow. I thought it would be impossible to defend what this dishonest smear – that no decent person would be able to do so.

    Once again, just when you think dems can’t get any lower ….

    Like

  11. “Wow. I thought it would be impossible to defend what this dishonest smear – that no decent person would be able to do so.”

    So you’re pro-pedophilia.

    Duly noted….

    Like

  12. The victim himself has come out to say that that ad has it wrong. You vermin are beneath contempt.

    I understand you, TBog. You’re a good soldier with the ends justify the means mentality so many of your comrades in the left-wing media have. I have to wonder about your readers though. Do they understand lying propaganda when they see it?

    Like

  13. Your update references the National Review, which is a right wing, biased source.

    Prosser refused to prosecute a man who improperly touched two children.

    That’s what you are supporting.

    Like

  14. Yes nicedeb, and I’m sure if something this nasty lurked in Kloppenburg’s past, those nice Christian boys in the Republican Party would never dare to exploit it for political gain…[rolls eyes]

    Anyway, if Prosser thoroughly investigated the claims of abuse in this instance, why would he have to report “the incident to the diocese” and ask “that the priest be removed”?

    Think about it: the boys’ claims are sufficient evidence to establish PC to arrest, so why wasn’t this priest arrested? The police could have confronted him with the evidence and likely got a confession out of him. If the county had pursued these claims with all due diligence, there would be no reason to report the incident to the diocese, as they (as well as the wider community) would have been well aware of the charges by then.

    Sounds to me like Prosser and the victims’ family bowed to the power of the Catholic church – an extremely powerful entity in NE WI, as anyone remotely familiar with the area knows all too well.

    Like

  15. I’m sure if something this nasty lurked in Kloppenburg’s past, those nice Christian boys in the Republican Party would never dare to exploit it for political gain

    If something nasty lurks in a candidates past, I’m all for exposing it. But not if it’s a disgusting baseless smear.

    Now, you’re reduced to anti-Catholic conspiracy theories to justify the dishonesty. Keep digging.

    Like

  16. Wow. I thought it would be impossible to defend what this dishonest smear – that no decent person would be able to do so.

    You are, of course, correct. No decent person would defend this.

    Like

  17. The 1978 letter from the Bishop also made it clear that Prosser was motivated by a desire to keep the case details quiet to protect the reputation of the Catholic Church, or at least that is what he told the Bishop: “in order to prevent unnecessary scandal, the DA [Prosser] came to see me merely to state that he was pursuing this case, gathering evidence toward prosecution of Father Feeney for a number of misdemeanors. I had to agree with the District Attorney that the Church would prefer to keep this out of court and out of the public eye and I was able to tell him of our decision last week [to move Feeney to a different parish] with which he agreed.” [Letter from Green Bay Bishop, December 18, 1978]

    Like

  18. How is the claim baseless? Do you even know what that word means? There’s obviously a basis for the claim otherwise PolitiFact wouldn’t have given it the “barely true” rating.

    Here’s the basic structure of the story (as relayed by the non-partisan PolitiFact @ http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/29/greater-wisconsin-committee/greater-wisconsin-committee-says-supreme-court-jus/):

    “Merryfield told Prosser — who said he attended middle and high school with her — that Catholic priest John Patrick Feeney improperly touched her sons Todd, then 14, and Troy, then 12, at the family’s home.

    A court summary in a later matter says Feeney, who worked at a church in Freedom, touched the boys in the chest area and moved his hand downward toward their penises but did not touch them there. Feeney also pinched one of the boys on the buttocks.

    The incident — as a result of a later investigation, in 2002 — helped put Feeney behind bars.”

    Hmm, the actual facts of what occurred between Father Feeney and the Merryfield boys are a lot worse than what National Review intimated. Nice to know that Democrats aren’t the only folks willing to twist facts to support a political agenda, ;~)

    Anyway, PolitiFact rated the overall assertions of Kloppenburg’s ad as “Barely True”, but gave a completely true rating to this:

    “[Claim]: Prosser didn’t ask police to investigate and refused to prosecute.

    Prosser said in the editorial board interview that he interviewed both boys and found another Feeney victim, but that victim refused to testify. He did not ask a police agency — in this case, the Sheriff’s Department — to investigate, so the ad is correct on that claim.

    It is an open question whether the Sheriff’s Department would have investigated the Merryfield boys incident and related cases more vigorously than Prosser did.

    The ad is also correct that Prosser decided not to file charges against Feeney. But it provides no context as to why they were not pursued.

    In his comments to the Journal Sentinel, Prosser cited several reasons.

    Prosser said the case would have been difficult to prove at the time because Feeney had not indecently touched the boys, and because it would pit the credibility of two boys against the credibility of a priest. He also said the case would be hard on the family because it would become sensationalized, given that Feeney’s brother, Joe Feeney, was a regular performer on the Lawrence Welk network television show. And he said his office lacked experienced prosecutors.

    So, this statement also leaves out key information.

    Indeed, records show more details came out during the future investigations, which made the case against Feeney stronger. By that point, other victims had emerged.”

    So, as I stated above, Prosser exercised his judgment to basically not allow the Merryfield boys’ accusations to be more thoroughly investigated by the police. He used his professional and personal influence over Sharon Merryfield and her family to encourage them to drop the matter. Now he’s paying a political price for that exercise in judgment, because when the police were eventually brought into to investigate the behavior of Father Feeney, their investigation uncovered more victims which led to Feeney’s conviction and imprisonment as a pedophile.

    My point in directing attention to the power of the Catholic Church was to remind you and your readers that this story played out similarly hundreds of thousands of times throughout the majority of the 20th Century as local officials declined to take on the powerful Catholic Church and create controversy so long as the church agreed to simply ship the pedophiles in their priesthoods somewhere else.

    So was Prosser wrong? Yes. Was his judgment out of line with his contemporaries at the time? Not really.

    Should he pay for this grossly poor exercise in judgment? I believe so, but that’s a personal opinion that will inform my vote on April 5.

    Like

  19. nice deb:
    Please respond to the Dec. 18, 1978 letter from the Bishop. Also please respond to Prosser’s fanboy appreciation of Joe Feeney, the Welk singer. Also, too pedophiles are not nice, deb, not nice at all.

    Like

  20. “Why do you suppose the victim himself, has come out to call these claims ‘offensive, inaccurate, and out of context’?”

    Why is that relevant? I can judge for myself the facts as laid out in the subsequent investigation (which should have occurred in the 1970’s) and court documents.

    The bottom line nicedeb, is that you want to ignore all the facts of this situation that do call into question the judgment of David Prosser and focus on the lurid nature of a political ad. That’s fine, that’s your prerogative. But it’s my prerogative as a WI resident to look at the basis for that ad and decide whether I want a man who so thoroughly neglected his duties as a enforcer of the law when faced with the prospect of taking on a powerful political interest to remain on my state’s Supreme Court. Based on this story as well as his defense of the putrid behavior of his fellow conservative justice Michael Gableman (not to mention his behavior toward Chief Justice Abrahamson), I don’t believe he’s fit for the high obligation of a Supreme Court justice.

    Like

  21. Changing the subject is all very nice, NiceDeb, but the fact remains: Prosser had the opportunity to get a child molestor off of the streets (and out of the confessionals!) a quarter-century before said molestor was actually convicted–of molesting even more kids.

    “Look! Over there! Unions!” is not a response.

    Like

  22. So why didn’t all this come out before he was elected in the first place? Because his opponents that are beholden to the unions are desperate to keep their power, and they see the gravy train coming to an end if Prosser is re-elected. They are willing to do anything, say anything, distort and smear.

    Like

  23. So why didn’t all this come out before he was elected in the first place?

    Why does that matter? He let a child molestor go. That’s the end of the story. “He wasn’t caught before now, so we have to let him go” is a very strange way to deal with wrong-doing.

    Like

  24. Why is that relevant? I can judge for myself the facts as laid out in the subsequent investigation (which should have occurred in the 1970′s) and court documents.

    Yep, you can judge all the facts that you choose not to ignore.

    you know, like this one:

    …the victim himself, has come out to call these claims ‘offensive, inaccurate, and out of context’?”

    It’s funny how, in this case, the left simply ignores the “victim’s” testimony. Nah, more important to take the facts and twist them to make political hay out of them.

    As usual, honestly and liberals are complete and total strangers.

    Interesting that the same people who fully support organizations like the ACLU, who actually DO defend and protect pedophiles, are now turning around and attacking for someone on extremely specious grounds for supposedly doing the exact same thing.

    Besides the incredibly vile character assassination that is being engaged in here by the left, it also, yet again, exposes their hypocrisy.

    Like

  25. “So why didn’t all this come out before he was elected in the first place?”

    – roamingfirehydrant

    From Prosser’s WI SC bio page:

    “Justice David T. Prosser Jr. was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov. Tommy G. Thompson in 1998, and elected to a 10-year term in 2001.”

    From the Court of Appeals decision re: State v. John Patrick Feeney:

    “The complaint Sharon filed appears to have resurfaced when, in response to another victim’s allegations made in April 2002, detectives began searching records for any similar abuse complaints against Feeney. Finding the 1979 complaint, detectives contacted and re-interviewed Todd and Troy. During the new interviews, Troy reported an event that happened one or two months prior to the May 1978 incident in his home. At face-to-face confession, Feeney asked Troy if he had any girlfriends. When Troy said yes, Feeney put his hand on Troy’s jeans over his penis and asked if any of the girls had ever touched him there. Feeney then asked Troy if he knew what Feeney was touching. Troy responded, “a penis,” and Feeney asked him to spell it. When Troy spelled the word correctly on his second attempt, Feeney removed his hand. This incident was not in the original 1979 police report.

    The district attorney filed a complaint in September 2002, amending it in November 2002. The complaint charged Feeney with one count of first‑degree sexual assault against Troy for the confession incident; one count of attempted first-degree sexual assault for attempting to touch Troy’s penis in his bedroom; and one count of attempted second-degree sexual assault for attempting to touch Todd’s penis in his bedroom. An Information filed in March 2003 added one count each of first-degree and second-degree sexual assault for touching the boys’ chests.”

    Do the math roaming and try again.

    Like

  26. The police could have confronted him with the evidence and likely got a confession out of him.

    Oh I doubt that, being that the “evidence” was one boy saying “he touched my chest” and the other saying “he pinched my butt”. I don’t doubt that those things happened, but any defense attorney could have gotten the priest off. (heh)

    Defense Attorney: He’s just an affectionate guy with the youths he mentors, he pats them on the back, etc. Yeah, maybe the butt pinching went a bit far, but Father X comes from an affectionate family in which, much like sports teams, the guys pat each other on the butt after a good play, etc.

    How do you vote to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, especially if the family and the boys don’t want to go to court?

    Like

  27. “It’s funny how, in this case, the left simply ignores the ‘victim’s’ testimony. Nah, more important to take the facts and twist them to make political hay out of them.”

    – wiserbud

    Um, how am I ignoring the victim’s testimony? I read the actual victim testimony in the court records here: http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20657

    That’s my point: ignore the rhetoric and just read the court documents. Judge the issue on the actual facts.

    Let me get this straight: you folks want the county district attorney when the Merryfield boys came forward with their claims of sex abuse to remain on the state supreme court despite the fact that he essentially dropped the investigation so long as the church agreed to ship Father Feeney somewhere else, and somehow it’s us “liberals” who don’t care about the victims?

    And as DocAmazing already pointed out, it would be nice if you guys could stay on topic for even a sentence. A reminder: the topic is Prosser’s fitness for remaining on the WI Supreme Court in the face of this egregiously poor exercise of judgment when he was the DA for Outagamie County.

    It has nothing to do with unions, or the ACLU, or “baselessly” attacking Prosser’s character.

    This is a matter of professional competence and personal integrity.

    Like

  28. Please respond to the Dec. 18, 1978 letter from the Bishop.

    Prosser was acting in the interest of the family, sparing the boys the humiliation of taking the stand. In retrospect, it was a bad decision, but he didn’t know the extent of the priest’s offenses at the time. The Catholic church is ultimately culpable for the continued crimes of this priest.

    The left wants to exploit one bad decision (that was made with the agreement of the family), over thirty years ago, to paint an honorable man and his defenders as “pro-pedophilia” in order to get a far left, radical judicial activist on the high court in Wisconsin.

    That’s what this comes down to.

    If you people were really concerned about a pro-pedophilia mentality in positions of influence, you would be just as up in arms about Obama’s “Safe-School” czar, Kevin Jennings, whose actually in a position to influence policy with his twisted pro-fisting, “queering the schools” mentality.

    But somehow, I’d guess you’re okay with that.

    Like

  29. If you believe that Prosser supports pedophilia based on this blatant smear, you’re a supermassive idiot and a homophobic racist.

    Everyone knows that liberals are all ends-justifies-means punks who can’t win on ideas or in debate. You flail around trying to grasp some bullshit that you think will achieve your ends. This is one such steaming pile of bullshit.

    You retards are a laughingstock when you try to argue shit like this. Not least because the left is the exclusive home of baby killers, chicken fuckers and bald-faced liars. You are literally a joke trying to make this case against Prosser.

    You union-thug-supporting, death-threat-spouting losers are getting your crybaby asses whipped all across this country. Get used to it.

    There is more evidence that Obama is a Muslim-killing Islamophobe than there is that Prosser supports pedophiles.

    Idiots.

    Like

  30. Lipstick –

    You are conflating two issues: the boys claims were enough to form probable cause to arrest Father Feeney and certainly demanded an aggressive investigation of the matter. I never said the claims alone were sufficient to meet the standard of conviction (i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt).

    But that’s exactly the point: when Prosser refused to notify the police and order a thorough investigation of the claims made by the Merryfield boys, he essentially ended any ability to convict Feeney and the matter was closed.

    Read the court documents: http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20657

    It’s plain as day that when the investigation was finally conducted in 2002 in response to the allegations made against Father Feeney by someone victimized by him subsequent to the Merryfield assaults, plenty of evidence was uncovered by the police to convict him of first and second-degree sex assault since that’s exactly what happened in 2004.

    Like

  31. “As for the later interviews that 400 Metres cites, Prosser can’t be blamed for what the boys were holding back at the time.”

    Yes, you cannot hold Prosser responsible for blocking an investigation that was later ordered to be conducted by a more responsible DA (in response to subsequent victim’s complaint), which revealed that enough evidence of child sex abuse existed to convict Father Feeney in 1979.

    Yep, totally nothing wrong with that choice, right?

    Like

  32. Wow! I guess there is no truth, no fact that liberals will not twist to get their way. This is no different than illegally stuffing a ballot box. But, in this day and age, it would appear that liberals have no decency and no shame.

    I’m embarrassed to have ever been a registered Democrat.

    Like

  33. But somehow, I’d guess you’re okay with that.

    Okay with that? I would be willing to bet most of them engage in that.

    This is a matter of professional competence and personal integrity.

    Bullshit. This is a matter of the left once again twisting reality to destroy the reputation of a good person for nothing more than their own political gain.

    This has everything to do with destroying Prosser to get that unqualified political hack on the court, in order get back to raping the real working people of the state of Wisconsin.

    If it weren’t for the recent law passed in WI, not one of you lying scum would care a single whit about this election.

    I guess the call for civility in the political arena was yet another lie by the vile left, consider the depths to which they will sink, as evidenced not only by this ad, but also the disgusting attempt to defend it.

    Seriously, do none of you slime on the left ever take a step back and look at yourselves? I can’t imagine that you ever do. There is no way an honest, moral liberal would be able to live with themselves if they truly examined their actions.

    Oh, what am I saying….. there is no such thing as an honest, moral liberal.

    Like

  34. “‘This is a matter of professional competence and personal integrity.’

    Bullshit. This is a matter of the left once again twisting reality to destroy the reputation of a good person for nothing more than their own political gain.”
    -wiserbud

    Typical rabid conservative response to an actual constituent of Mr. Prosser’s who dares to have an opposing viewpoint about what this Father Feeney issue is really about: “I’m right and you’re wrong, well…just because!” With a healthy dollop of profanity and character attacks to boot.

    Wiserbud: angry, reactionary, and profane is no way to go through life, son.

    Nice to see how open the minds are over here….sheesh.

    Like

  35. What’s really sad about this is, had Prosser continued with his prosecution, 400metres would have been attacking him for violating the priest’s rights for prosecuting him without enough evidence.

    Ya know, kinda like what Martha Coakley was famous for doing….

    Oh, wait, she’s a Democrat. It’s okay when they violate the rights of citizens….

    Damn, it’s so hard to keep the left’s rules straight sometimes…..

    Like

  36. Judging by Rosetta’s response, I’d say this story touched a nerve…. or something or someone is getting touched and probably in a bad way.

    Like

  37. Wiserbud: angry, reactionary, and profane is no way to go through life, son.

    You confuse “calling my opponents by their true names” with “anger”

    You do not anger me. You disgust me. There is a difference.

    You and your friends are beneath contempt for their unethical and immoral antics.

    As for “reactionary,” well, you have succeeded this far by counting on the sheep-like compliance of the majority of Americans. That little game is ove now. And it scares the hell out of you, doesn’t it?

    You children were given a chance to prove what yo could do and you showed yourselves to be exactly what I and many, many others knew you to be: greedy, whiny liars who only care about themselves. “Gimme, gimme, gimme” is the default position of the left and yo don’t care how many good and decent people you destroy so you can continuing sucking off the government teat.

    And as for profane, you deserve no better response than profanity for your continued defense of this slanderous attack.

    Like

  38. “What’s really sad about this is, had Prosser continued with his prosecution, 400metres would have been attacking him for violating the priest’s rights for prosecuting him without enough evidence.”
    -wiserbud

    Geez I would have thought that such a champion of “victims” like yourself would consider the fact that Father Feeney molested so many boys for decades as the really sad aspect of this story. Maybe if you understood that, wiserbud, you might understand the outrage people like me feel at the fact that Feeney committed those crimes with impunity due to the failure of prosecutors like David Prosser to actually investigate credible complaints of sex abuse by Catholic priests.

    But go on, tell me how honorable David Prosser is and how horrible I am for feeling he should be denied the most powerful position in my state’s judiciary due to professional incompetence.

    After all, if Prosser will bow so easily in the face of prosecuting a member of the powerful Catholic church, how can I trust him to not act with same deference to some other corrupt, but extremely powerful party that comes before our Supreme Court?

    Like

  39. ….and decide whether I want a man who so thoroughly neglected his duties as a enforcer of the law when faced with the prospect of taking on a powerful political interest

    Talking about Eric Holder again, are we?

    Like

  40. Judging by the hysterical and incoherent reaction from “TBogg” readers I’d say that Deb hit a nerve. Good for her.

    Like

  41. ““Gimme, gimme, gimme” is the default position of the left and yo don’t care how many good and decent people you destroy so you can continuing sucking off the government teat.”

    Better leftists sucking off the government teat, than priests sucking off altar boys.

    Thanks for setting that one up for me, Not-So-Wiserbud.

    Like

  42. Geez I would have thought that such a champion of “victims” like yourself would consider the fact that Father Feeney molested so many boys for decades as the really sad aspect of this story.

    It is. But even sadder is your attempt to smear a good man by twisting the facts and for not violating the priest’s rights 20 years prior to the events for which he was convicted occurred.

    You can attempt to paint me as a supporter of pedophilia all you like, but your own words are showing everyone what sort of souless, vile and dishonest person you are.

    You deny reality and wish to conflate two events that occurred decades apart to attack your ideological opponent and drape yourself in the cloth of righteousness to do it.

    That, my misguided friend, is truly shameful.

    Like

  43. Thanks for setting that one up for me, Not-So-Wiserbud.

    hey, no problem. Leave it a leftist to know what’s acceptable and what’s not when it comes to sucking.

    Like

  44. If Feeney had belonged to a union rather than the priesthood the Leftists commenting on here wouldn’t have a problem with the pedophilia. Just like their pleas for “civility” are conveniently forgotten when their special privileges are challenged.

    Like

  45. T-bogg and his filk have no problems with terrorists or pedophiles, just as they have no problem with those that extort local businesses and email death threats. . . as long as they vote Union/Democrat.

    Like

  46. I’m actually very interested to hear how they would rate a terrorists vs. a pedophile priest.

    And yes, this actually has to do with this topic, so no “trying to deflect, are you?” comments please.

    Like

  47. How many of you are old enough to REMEMBER what things were like in 1978-1979? I was 18 at the time, and I had never even HEARD of priest molestation! Heck, child abuse/sexual abuse/pedophilia hadn’t even entered the public lexicon at that point – that started a couple of years later.

    However, “wrongful arrest” lawsuits were being filed right and left by rent-seeking lawyers who wanted to “prove” that local officials were abusing their authority. Remember, this was just a few years after the social “revolution” declared that police were “Pigs” and not to be trusted.

    The courts back then were still putting the burden of proof on rape victims; young children (even pre-teens) weren’t thought to be able to understand what was happening to them. And Catholics were told that their priests were incapable of such vile acts, and to come forward and make accusations like that put a family in a very tenuous position in their Church and in their community. No amount of wishing and saying “It shouldn’t have been like that” is going to change the fact that that is indeed, the way that things WERE.

    If something like this were to happen today, I have no doubt that the priest would have been removed IMMEDIATELY. Things were different 30 years ago, and no matter how you may wish that it weren’t so, you can’t retroactively change the legal climate that existed 30 years ago.

    Mr. Prosser was doing what he was allowed do to UNDER THE LAW AS IT EXISTED IN 1978. No amount of wishing is going to change that reality.

    Like

  48. TBogg Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Judging by Rosetta’s response, I’d say this story touched a nerve…. or something or someone is getting touched and probably in a bad way.

    Lying sociopaths that will destroy an innocent person for a token political victory does seem to touch a nerve, DBagg.

    And I will let you touch me in my sexy swimsuit area all you want if that will keep you entertained while Prosser skates to re-election.

    You and your side are born losers, amigo. Accept your fate.

    Like

  49. “But even sadder is your attempt to smear a good man by twisting the facts and for not violating the priest’s rights 20 years prior to the events for which he was convicted occurred.

    You can attempt to paint me as a supporter of pedophilia all you like, but your own words are showing everyone what sort of souless, vile and dishonest person you are.”
    – wiserbud

    First, how is anyone “smearing” Prosser by simply pointing out the facts of the situation, as I have? I haven’t accused him of being anything other than professionally incompetent. Face it, because of Prosser’s professional neglect back in 1979, countless more boys were victimized by Father Feeney. I think that fact disqualifies Prosser for a continued seat on the WI SC; you feel it doesn’t. So be it.

    And when the hell did I “attempt to paint you as a supporter of pedophilia?” Are you out of your mind?

    I know I’m just a wild-eyed-leftist-commie-fascist-socialist-faggot-ACLU-lovin’ liberal, but even I know that I can disagree with other people’s well-reasoned opinions (and I think I’ve clearly established there is sincere reasoning behind my POV) without resorting to profane attacks on the character of those who disagree with me.

    If this is you not being angry, I’d hate to see what you act like when provoked to anger.

    Like

  50. “400metres, quick question..

    Who do you consider worse, terrorists or pedophile priests?”
    – wiserbud

    I don’t know, wiser, who do you think was worse – Doctor Doom or Lex Luther?

    Not only is your question stupid, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

    Like

  51. 400Metres and DBagg,

    Please describe in excruciating detail how this would all be different if the priest had molested Mary Jo Kopechne and Paula Jones.

    Just curious.

    Like

  52. I know I’m just a wild-eyed-leftist-commie-fascist-socialist-faggot-ACLU-lovin’ liberal

    That’s the first correct statement you’ve made so far. I guess that qualifies as improvement.

    Like

  53. Yeah wiserbud.

    Stick to the topic of this thread which is union-supported ladyboys who want to overturn the will of the Wisconsin people by any means necessary because WAH! that’s what they want WAH!

    MOM!!!! I’M NOT GETTING MY WAY!!!

    Like

  54. 400metres: I don’t know, wiser, who do you think was worse – Doctor Doom or Lex Luther?

    Notice how it refused to give a simple answer to the question posed. Typical.

    Like

  55. ….it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

    Actually, it does have something to do with the topic. See, I’m asking for your answer, as opposed to simply assuming your answer for you. I’m trying to have a discussion with you. I have an actual reason for asking.

    Why is it such a difficult question for you to answer?

    By the way, did you know that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued back in 1977 that the age of consent should be 12? And she fully supports the ACLU, who has defended pedophiles, priest or not, for years!

    I wonder, in your opinion, should that disqualify her for her position on the highest court in the land??

    Like

  56. “I have never seen Wiser angry. But, it seems that any disagreement with you Progs is viewed as “uncivil” and angry.

    Sack up, Nancy.”
    – MCPO Airdale

    Oh, and here I thought you clowns were all just a bunch of Internet Tough Guys who couldn’t muster a intelligent rebuttal to an opposing point of view without resorting to hyperbolic, profane rhetoric if your life depended on it.

    My mistake.

    Like

  57. Face it, because of Prosser’s professional neglect back in 1979, countless more boys were victimized by Father Feeney.

    Again, WISHING things were different 30 years ago doesn’t make the REALITY any different. The entire justice/legal system back then was not aware of the extent of the problem; society at large was not aware of the problem; and the Catholic church AT THAT TIME was doing what they could to keep the reality of pedophilic priests from the public.

    Is your judgment the same as it was 30 years ago, or have you “grown” with time and wisdom? How about Mr. Prosser? Is he still stuck in 1978? Do you honestly think that IF THE COURTS HAD BEEN DIFFERENT BACK THEN that he would have declined to prosecute this case?

    You can only argue/judge THE CASE THAT YOU HAVE, and quite frankly, in 1978 – heck, even today – the facts of this particular case would not have risen to meet the burden of proof to go to trial. I’m sorry, but that’s the way things are.

    Liberals have made it so that criminals have more legal “rights” than victims do, and that has only gotten worse since 1978.

    Like

  58. No, Comrade 400metres, your first mistake was drinking the koolaid. Your second mistake was thinking you could bullrush this blog. Your latest mistake was projecting way too much in your last comment.

    Like

  59. Oh, and here I thought you clowns were all just a bunch of Internet Tough Guys who couldn’t muster a intelligent rebuttal to an opposing point of view without resorting to hyperbolic, profane rhetoric if your life depended on it.

    You got a problem with hyperbolic, profane rhetoric, asshole?

    Like

  60. “Actually, it does have something to do with the topic. See, I’m asking for your answer, as opposed to simply assuming your answer for you. I’m trying to have a discussion with you. I have an actual reason for asking.

    Why is it such a difficult question for you to answer?”

    What does it have to do with the topic wiser? Why is that such a difficult question for you to answer?

    “By the way, did you know that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued back in 1977 that the age of consent should be 12? And she fully supports the ACLU, who has defended pedophiles, priest or not, for years!

    I wonder, in your opinion, should that disqualify her for her position on the highest court in the land??”

    A lawyer defending her client’s point of view is hardly equitable to a county prosecutor refusing to turn a child sex assault claim over to police for further investigation. Here’s the difference wiser: Prosser had a professional duty to ensure that the claims of the Merryfield boys was fully investigated. Instead, he worked out a deal where the family would drop the claim and Prosser’s office would refuse to prosecute, so long as the local Catholic diocese would agree to ship Father Feeney somewhere else. That’s professional neglect in my eyes. In yours, it makes him an “honorable man”. So be it.

    But back to Ginsberg – are you saying a lawyer who has the courage to defend our society’s most despised criminal defendants is herself guilty of what ever despicable act their client is accused of? Are you really that stupid?

    I suppose next you’ll be telling me that the lawyers who agree to represent the detainees at GITMO are terrorists?

    Like

  61. If this is you not being angry, I’d hate to see what you act like when provoked to anger.

    You don’t have the power to make me angry. I pity you because of your ignorance and your dishonesty, not only to everyone here, but also to yourself.

    This is nothing but yet another attempt by the left to smear a political opponent by taking events out of context and spinning facts to support your pre-conceived opinions.

    If Prosser was a Democrat, you would be stridently supporting him for office and smearing whomever would dare to run against him.

    And that’s the topic. The smear tactics of the left. This is all ideological-based and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual situation whatsoever.

    And you simply do not have the honesty to admit that.

    Big surprise.

    Like

  62. But even sadder is your attempt to smear a good man by twisting the facts and for not violating the priest’s rights 20 years prior to the events for which he was convicted occurred.

    This is hilarious. The same bunch that advocates increased spying within the US (as long as we’re still rapidly changing the subject and talking about terrorists) and advocates doing away with Miranda rights is praising Prosser for releasing a pedophile because any other course might have come close to an imaginary double jeopardy violation or some other hitch in the law that a friend totally saw on a Law and Order episode.

    Heck, child abuse/sexual abuse/pedophilia hadn’t even entered the public lexicon at that point – that started a couple of years later.
    Go to a library. Go to the card catalog, or to the online equivalent. Look up the phrase “child molestor”. You will find articles and books on the subject going back to at least the 1940s–and there have been laws on the books against it for at least that long. Those of us who actually work in child health have had to read some of the old material. Heck, Freud was writing about pedophilia in the 1890s.

    Oh, and Mr. Merryfield was only one of Feeney’s victim’s. He speaks for himself; the fact speak for themselves.

    You right-wing types can change the subject all you wish, and rant and drool, but the fact remains: Prosser derailed the investigation of a child molestor. Prosser let a child molestor go, and that molestor went on to molest more children.

    Like

  63. What does it have to do with the topic wiser? Why is that such a difficult question for you to answer?

    Please answer my question. I am very interested in you opinion. what is worse, a pedophile priest or a terrorist?

    Why is that such a tough question for you?

    Like

  64. I suppose next you’ll be telling me that the lawyers who agree to represent the detainees at GITMO are terrorists?

    OF COURSE NOT! We call those people, “co-conspirators” and “enablers”.

    BTW – Have you ever been to GITMO?

    Like

  65. And I’m just having some with you crime and punishment liberals.

    I’m sure you are nice, upstanding members of your Local 187: Brotherhood of Whiners, Kneecappers and Smelly Drummers.

    Like

  66. So 400metres supports a fellow Lefty who argues that the age of consent should be 12? In other words, as I said before, it’s not the pedophilia that bothers the Left but rather the Catholic Church.

    Like

  67. Oh, and Mr. Merryfield was only one of Feeney’s victim’s. He speaks for himself; the fact speak for themselves.

    You right-wing types can change the subject all you wish, and rant and drool, but the fact remains: Prosser derailed the investigation of a child molestor. Prosser let a child molestor go, and that molestor went on to molest more children.

    Well that looks to be the end of the discussion everyone. The Lord God Jesus Christ has spoken.

    Like

  68. MCPO Airdale Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    “400metres – Where I come from, that was considered a mild rebuke. Of course, I grew up in the company of men, not PC, metrosexual progs.”

    And look how nice you turned out, right?

    Like

  69. ….are you saying a lawyer who has the courage to defend our society’s most despised criminal defendants is herself guilty of what ever despicable act their client is accused of?

    You certainly seem to think that a lawyer who can’t/won’t – for whatever reason – prosecute that same “most despised criminal defendant” is guilty of the despicable act that criminal is accused of…..

    Like

  70. The same bunch that advocates increased spying within the US (as long as we’re still rapidly changing the subject and talking about terrorists) and advocates doing away with Miranda rights

    Doc – Have you not been paying attention? It was Obama and the super-majority, Democrat-controlled Congress that extended and expanded the Patriot Act.
    But since you had no way to use your Bush=Hitler sign, I suppose you forgot to protest!

    Like

  71. I suppose next you’ll be telling me that the lawyers who agree to represent the detainees at GITMO are terrorists?

    Don’t kid yourself, cupcake – every last one of those lawyers EAGERLY VOLUNTEERED to “represent” those scum. Just ask Eric Holder – he worked for that firm.

    Like

  72. Most of you are mere droolers and mouth-breathers, the sort who mouth off at bars until someone stand up, at which point you fall silent, then mutter darkly at your drink. Rosetta is a particularly amusing example.

    However, Teresa in Fort Worth, TX is actually trying to advance an argument–that the state of the law in 1978 was such that a child molestor was not likely to be convicted. That is at least an argument, and worthy of some respect.

    Teresa, i commend to your attention the 1977 movie Short Eyes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076706/) which is about a convicted child molestor. Dialogue in the movie relates to priestly molestation. We’re not talking about something rarefied here; this was a motion picture from a major studio–mass culture.

    Priestly molestation was known about back then. Proper investigation, then as now, is necessary to make a case. Prosser stopped that investigation before it started. Blaming the state of the law or society at that time is pointless; blaming a prosecutor who failed to do his job, on the other hand, makes sense.

    Like

  73. And there is rank hypocrisy with you liberal tools.

    Prosser didn’t derail an investigation or a prosecution. He didn’t prosecute due to a lack of evidence. He would have been derelict in his duty if he chose to prosecute without sufficient evidence.

    In every other situation you would be banging your drums outside the house of a DA that prosecuted someone without enough evidence.

    But not in this case because you think you can get your way by being hypocrites and liars.

    Ain’t gonna happen. You’re going to be hypocrites and liars and you’re going to lose anyway.

    But in this case not so much.

    Like

  74. Teresa in Fort Worth, TX Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    “….are you saying a lawyer who has the courage to defend our society’s most despised criminal defendants is herself guilty of what ever despicable act their client is accused of?

    You certainly seem to think that a lawyer who can’t/won’t – for whatever reason – prosecute that same “most despised criminal defendant” is guilty of the despicable act that criminal is accused of…..”

    (A): Prosser wasn’t “some lawyer” appointed to defend a person accused of despicable acts, he was the goddamned prosecutor charged with the professional duty to protect the public against monsters like Father Feeney.

    (B): I never once accused Prosser of being a pedophile himself, so there’s no basis for your idiotic comparison.

    Like

  75. Instead, he worked out a deal where the family would drop the claim and Prosser’s office would refuse to prosecute, so long as the local Catholic diocese would agree to ship Father Feeney somewhere else. That’s professional neglect in my eyes.

    You know that this smear has more to do with the so-called crime than it does with the prosecutor’s decision to not pursue the case. But you don’t honestly believe that prosecutor’s don’t make those kinds of decisions every single day, generally based on the evidence they have at hand, do you? You do realize that this was done with the family’s input and consent, right? You are not really that stupid, are you?

    Perhaps if it were you or your family, you might have a different opinion. (Well, unless the person in question was a Republican, I imagine.)

    But back to Ginsberg – are you saying a lawyer who has the courage to defend our society’s most despised criminal defendants is herself guilty of what ever despicable act their client is accused of? Are you really that stupid?

    Ginsberg’s comments were not as a defense attorney. They were in response to a question regarding her opinion on the laws regarding the age of consent. So, given that that is her personal opinion and not in defense defense of a client, do you think she is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land?

    (By the way, that’s like the third time you’ve inferred that I am stupid. And who is the one who can’t have a discussion without attacking someone?)

    I suppose next you’ll be telling me that the lawyers who agree to represent the detainees at GITMO are terrorists?

    Please answer my earlier question. Who do you feel is worse, a pedophile priest or a terrorist?

    Like

  76. Most of you are mere droolers and mouth-breathers, the sort who mouth off at bars until someone stand up, at which point you fall silent, then mutter darkly at your drink. Rosetta is a particularly amusing example

    HAHAHAHA!

    In the words of Bugs Bunny, “He don’t know me very well, do he?”

    Like

  77. Most of you are mere droolers and mouth-breathers, the sort who mouth off at bars until someone stand up, at which point you fall silent, then mutter darkly at your drink. Rosetta is a particularly amusing example.

    Like I’m old enough to get into a bar.

    Doc, what color Che t-shirt are you wearing RIGHT NOW!!!!

    Like

  78. Prosser didn’t derail an investigation or a prosecution. He didn’t prosecute due to a lack of evidence. He would have been derelict in his duty if he chose to prosecute without sufficient evidence.
    And how does a prosecutor obtain sufficient evidence? That’s right–investigation. Stopping the sherriff’s department from investigation assured that there would not be sufficient evidence, thus derailing the prosecution.

    Oh, and Massa Chief–where do you do your drinking? I’d love to exchange…ah, opinions with you sometime.

    Like

  79. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You guys are okay with covering up pedophilia if it involves a church and we’re not okay with it.

    I can live with that if you can….

    Like

  80. Remember, these are the same people who have “forgiven” Bill Ayers because, ya know, that happened so long ago and it was a different time.

    Hell, not only do they forgive him, they worship him and his friends and co-authors!

    Like

  81. DocAmazing Says: Most of you are mere droolers and mouth-breathers, the sort who mouth off at bars until someone stand up, at which point you fall silent, then mutter darkly at your drink.

    Sounds more like your typical union goon than anything else. Your kind of people, obviously.

    Like

  82. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You guys are okay with covering up pedophilia if it involves a church and we’re not okay with it.

    hahahahahahaha!!!

    you idiots can’t even keep your stories straight.

    Is it about pedophilia or not, Tbogg? ‘Cause if it is, then please tell what you have done to get the lawyers at the ACLU disbarred and Ginsburg removed from the Supreme Court.

    I’ll wait.

    Like

  83. Teresa in Fort Worth, TX Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    “I suppose next you’ll be telling me that the lawyers who agree to represent the detainees at GITMO are terrorists?

    Don’t kid yourself, cupcake – every last one of those lawyers EAGERLY VOLUNTEERED to “represent” those scum. Just ask Eric Holder – he worked for that firm.”

    Here’s what reactionary tools like you don’t understand: lawyers are taught in law school that one of the most honorable obligations a lawyer will ever assume in his or her lifetime is to provide a zealous defense for the most despised criminal defendant. This is because we have a value in this country (that apparently no one bothered to teach to you), that dates back to the founding days when John Adams defended the British soldiers accused of murder as a result of the Boston Massacre: that every person, no matter how severe the charges, should have his day in court and has the right to be vigorously defended while on trial.

    When John Adams was accused of the same garbage as you mouth-breathers here today accuse the GITMO defense attorneys, he replied that his defense of the British soldier was “one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”

    Like

  84. Heck, child abuse/sexual abuse/pedophilia hadn’t even entered the public lexicon at that point – that started a couple of years later.
    Go to a library. Go to the card catalog, or to the online equivalent. Look up the phrase “child molestor”. You will find articles and books on the subject going back to at least the 1940s–and there have been laws on the books against it for at least that long. Those of us who actually work in child health have had to read some of the old material. Heck, Freud was writing about pedophilia in the 1890s.

    Again, I said the PUBLIC lexicon. Not everyone works in the legal system. Not everyone works in the child health system. And since you mention that you READ about the “old” material, I can only assume that you aren’t old enough to remember what things were like in the 1970’s.

    The GENERAL PUBLIC was not aware of molesters for the most part. We didn’t have the Internet; there were only 3 major networks back then, and NO 24/7 news networks. Most people got their news from a 30-minute program each night and their local newspaper.

    If you wanted more information, you had to go to your local library – which probably didn’t have any information from the 1940’s about child molestation unless it was a LARGE municipal library or a university library (which most people didn’t have access to unless they had an association with the university). I seriously doubt many small libraries carried much – if anything – on the subject. Chances are, not much has changed – public libraries are limited by their budgets, just like everyone else.

    THINGS WERE DIFFERENT. You can’t change that fact, no matter how much you wish that you could.

    Like

  85. TBogg Says: I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You guys are okay with covering up pedophilia if it involves a church and we’re not okay with it.

    No, not really. But keep repeating it until you actually start to believe your own BS. What we know is that your type will excuse (if not celebrate) any criminal or deviant behavior as long as the criminal or deviant in question votes to protect the special privileges of unions and other Left-wing pressure groups. Hypocrisy is your special talent, not ours.

    Like

  86. Says Wiserbud:
    You know that this smear has more to do with the so-called crime than it does with the prosecutor’s decision to not pursue the case.

    So-called crime.
    Child molesting.

    There’s really not much to add to that.

    Like

  87. Oh, and Massa Chief–where do you do your drinking? I’d love to exchange…ah, opinions with you sometime.

    Hahahahahaha.

    Dammit MCPO!! I wanted to be the first one to get a death threat!!

    Like

  88. So, if dropping an investigation with the family’s consent to protect the child is bad, I wonder what our new friends would say about a prosecutor who would drop a case after he’s already gotten a conviction and with absolutely no one’s consent and to protect no one but his boss, huh?

    Like

  89. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You guys are okay with covering up pedophilia if it involves a church and we’re not okay with it.

    Haha. Liberal debate tactic #12: Restate your baseless opinion as established fact.

    This thread is a clinic on liberal discourse.

    Like

  90. The reality is that most of the time those on the Left will excuse child-molesting and call it an “alternative lifestyle.” But when their special privileges are challenged they don’t mind slipping into a costume and masquerading as moralists when it suits them. After the election next week it’s expected that pedophiles will go back to being just another constituency of so-called “liberals.”

    Like

  91. Wiserbud said:
    “You know that this smear has more to do with the so-called crime than it does with the prosecutor’s decision to not pursue the case. But you don’t honestly believe that prosecutor’s don’t make those kinds of decisions every single day, generally based on the evidence they have at hand, do you? You do realize that this was done with the family’s input and consent, right? You are not really that stupid, are you?”

    (A): prosecutors DO NOT decide everyday to not bring charges against a suspect who HASN’T BEEN FULLY INVESTIGATED. If the “evidence they have at hand” is INCOMPLETE FOR LACK OF A PROPER INVESTIGATION but the victim-witness statements are credible, it would be professional neglect to refuse to investigate further.
    (B): victims often recant and refuse to cooperate with police and prosecutors, even after initiating the investigation. This occurs particularly often is sex assault cases. You know what police and prosecutors do in response to the victims sudden recalcitrance? They proceed with the case because they represent the interests of society, not only the sometimes shifting interests of victims.

    Prosser clearly worked out this deal because he was afraid to enforce society’s laws against sex assault against a powerful entity like the Catholic church. Otherwise, why not turn over the victim-witness statements to the county Sheriff’s Dept. and let them investigate whether a crime was committed?

    Like

  92. The reality is that most of the time those on the Left will excuse child-molesting and call it an “alternative lifestyle.” But when their special privileges are challenged they don’t mind slipping into a costume and masquerading as moralists when it suits them. After the election next week it’s expected that pedophiles will go back to being just another constituency of so-called “liberals.”

    Exactly.

    I will say I admire their ability to vehemently espouse a position that runs contrary to their world view when it suits them.

    I’m not very good at that.

    Like

  93. Teresa, i commend to your attention the 1977 movie Short Eyes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076706/) which is about a convicted child molestor. Dialogue in the movie relates to priestly molestation. We’re not talking about something rarefied here; this was a motion picture from a major studio–mass culture.

    BZZZZZT. Thanks for playing the game, though.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076706/releaseinfo
    It seems this movie was only available in limited release (no doubt in order to qualify to be shown at the New York City Film Festival) in the US, and was released in Norway 2 years later. Hardly the “mass culture” event that you would like to pretend that it was.

    And again, back in 1977, there were not that many movie theaters in most cities outside of the large metropolises. There certainly were not the megaplexes that we take for granted these days.

    MOST people were unaware of pedophilia back then – since most of them had never experienced it themselves, it was hard to understand that people like that existed. It was HARD to get people to believe that a trusted priest would do something like that. THE CULTURE WAS DIFFERENT.

    Like

  94. Prosser clearly worked out this deal because he was afraid to enforce society’s laws against sex assault against a powerful entity like the Catholic church.

    Right. Because the Catholic church is so powerful that they have destroyed every attorney that has ever tried to sue their ass because of pedophile priests.

    There isn’t an easier entity to bring pedophile charges against than the Catholic church, sad to say.

    Please make up another reason why Prosser didn’t pursue the prosecution. That one was lame, 400metres.

    Like

  95. H-Town Dawg Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    “The reality is that most of the time those on the Left will excuse child-molesting and call it an ‘alternative lifestyle.’ But when their special privileges are challenged they don’t mind slipping into a costume and masquerading as moralists when it suits them. After the election next week it’s expected that pedophiles will go back to being just another constituency of so-called ‘liberals.’”

    Yes, this is definitely the “reality.” It’s only due to those conservative Feminists and Childrens Rights activists that we even have modern rape laws. If it were up to the crazy liberals, we never would have heard about all those sick progressive pedophile priests!

    Like

  96. 400metres Says: Prosser clearly worked out this deal because he was afraid to enforce society’s laws against sex assault against a powerful entity like the Catholic church.

    It’s apparent that what really offends 400metres is the Catholic Church, not pedophilia. And it’s ironic that it has a problem with a “powerful entity” like the Church but is okay with the pressure tactics of Big Labor. More hypocrisy.

    Like

  97. I skimmed (but didn’t fully read) the court docs. There’s no indication just how willing mom was to have her boys testify. Remember, back in 1978, defense attorneys were a lot less constrained in attacking the credibility of minor witnesses. AND there was a much stronger “blame the victim” culture back then. There was a great deal of shame attached to being the victim of sexual abuse.

    Prosser may very well have been faced with the prospect that no credible witnesses would have been available. That would have been a judgment call, but we need to remember the circumstances surrounding that call when we critique his judgment in making that call.

    Like

  98. Prosser clearly worked out this deal because he was afraid to enforce society’s laws against sex assault against a powerful entity like the Catholic church.

    That’s your opinion and a pretty weak one at that.

    Otherwise, why not turn over the victim-witness statements to the county Sheriff’s Dept. and let them investigate whether a crime was committed?

    Prosecutors do preliminary investigations all the time and then decide whether or not to pursue them based on the evidence they have gathered up to that point as well as many other mitigating factors, INCLUDING THE FAMILY’S WISHES!

    ( I just thought I would capitalize part of my response as well, as that seems to be the style of the day.)

    Prosser worked with the family and the church to come to a resolution that they all found agreeable. I guess they should have consulted the super-righteous and hyper-moral 400metres for his opinion as well, but damn, I guess it’s too late for that now.

    Now, please answer my question from earlier:

    In your opinion, who is worse, a pedophile priest or a terrorist? Or are they both equally evil?

    Trust me, there is no wrong answer on this. It is simply your opinion I am interested in.

    Like

  99. 400metres – your sarcasm is misplaced as you confuse classical liberals with the progs of today. The vast majority classical liberals have left the Democrat party.

    Like

  100. Where did DBagg go?

    400metres, I think you’re the last one here.

    Please don’t leave. Let’s do this, ask me any question and I’ll answer it. This will be fun.

    Like

  101. Yes, this is definitely the “reality.” It’s only due to those conservative Feminists and Childrens Rights activists that we even have modern rape laws. If it were up to the crazy liberals, we never would have heard about all those sick progressive pedophile priests!

    I’m sorry, was there a rebuttal in there? Or were you just typing random words? Why are you obsessed with priests? And in the case of Feeney, he was a homosexual as well as a priest. And yet you don’t blame the gay community. And isn’t it curious how you are now attempting to politicize rape. So the Left is anti-rape, huh? Somebody better explain it to all the mindless supporters of Roman Polanski! Wasn’t it Whoopi Goldberg who sees a difference in “rape” and “rape rape?” lol Typical.

    Like

  102. I think that’s a trick question.

    Only in that it’s probably causing 400metres head to explode in trying to come up with an answer besides “what’s wrong with terrorists?” or “I never said I didn’t like pedophiles.”

    Like

  103. “It was HARD to get people to believe that a trusted priest would do something like that. THE CULTURE WAS DIFFERENT.”

    Teresa —
    Consider yourself fortunate that this is your understanding. There are those who are not as blessed as you.

    Like

  104. Rosetta Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    “There isn’t an easier entity to bring pedophile charges against than the Catholic church, sad to say.”

    You believe this was true in 1979?

    Because that’s the timeframe we’re discussing here Rosetta, in case you’ve gotten understandably distracted from the central issue by all the talk about Ken Jennings, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, NAMBLA, Union thugs, “baby killers, chicken fuckers and bald-faced liars”, Eric Holder, Martha Coakley, the ACLU, terrorists, Bill Ayers, Mary Jo Kopechne, Paula Jones, and “metrosexual progs.”

    Like

  105. You know what police and prosecutors do in response to the victims sudden recalcitrance? They proceed with the case because they represent the interests of society, not only the sometimes shifting interests of victims.

    They may do that now, but they were MUCH less likely to do so back in 1978. And when you are talking about putting young children on the stand, to make accusations of that magnitude against someone that they were TAUGHT to trust, sometimes the welfare of the child comes first.

    In a PERFECT world, that wouldn’t be the case, but we live in an imperfect world. Reality is very different from theory/academics. That’s true in EVERY field, not just justice/law.

    Given the climate back in 1978 in regards to the GENERAL public’s awareness of pedophilia, ESPECIALLY in regards to Catholic priests (that is, non-existent), given the lack of any other accusations against this priest AT THAT TIME, and given the fact that this family had to face the very REAL fact that they were going to be ostracized by their community if they went forward with a case that really was a case of “he said/he said”.

    These kids would have been raked over the coals by a defense attorney; their family would have been ex-communicated (unless you lived back then, you cannot fully appreciate the hold that many priests had over their congregation, and the power that they wielded); the priest was going to be protected by his superiors – now we know the extent to which that occurred, but nobody realized the extent of it back then.

    It’s easy to be brave when it’s just you who is seeking justice; when you are talking about vulnerable children there are many things in play that have to be weighed. Since none of us were involved, it is very easy to say what “should” have been done – however, we weren’t the parties involved.

    Like

  106. MCPO Airdale — yes, I know.

    My point was that there are people who were well aware of sexual abuse by priests in 1978 even though it was not part of the “culture” at that time.

    Like

  107. Remember, these are the same people who cried PEDOPHILE!!1!!!! when Senator Foley sent a text to a 19-year-old aide, but completely ignored Bill Clinton actually having sex with a 21-year-old intern who worked for him directly.

    Expecting any sort of cognitive or ethical consistency from them is just silly.

    But it’s interesting how easily distracted 400metres is by all of the related issues around the topic, while his own argument has been repeatedly dismantled.

    Like

  108. H-Town Dawg Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    “Yes, this is definitely the ‘reality.’ It’s only due to those conservative Feminists and Childrens Rights activists that we even have modern rape laws. If it were up to the crazy liberals, we never would have heard about all those sick progressive pedophile priests!

    I’m sorry, was there a rebuttal in there? Or were you just typing random words? Why are you obsessed with priests? And in the case of Feeney, he was a homosexual as well as a priest. And yet you don’t blame the gay community. And isn’t it curious how you are now attempting to politicize rape. So the Left is anti-rape, huh? Somebody better explain it to all the mindless supporters of Roman Polanski! Wasn’t it Whoopi Goldberg who sees a difference in ‘rape’ and ‘rape rape?’ lol Typical.”

    It’s a real shocker that a rocket scientist like you H-Town doesn’t grasp irony.

    Like

  109. Rosetta Says: “There isn’t an easier entity to bring pedophile charges against than the Catholic church, sad to say.”

    400metres Says: You believe this was true in 1979?

    And I say, so now 400metres is acknowledging that things weren’t so cut-and-dry in the late 1970s as they are now. And yet it wants to hold Prosser accountable for not handling the case perfectly. What?

    Like

  110. You know what police and prosecutors do in response to the victims sudden recalcitrance? They proceed with the case because they represent the interests of society, not only the sometimes shifting interests of victims.

    Wrong. this does not happen in every single case. It is up to the discretion of the prosecutor, the judges, the family and every one else involved. This is why they are there. Otherwise the court system would break down entirely.

    To call it professional misconduct is either completely ignorant or totally dishonest.

    Or, more likely, a combination of both.

    Like

  111. You believe this was true in 1979?

    Certainly not as true as would later become the case but your contention that Prosser failed to prosecute this case because of his fear of the all-powerful Catholic church is complete conjecture on your part because it fits your narrative.

    You and your ilk have constructed a self-serving story around this because it serves your end.

    That may work in your knitting circles but it doesn’t here.

    Rosetta, in case you’ve gotten understandably distracted from the central issue by all the talk about Ken Jennings, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, NAMBLA, Union thugs, “baby killers, chicken fuckers and bald-faced liars”, Eric Holder, Martha Coakley, the ACLU, terrorists, Bill Ayers, Mary Jo Kopechne, Paula Jones, and “metrosexual progs.”

    Hahahaha. That’s a pretty good list of liberal causes don’t you think?

    Like

  112. I was an altar boy (or acolyte) until I was 16. Never got molested. I’m not denying it happened, it never happened to me or my pals.

    But, this isn’t really about that. It’s about applying today’s standards to a 32 y/o case with tenuous evidence, that the parents clearly did not want to pursue, in order to disparage a sitting justice. Why? Because the unions lost the last election and want to overturn a perfectly reasonable law that impacts their ability to soak the taxpayer.

    Like

  113. It’s a real shocker that a rocket scientist like you H-Town doesn’t grasp irony.

    The really shocking development would be for you to actually answer some questions rather than attempt to cloak your nonsense talk by claiming that it was intended to be “ironic.”

    Like

  114. And I say, so now 400metres is acknowledging that things weren’t so cut-and-dry in the late 1970s as they are now. And yet it wants to hold Prosser accountable for not handling the case perfectly. What?

    Now your just being unfair, using 400metres own words against him like that.

    Like

  115. Has anyone been called a racist yet?

    Because MCPO got the first death threat I would at least like to be the first one accused of being a racist for some reason.

    Thank you in advance.

    Like

  116. But, this isn’t really about that. It’s about applying today’s standards to a 32 y/o case with tenuous evidence, that the parents clearly did not want to pursue, in order to disparage a sitting justice. Why? Because the unions lost the last election and want to overturn a perfectly reasonable law that impacts their ability to soak the taxpayer.

    I give that summary of this a solid B+.

    You didn’t get an A because you didn’t use the term “chicken fuckers”.

    Like

  117. Rosetta – Don’t be a douche! You know that the “Massa Chief” that Doc used was a direct insult to my ethnicity!

    QUIT HOGGING ALL THE FUN!!

    Like

  118. wiserbud Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    “Remember, these are the same people who cried PEDOPHILE!!1!!!! when Senator Foley sent a text to a 19-year-old aide, but completely ignored Bill Clinton actually having sex with a 21-year-old intern who worked for him directly.”

    Um, how can consensual sex with another adult be remotely classified as “pedophilia”?

    And the “text to a 19-year-old aide” was in reality five separate e-mails sent to a 16 year old former page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_congressional_page_incident#E-mails]

    That’s why folks referred to it as “pedophilia.” Because it was.

    You have serious definitional struggles there wiser.

    Like

  119. I think there is probably a lower incidence of pedophilia on the left because they kill so many of their babies in the womb.

    So they do have that going for them.

    Like

  120. Teresa –
    Consider yourself fortunate that this is your understanding. There are those who are not as blessed as you.

    Oh believe me, I do know that. In the time since 1978, it has just broken my heart to realize how many kids have suffered at the hands of pedophiles, including priests. The ones who came forward are brave indeed, and helped to bring to light a grave injustice.

    Unfortunately, there just weren’t that many willing to come forward in 1978, and it wasn’t until people started realizing that they “weren’t the only one” that the floodgates opened up and the magnitude of the problem became evident.

    I CAN’T fault this family for not wanting to make things even more difficult for their sons. I have kids of my own – while it is much easier to come forward today, I don’t know what I would have done back then. I like to think that I would have been able to withstand the storm, but I don’t know firsthand all of the things this family was weighing at the time.

    Like

  121. You have serious definitional struggles

    Speaking of those who have serious “definitional” struggles. Here’s Whoopi Goldberg stating the “liberal” position on pedophilia and rape:

    “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. We’re a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13 year olds and 14 year olds in the rest of Europe… not everybody agrees with the way we see things… Would I want my 14-year-old having sex with somebody? Not necessarily, no.”

    Wow.

    Like

  122. Q: So, if emails count as pedophilia, what does an admitted sexual relationship with a 17 year old boy mean??

    A: House censure and 6 more times that Democrats nominate and elect you!

    Like

  123. After arguing with these jackasses about this I think this smear is actually going to help Prosser for two reasons:

    (1) Everyone except the Kool-Aid drinking hippies knows it’s a bullshit smear and it reflects terribly on the left.

    (2) It’s going to motivate the right to get out and support Prosser to deal another humiliating defeat to the wailing left.

    Like

  124. Rosetta Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    “Certainly not as true as would later become the case but your contention that Prosser failed to prosecute this case because of his fear of the all-powerful Catholic church is complete conjecture on your part because it fits your narrative.”

    Yep, nothing but conjecture on my part:

    “Justice Prosser Responds to Claim of Priest Assault Cover-Up

    By Natalie Arnold
    WBAY
    May 16, 2008

    http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=8332598

    The sexual assault victims of former priest John Patrick Feeney say they have proof that a prosecutor was part of what they believe was a Green Bay Catholic Diocese cover-up.

    Feeney was convicted in 2004 for sexually assaulting two brothers, Troy and Todd Merryfield, in the 1970s.

    David Prosser, the Outagamie County district at the time and now a state Supreme Court justice, decided not to file charges at the time of the allegations.

    The Merryfields say that’s because Prosser agreed to keep it a secret to protect the diocese (see related story), but speaking out for the first time on the issue, Prosser tells Action 2 News he was trying to help the boys, not hurt them.

    The Merryfields say the proof is in a letter dated December 19, 1978, written by Bishop Aloysius Wycislo.

    The bishop wrote, ‘As is usual in such cases and out of respect for the position of the Church and in order to prevent unnecessary scandal, the D.A. came to see me merely to state that he was pursuing this case…. I had to agree with the District Attorney that the Church would prefer to keep this out of court and out of the public eye.’

    But Prosser says this is not quite what it seems.

    He told Action 2 News over the phone that at the time he only knew about allegations of attempted sexual assault, no actual contact, so it was a case he didn’t think he could win against a priest.

    Prosser says he met with the bishop to do what he could to help the Merryfield family.

    ‘My primary consideration was, I don’t think I can win this case, what is the best I can get out of these facts? And that was telling the employer, so to speak — the bishop — ‘You’ve got a bad apple here. He has to be removed from the parish.’

    “It was my demand that the priest would be removed from the parish, and if it wasn’t, if that didn’t happen, I would be forced to prosecute. Now, I think I was bluffing a little bit because I didn’t think I had a successful case,” Prosser said.

    The Green Bay Catholic Diocese says it cannot comment on the matter since this is under litigation.”

    Like

  125. “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. We’re a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13 year olds and 14 year olds in the rest of Europe… not everybody agrees with the way we see things… Would I want my 14-year-old having sex with somebody? Not necessarily, no.”

    Can you imagine is a supporter of the GOP uttered such bullshit? 400metres would have a cow. And not in the good way.

    H-town Dawg, have you seen any clips of Roseanne Barr interviewing Michael Moore when she filled in on the Joy Behar show?

    It should be a GOP ad.

    Like

  126. That’s why folks referred to it as “pedophilia.” Because it was.

    really? texts?

    By the way, I was wrong because I was simply going by memory. You looked it up and still got it wrong.

    Age of consent in DC is 16.

    And they were just texts, not actual contact. And he was never prosecuted, because what he did wasn’t illegal. Yet, he was run out of office and called a pedophile and his reputation was destroyed, all to help the Dems gain a few extra seats in the Senate.

    I am certainly not defending Foley, but the moral outrage by the left on that entire situation was dulled just a bit by the fact that a Democrat President had actual sex (consensual, but not the point) with an employee and you all were absolutely righteous in your defense of him. Where was your strident demand that he be thrown from office for sexual harassment? If anything fit the definition, that certainly did. That certainly shows a lack of professional ethics and a clear dereliction of his duties as defender of the Constitution.

    To call your self-serving and conditional righteousness hypocritical is an understatement in the extreme.

    Like

  127. MCPO Airdale Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    And the “text to a 19-year-old aide” was in reality five separate e-mails sent to a 16 year old former page.

    You mean unlike the actions of Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Dead)??

    http://bit.ly/egmy2d

    Yea, wow, that’s really relevant to my point [eye roll]. I was simply countering wiser’s wild mischaracterization of what Clinton and Foley did. I don’t deny that creepy pedos exist on both sides of the political spectrum and I really don’t see how it’s relevant to the Prosser discussion.

    Like

  128. I hear ya, Rosetta! Message to the Left: We can do this to you all day long. Hollywood is filled with rapists, pedophiles and the useful idiots who defend them because they’re “creative.”

    Like

  129. 400metres – What about Gerry? Have you no compassion? Who was the D.C. Prosecutor at the time? Why wasn’t Studds charged? After all, he had an admission from the Democrat congressman. Why was Studds endorsed by the Democrat party after the incident. Do you, and all Democrats, endorse the actions of Studds?

    WHY DO YOU SUPPORT PEDOPHILES IN CONGRESS?

    Like

  130. 400metres, thank you doing my research for me.

    That article blows a big fat hole in two of your main points: that Prosser was askeered of the Catholic church and that it was something other than his lack of evidence that led him to his decision to not prosecute.

    From that article:

    He (Prosser) told Action 2 News over the phone that at the time he only knew about allegations of attempted sexual assault, no actual contact, so it was a case he didn’t think he could win against a priest.

    ‘My primary consideration was, I don’t think I can win this case, what is the best I can get out of these facts?”

    “It was my demand that the priest would be removed from the parish, and if it wasn’t, if that didn’t happen, I would be forced to prosecute. Now, I think I was bluffing a little bit because I didn’t think I had a successful case,” Prosser said.

    All three of those quotes from the article seem to indicate that uh…Prosser didn’t think he had sufficient evidence to win the case.

    And Prosser was SO afraid of the powerful Catholic church that he told the bishop that he was going to prosecute the case if the priest was not removed.

    I like arguing with you, 400metres.

    Like

  131. wiserbud Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    By the way, I was wrong because I was simply going by memory. You looked it up and still got it wrong.

    Age of consent in DC is 16.

    And they were just texts, not actual contact. And he was never prosecuted, because what he did wasn’t illegal. Yet, he was run out of office and called a pedophile and his reputation was destroyed, all to help the Dems gain a few extra seats in the Senate.”

    So this is where you want to go with this, defending poor Mark Foley against charges that he’s a pedophile because technically the age of consent in DC is 16? Really?

    Plus, you’re just plain wrong about the age of consent thing: “The email that first came to light was sent to a 16-year-old former page in Louisiana, where the age of consent is 17.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_congressional_page_incident#Age_of_consent]

    It doesn’t really matter anyway, because as you said there was no sexual contact between Foley and any of his ex-pages until they had reached the age of majority.

    But still, ick. How can you defend this guy? He’s the victim? What, I suppose those pages had it coming dressed all slutty and stuff?

    Like

  132. I was simply countering wiser’s wild mischaracterization of what Clinton and Foley did.

    “WILD mischaracterization!!1!11!” yeah, I got his age wrong.

    I don’t deny that creepy pedos exist on both sides of the political spectrum and I really don’t see how it’s relevant to the Prosser discussion.

    Well, let’s see…. to the left, if a Republican so much as spits on the sidewalk, it is misrepresented as the most heinous crime of the century, the facts be damned and is used as a reason for an inquisition and a public stoning of said Republican, but should a Democrat actually, lets say, murder a young woman, the left not only continues to reelect him to office, but all but attempt to have him nominated for sainthood when he dies.

    All of which makes your obvious selective outrage over this issue seem not only hypocritical but also disgusting and vile, as it seeks to destroy a good man for the sake of your own political gain.

    Like

  133. 400metres, I would respect your side more if you would just admit that you’re concocting this bullshit to tear down Prosser and hopefully have a liberal court overturn the will of the people of Wisconsin.

    Well I wouldn’t respect your side but at least I wouldn’t think you were retarded.

    Like

  134. But still, ick. How can you defend this guy? He’s the victim? What, I suppose those pages had it coming dressed all slutty and stuff?

    I specifically stated I was not defending him. I simply used that as an example of the difference in the level of moral preening and outrage the left shows depending on the party of the person in question.

    Like

  135. MCPO Airdale Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    “400metres – What about Gerry? Have you no compassion? Who was the D.C. Prosecutor at the time? Why wasn’t Studds charged? After all, he had an admission from the Democrat congressman. Why was Studds endorsed by the Democrat party after the incident. Do you, and all Democrats, endorse the actions of Studds?

    WHY DO YOU SUPPORT PEDOPHILES IN CONGRESS?”

    You seem to have me confused with someone who conflates Prosser’s failure to investigate Father Feeney with support for Feeney’s actions.

    I’ve made that point numerous times, but apparently you’re so stupid, I need to repeat it: Prosser’s professional incompetence in 1979 disqualifies him from further service on the WI SC, in my opinion. It does not make him a supporter of Feeney’s activities.

    You might want to write that on your hand so you can have it as a handy reminder the next time you rehash this idiotic attack.

    Like

  136. I’ve made that point numerous times, but apparently you’re so stupid, I need to repeat it: Prosser’s professional incompetence in 1979 disqualifies him from further service on the WI SC, in my opinion

    How ’bout you write this on your hand; “I’m a hypocrite and a moral and intellectual coward because I refuse to admit this is about Union control of Wisconsin.”

    Like

  137. You might want to write that on your hand so you can have it as a handy reminder the next time you rehash this idiotic attack.

    Subtle Sarah Palin putdown!!

    + 3 points

    Like

  138. Prosser’s professional incompetence in 1979 disqualifies him from further service on the WI SC, in my opinion.

    So what you’re saying is that in the 32 years since then you can’t find any other incidents for which you can criticize him? Interesting. So it must really be that his true transgression is having more sympathy for the taxpayers of Wisconsin than Big Labor and the goon squads.

    Like

  139. Rosetta Says: I wish Doc and DBagg would come back. 400metres needs some support.

    I agree! But maybe Doc and DBagg are smarter than the average Lefty and know when to quit when they’re behind.

    Like

  140. Rosseta –

    Nice job with the selective reading there. The article completely refutes your assertion that my belief that Prosser was intimidated by the Catholic Church:

    “The bishop wrote, ‘As is usual in such cases and out of respect for the position of the Church and in order to prevent unnecessary scandal, the D.A. came to see me merely to state that he was pursuing this case…. I had to agree with the District Attorney that the Church would prefer to keep this out of court and out of the public eye.’”

    Then there’s this: “‘My primary consideration was, I don’t think I can win this case, what is the best I can get out of these facts?”

    This statement doesn’t make any sense. If Prosser was worried about adequate facts, why not turn the Merryfield complaint over to the county Sheriff’s Dept.? Let the investigators investigate. Prosser made his decision after hearing out the Merryfields and talking with the Bishop. He clearly believed these kids were telling the truth, but yet he refused to press the issue, preferring to handle it off the record.

    Finally: “And Prosser was SO afraid of the powerful Catholic church that he told the bishop that he was going to prosecute the case if the priest was not removed.”

    Yes, to which he followed that he was bluffing. That he didn’t believe he had enough facts to win. THEN WHY NOT FURTHER INVESTIGATE?

    Clearly there’s obfuscation here and the only one who has anything to lose (and therefore motivation to obfuscate) is Prosser. The Bishop willfully exposed the corrupt arrangement between the Church and the County DA’s Office. Father Feeney is in prison, so he has nothing to protect. The statements of the Merryfield brothers, WHEN PROPERLY INVESTIGATED BY POLICE IN 2002, revealed more than enough evidence to convict Father Feeney.

    So how else do you explain the discrepancies Rosetta?

    Is the Bishop lying? Was the Outagamie County Sheriff’s Department so inept back in 1979 that they couldn’t have performed the same investigation that revealed the evidence necessary to convict Feeney 23 years later?

    Or is it possible that Prosser neglected his professional obligations and struck a deal that was most convenient to the powerful (the Catholic Church and the County DA) at the expense of the most vulnerable (child victims of sex abuse)?

    Like

  141. 400metres, would you consider it professional incompetence if I were to simply not go to my place of work to do the job which I was hired to do simply because I didn’t want to do it on that particular day?

    Like

  142. 400metres:

    I don’t think you understand the legal process from your comment above. Would you care to explain how you think it happens?

    As is typical of the left, you seem to have an understanding of the world that exists solely in your head. You’re basically building straw men because you can’t connect the dots mentally.

    Like

  143. MJ Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    “400metres:

    I don’t think you understand the legal process from your comment above. Would you care to explain how you think it happens?”

    Wouldn’t it be more expedient if you explained to me what I’m wrong about regarding “the legal process”?

    Go ahead, enlighten me as to how Prosser was barred from turning over a complaint filed by the mother of two boys who claimed they were molested to the county Sheriff’s Department or the local police for further investigation. Now remember, Mrs. Merryfield had known Prosser since they attended school together as kids, so she trusted him and brought her complaint directly to his officer rather than to the police. This was also after Mrs. Merryfield went to the church to ask for advice.

    Like

  144. Or is it possible that Prosser neglected his professional obligations and struck a deal that was most convenient to the powerful (the Catholic Church and the County DA) at the expense of the most vulnerable (child victims of sex abuse)??

    Or is it possible he struck this deal in the best interests of both? Seems to me the family was not that upset by this decision.

    This is where your entire argument falls flat, 400metres. You are basing your entire accusation on your biased opinion and the fact that you prefer Prosser’s opponent. Your opinion is that Prosser was wrong because you need something to use against him.

    This is why you are a hypocrite and a liar. You know full well that it the tables were turned and it were Kloppenburg we were discussing, you would be defending her to the death.

    Of course, if we were to have this discussion, I am positive we would not have to go back 32 years to find evidence of her incompetence and hackery. In fact, I bet we would only have to go back just a few short months.

    http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/118875509.html

    Like

  145. MCPO Airdale Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    “400metres – How much did you overpay in taxes this year to help pay for the damage done to the capitol building by your union pals?”

    Remember Airdale, I’m a liberal, so I don’t pay any taxes. That’s left exclusively to you manly conservatives to take care of.

    Like

  146. Come on. You can’t be this dense.

    “The bishop wrote, ‘As is usual in such cases and out of respect for the position of the Church and in order to prevent unnecessary scandal, the D.A. came to see me merely to state that he was pursuing this case…. I had to agree with the District Attorney that the Church would prefer to keep this out of court and out of the public eye.’”

    Prosser admitted that he was bluffing the bishop because he didn’t have sufficient evidence to win the case.

    Do you think Prosser would go to the bishop and say “Hey, I don’t have enough evidence to win this case but why don’t you get rid of this priest anyway.”?

    Or is it more likely that Prosser, knowing he lacks the evidence to win the case, would tell the bishop that it would be in the best interests of the church for this to not be prosecuted and handled internally?

    Was the Outagamie County Sheriff’s Department so inept back in 1979 that they couldn’t have performed the same investigation that revealed the evidence necessary to convict Feeney 23 years later?

    I don’t really know the level of competency of the sheriff’s department in 1979 vs. 23 years later and you don’t either.

    What I do know is that you and your liberal goons have made up this narrative and you are holding on for dear life to weak assumptions, fabricated motivations and bullshit claims.

    And did I already say that despite this concerted effort to destroy a good man, you’re going to lose this battle?

    Like

  147. More straw men. You’re doing pretty good, but that seems to be your achilles heel. The question stands, and rather than answering yours, I’ll wait for a response.

    Like

  148. wiserbud Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    “Or is it possible he struck this deal in the best interests of both? Seems to me the family was not that upset by this decision.”

    Yep, the Merryvilles seem pleased as punch with the result of that great “deal” Prosser worked out for them:

    “The sexual assault victims of former priest John Patrick Feeney say they have proof that a prosecutor was part of what they believe was a Green Bay Catholic Diocese cover-up.

    Feeney was convicted in 2004 for sexually assaulting two brothers, Troy and Todd Merryfield, in the 1970s.

    David Prosser, the Outagamie County district at the time and now a state Supreme Court justice, decided not to file charges at the time of the allegations.

    The Merryfields say that’s because Prosser agreed to keep it a secret to protect the diocese (see related story), but speaking out for the first time on the issue, Prosser tells Action 2 News he was trying to help the boys, not hurt them.

    The Merryfields say the proof is in a letter dated December 19, 1978, written by Bishop Aloysius Wycislo.

    The bishop wrote, ‘As is usual in such cases and out of respect for the position of the Church and in order to prevent unnecessary scandal, the D.A. came to see me merely to state that he was pursuing this case…. I had to agree with the District Attorney that the Church would prefer to keep this out of court and out of the public eye.’”

    Like

  149. Even the boys in the case denounced the ad as the exploitative fraud it is, and one averred that he’d vote for Prosser. But what is the suffering of exploited children when there are union dues on the line?

    can you not read at all?

    Like

  150. Yep, the Merryvilles seem pleased as punch with the result of that great “deal” Prosser worked out for them:

    Ya know, I’ve really tried very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, but damn, you are really dense.

    In 1979, as Prosser stated, he did not have enough evidence to prosecute. But he went to the church, bluffed them into getting rid of the priest and then, with the family’s consent, dropped the case.

    You make up his reasons and motivations out of whole cloth and then insist that they are absolute truth. You see nothing at all besides what you want to see. Anything else that might shatter that little liberal cocoon you’ve built for yourself must either be denied or deflected.

    This is not some Sean Penn movie we’re talking about here. This is real life. In which real life decisions are made all the time.

    You think Prosser was wrong simply because you want his opponent to win. You cherrypick the facts to makes some kind of story out of nothing.

    Typical vile, hypocritical, lying, ends justify the means, disgusting liberal.

    Like

  151. Rosetta Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 3:15 pm
    “Prosser admitted that he was bluffing the bishop because he didn’t have sufficient evidence to win the case.

    Do you think Prosser would go to the bishop and say ‘Hey, I don’t have enough evidence to win this case but why don’t you get rid of this priest anyway.’?”

    Right, right, so stay with me here, you’re almost starting to understand the point I’ve made a million times in this thread: then why did Prosser refuse to turn the complaint over to the police for a more thorough investigation?

    If he believed the Merryfield boys were molested by Father Feeney, why would he not send some cops after him? Why not investigate for more victims?

    You seem to think it’s entirely commonplace for a DA to know that a suspect has committed a crime and refuse to prosecute DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE MATTER HASN’T BEEN FULLY INVESTIGATED.

    If the cops in 1979 had fully investigated the claims of the Merryfield brothers and found nothing more than what Prosser had when he went to the Bishop to pitch his “deal”, then I’d be a whole lot more understanding of his eventual decision to not prosecute, because he then he would have truly had only those sparse facts with which to go forward. But that’s not what happened.

    Like

  152. Yeah, dammit, Prosser should have crucified that priest!!!! He should have gone after him like a wolf goes after a rabbit and never stopped!! Screw his rights and screw the prosecutor for doing the job which he was hired to do, he should have hunted this man down like a dog until he either found or manufactured enough evidence to prosecute him!!11!1!

    Do you even know how ridiculous you sound now?

    Like

  153. wiserbud Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    “Ya know, I’ve really tried very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt, but damn, you are really dense.

    In 1979, as Prosser stated, he did not have enough evidence to prosecute. But he went to the church, bluffed them into getting rid of the priest and then, with the family’s consent, dropped the case.”

    Okay, do you deny that he hadn’t allowed the matter to be fully investigated? Yes or no.

    “You make up his reasons and motivations out of whole cloth and then insist that they are absolute truth. You see nothing at all besides what you want to see. Anything else that might shatter that little liberal cocoon you’ve built for yourself must either be denied or deflected.”

    So, I “made up” the Bishop’s statement about collusion between the DAs office and the local Diocese? Did I also make up the fact that the Merryfields were pissed about this corrupt cover up back in 2008, as stated in the local news report I cut and pasted above?

    Like

  154. “Right, right, so stay with me here, you’re almost starting to understand the point I’ve made a million times in this thread: then why did Prosser refuse to turn the complaint over to the police for a more thorough investigation?

    If he believed the Merryfield boys were molested by Father Feeney, why would he not send some cops after him? Why not investigate for more victims?

    You seem to think it’s entirely commonplace for a DA to know that a suspect has committed a crime and refuse to prosecute DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE MATTER HASN’T BEEN FULLY INVESTIGATED.

    If the cops in 1979 had fully investigated the claims of the Merryfield brothers and found nothing more than what Prosser had when he went to the Bishop to pitch his “deal”, then I’d be a whole lot more understanding of his eventual decision to not prosecute, because he then he would have truly had only those sparse facts with which to go forward. But that’s not what happened.”

    Hey 400, the Lion, Dorothy, and the Tin Man are waiting for you on the yellow brick road.

    Like

  155. Right, right, so stay with me here,

    *puts on tinfoil hat*

    then why did Prosser refuse to turn the complaint over to the police for a more thorough investigation?

    Is there the possibility in your yellow-sky universe that the family didn’t want this in the hands of the sheriff’s department? I mean, you know, as maybe evidenced by the fact that the family didn’t go to the police?

    If he believed the Merryfield boys were molested by Father Feeney, why would he not send some cops after him?

    This is bullshit. Prosser stated that he didn’t have the evidence of molestation. That’s the fucking reason he didn’t prosecute the case. Once again, you’re making shit up to support your weak argument.

    Like

  156. Progressive projection onto others isn’t a racist act by the projector, MJ. Why? Shut up, that’s why, you racist pig!
    —————
    Ha! So true.

    Like

  157. wiserbud Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    “Yeah, dammit, Prosser should have crucified that priest!!!! He should have gone after him like a wolf goes after a rabbit and never stopped!! Screw his rights and screw the prosecutor for doing the job which he was hired to do, he should have hunted this man down like a dog until he either found or manufactured enough evidence to prosecute him!!11!1!

    Do you even know how ridiculous you sound now?”

    Yea, wow, that really sounds like anything I’ve said. Sheesh, you are one sick bastard.

    I’m sorry, but what “rights” did Father Feeney have that would have barred Prosser from turning over this complaint to the police for further investigation?

    Like

  158. So, I “made up” the Bishop’s statement about collusion between the DAs office and the local Diocese?

    Hahahahahahaha.

    Yes.

    And wouldn’t a DA colluding with a defendant to not prosecute a case be, like, a crime and stuff?

    Maybe you should all get on your hobby horses and ride that investigation to town?

    YOU CAN DO IT!!

    Like

  159. I’m sorry, but what “rights” did Father Feeney have that would have barred Prosser from turning over this complaint to the police for further investigation?
    —————
    You should probably let it go. This is a thin argument. You should probably just admit that you trying to seize the moral high ground when your position is 100% politically motivated.

    I’m curious if your objections to Prosser are recent, or have been present since 2008.

    Like

  160. Rosetta Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    “Is there the possibility in your yellow-sky universe that the family didn’t want this in the hands of the sheriff’s department? I mean, you know, as maybe evidenced by the fact that the family didn’t go to the police?”

    How the heck would that be what the family wanted when they were the ones who initiated the issue to begin with? Plus, if that was the case, why did they claim in 2008 that they felt that the abuse was covered up out of deference to the Catholic church. You just keep ignoring the facts right there in front of you. Read the court documents. Read the statements the Merryfied family made in 2008. Read the statement made by the former Bishop regarding the corrupt collusion between his church and the county DA.

    Furthermore, as I’ve already said, it doesn’t really matter what the family wanted. If a prosecutor believes a crime has been committed, especially one as serious as child sex assault, he has a professional duty to vigorously investigate it. In your universe, apparently every time an assault victim changes his or her mind after the investigation has commenced, the matter should be dropped completely.

    “If he believed the Merryfield boys were molested by Father Feeney, why would he not send some cops after him?

    This is bullshit. Prosser stated that he didn’t have the evidence of molestation. That’s the fucking reason he didn’t prosecute the case. Once again, you’re making shit up to support your weak argument.”

    Hmmm, how would you generate evidence of molestation? Maybe by having the police fully investigate the claims?

    Like

  161. I think what 400metres is getting at here is the occasional liberal view that because there is a lack of evidence, that DEMANDS further investigation!!ZOMG!!

    I seem to recall that same line of supersmart reasoning being used against Clarence Thomas.

    RACISTS!!!

    Like

  162. I seem to recall that same line of supersmart reasoning being used against Clarence Thomas.

    Thomas made the mistake of being CWB (Conservative while black).

    The race hustlers and self-appointed black leaders can’t have members of Eric Holder’s “people” thinking for themselves and ignoring their obvious authority. Leaving that modern-day plantation, like elections, has consequences.

    Like

  163. Ha! Nice one.

    Why do Dems put truths in the ads especially if it hurts a conservative’s chances of success?

    Like

  164. Rosetta Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    “So, I ‘made up’ the Bishop’s statement about collusion between the DAs office and the local Diocese?

    Hahahahahahaha.

    Yes.”

    So this is completely made up?:

    “Perhaps the most infamous of these criminal clergy is Fr. Feeney, who raped, assaulted and terrorized countless children and minors for over 30 years in assignments in at least three states. According to hundreds of pages of church records, recently obtained in Green Bay through civil discovery, Fr. Feeney was, astoundingly, reported to church officials for sexual misconduct in virtually every one of his over 20 parish assignments in the diocese before he was secretly transferred to dioceses in California and Nevada, where he further assaulted more children.

    […]

    Most alarming to us is a letter dated December 18, 1978 from the then Green Bay Bishop Aloysius Wycislo written to the chair of the diocesan priest personal board, Fr. Merkatoris. Wycslo writes that, apparently on your own initiative, you met with him to share criminal evidence you were gathering against Fr. Feeney, evidence you told Wycislo was sufficient to prosecute Feeney. But, “as is usual in such cases and out of respect for the position of the church,” writes Wycislo ‘and in order to prevent unnecessary scandal,’ you allegedly counseled the bishop to transfer Feeney, preferably out of the state of Wisconsin. You told the bishop so he writes that you wanted Feeney’s crimes to be kept ‘out of the courts and the public eye.’ You concluded—again according to the bishop–that there is too much “evidence against” Feeney ‘for the courts to hide any longer.'”

    [http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2008/05_06/2008_05_15_WisPolitics_TheSurvivors.htm]

    Like

  165. Okay, do you deny that he hadn’t allowed the matter to be fully investigated? Yes or no.

    Okay, now stick with me here, okay?

    He did a preliminary investigation. He determined there was not enough evidence to go forward. Yet, he still went to the Bishop and discussed the matter with him, eventually convincing said Bishop that Feeney should be removed, which he was.

    You assume there some huge pile of evidence laying around somewhere that CSI-Appleton should have gotten a hold of and run through all of their sophisticated 1979-era equipment until they had enough evidence to move forward with their prosecution.

    I’m telling you that, in 1979, probably the best evidence Prosser had was the boy’s statements and nothing else. There was probably no physical evidence, no photographic evidence, nothing. He certainly didn’t have the 20 or so other kids that the prosecutors in 2002 had to help support their case.

    And so Prosser, as most every other prosecutor at the time would have done, was recognize that it was gong to come down to a “his word against theirs” situation. Certainly not enough evidence to convict.

    So instead spending all kinds of resources to find nothing and then putting the boys and the family through the horrendous ordeal of a trial, only to, more than likely, see the guy walk, he used his professional judgment and decided to follow a different course of action.

    Happened all the time in the past and still happens to this day. To deny that reality to support your stupid theories is silly in the extreme.

    You want to be angry at someone, (as opposed to simply smearing a political opponent, which, let’s be honest, is really all you care about here) you should be angry at the church. They were made aware of Feeny’s predilections (by Prosser, as it turns out!!) and instead of removing him from the priesthood or at least removing his access to young children, they simply moved him to a different diocese.

    You are asking for things that, at the time, were simply not reasonable to expect. Yet you insist that he should have used the 2011 societal rules and knowledge back in 1979, when what he was doing was SOP. But somehow Prosser is a bad guy because he wasn’t some sort of superhero in this situation and gone against all practical jurisprudence and simply convicted the guy because “he knew he was guilty.”

    Sorry, but as I said earlier, this isn’t a movie or some John Grisham novel.

    Like

  166. If a prosecutor believes a crime has been committed, especially one as serious as child sex assault, he has a professional duty to vigorously investigate it.

    Attempt # 67 to penetrate skull of stone.

    If Prosser didn’t have evidence that child sexual assault had been committed, what professional duty dictates a vigorous investigation?

    The LACK of evidence?? Is that what dictates a vigorous investigation?

    400metres, you’re in a corner on this whole “evidence” thing.

    You imaging that Prosser “knew” a crime had been committed isn’t supported by the facts.

    Everything points to the exact opposite conclusion.

    Like

  167. But, “as is usual in such cases and out of respect for the position of the church,” writes Wycislo ‘and in order to prevent unnecessary scandal,’ you allegedly counseled the bishop to transfer Feeney, preferably out of the state of Wisconsin. You told the bishop so he writes that you wanted Feeney’s crimes to be kept ‘out of the courts and the public eye.’ You concluded—again according to the bishop–that there is too much “evidence against” Feeney ‘for the courts to hide any longer.’”

    Hahaha. That completely supports Prosser’s statement that he bluffed the church and apparently did so successfully.

    2 + 2 = 4

    Like

  168. You concluded—again according to the bishop–that there is too much “evidence against” Feeney ‘for the courts to hide any longer.’”

    It’s called “a bluff.” Prosser knew he didn’t have enough evidence, but he told the Bishop he did.

    seriously, what do you do for a living? You are not respondible for teaching children, are you?

    Like

  169. Rosetta Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    “I think what 400metres is getting at here is the occasional liberal view that because there is a lack of evidence, that DEMANDS further investigation!!ZOMG!!”

    Jesus, are you listening to yourself? You’re attacking me because I feel that the Outagamie County DA, David Prosser, was professionally incompetent when he neglected to fully investigate a credible claim of sex assault against two minors.

    (a) There’s no denying that he failed to call upon the police to conduct a thorough investigations.
    (b) There’s no denying that he went directly to the employer of the accused in order to work out a deal that was not in anyway commensurate with bringing the monstrous Father Feeney to justice. In fact, it allowed him to move on to commit untold more sex crimes against children.
    (c) There’s no denying that the Merryfield family was still so upset about this cover-up that they complained to a reporter about it in 2008, after civil discovery revealed the letter from Green Bay Bishop Aloysius Wycislo detailing the extent to which the church colluded with Prosser to keep Father Feeney’s crimes from being exposed and properly prosecuted.

    But regardless of all that, you think Prosser is being unfairly smeared and that there isn’t one iota of evidence that he committed professional neglect back in 1979.

    And why do you believe that in the face of all this evidence to the contrary? Because David Prosser, the only person who stands to lose anything by the truth being exposed, told you so.

    Great reasoning there.

    Like

  170. It also ignores the fact that prosecutors make decisions EVERY SINGLE DAY to NOT pursue or prosecute cases that they might have enough evidence to pursue because of issues of staffing, resources, the degree of crime, and…wait for it…the political aims of the elected prosecutor. Some make drug crimes a focus, others concentrate on gangs, and some campaign on the scourge of white-collar crimes and the need to bring the perpetrators to justice.

    Child molestation cases didn’t really come into vogue until the mid to late 1980s, and even so, focused on acts far more eggregious than what these acts are alleged to have been. Most prosecutors at that time would have been loathe to proceed on what he had, and your naive belief that what he had warranted further investigation isn’t just Monday Morning Quarterbacking, its pretending to be a prosecutor because you slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

    Like

  171. Because David Prosser, the only person who stands to lose anything by the truth being exposed, told you so.

    What’s that sucking sound ?

    Like

  172. (b) There’s no denying that he went directly to the employer of the accused in order to work out a deal that was not in anyway commensurate with bringing the monstrous Father Feeney to justice.

    That is totally true. I mean except for the inconvenient fact that Prosser said he was bluffing the employer due to lack of evidence.

    There is nothing that supports your accusation that Prosser colluded with the church in the face of evidence of child molestation. Nothing except your wish-casting because it would SO help your case.

    But keep trying. Maybe if you wish hard enough it will come true.

    Okay I gotta run.

    This has been great fun as far as arguing with a wall goes.

    Like

  173. Ya know, in the feminist community, they are constantly talking about how the number of rapes that occur in this country is greatly under-reported.

    The reason given is that most women are afraid to report it. One of the reasons given for this is that it can be very difficult to get a rape conviction, even today, but obviously it was much more difficult in the past.

    Yet 400metres and the other defenders of this vile ad would have us believe that Prosser should have, in 1979, aggressively investigated a priest who was accused by two brothers of sexual abuse. Back when this sort of thing was certainly occurring, but had not yet gotten the exposure that it eventually and rightly has. (as much as the thought of young boys being molested by priests seems to titillate Tbogg so, we actually do not support that act in the least.)

    So at the same time leftists freely admit the difficulty in getting rape convictions, even to this day, they want to crucify Prosser for making the best he could out of a bad situation.

    But it’s not political…

    Naaaaaaaaaaah……….

    Like

  174. wiserbud Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    “Okay, now stick with me here, okay?

    He did a preliminary investigation. He determined there was not enough evidence to go forward. Yet, he still went to the Bishop and discussed the matter with him, eventually convincing said Bishop that Feeney should be removed, which he was.”

    How about letting the police (ya’ know, those professional investigators) arrest this creep and confront him? Give me a break, you really find nothing suspicious about a DA conducting his own private investigation into a very politically sensitive matter and determining that “hey, there’s inconclusive evidence here for me to pursue a prosecution against one of the most powerful entities in my jurisdiction. How about I just work out a deal where no one gets in any trouble at all?”

    “You assume there some huge pile of evidence laying around somewhere that CSI-Appleton should have gotten a hold of and run through all of their sophisticated 1979-era equipment until they had enough evidence to move forward with their prosecution.”

    Yes, I assume there was evidence, because that evidence still existed 23 years later. Remember that part? And it wasn’t discovered due to any fancy new technology. The detectives in 2002 simply went to the Merryfield brothers and talked to them. And then conducted further investigations in order corroborate their story. Voila’ – there’s suddenly enough evidence to get Father Feeney convicted.

    “I’m telling you that, in 1979, probably the best evidence Prosser had was the boy’s statements and nothing else. There was probably no physical evidence, no photographic evidence, nothing. He certainly didn’t have the 20 or so other kids that the prosecutors in 2002 had to help support their case.”

    Yes, how would he have this sort of evidence when he refused to allow normal police investigation to occur? Furthermore, the best piece of evidence would have been a confession from Father Feeney, but that avenue was precluded by Prosser’s refusal to issue an arrest warrant, wasn’t it?

    Like

  175. which the church colluded with Prosser to keep Father Feeney’s crimes from being exposed

    This is simply a flat-out lie. You are twisting reality to fit your world-view.

    You are a liar.

    Like

  176. wiserbud Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    “which the church colluded with Prosser to keep Father Feeney’s crimes from being exposed

    This is simply a flat-out lie. You are twisting reality to fit your world-view.

    You are a liar.”

    How is that a lie? That’s exactly what the Bishop recounts in his 1979 report on the matter.

    Like

  177. How is that a lie?

    You call it “collusion” That is a complete and total misrepresentation of events.

    Prosser also stated that he did not have enough evidence to pursue this case. But instead of dropping it and simply shrugging his shoulders, he went to the Bishop and bluffed him into thinking he did have enough evidence and suggested that he could put Feeney in prison.

    It’s quite obvious to me and anyone who is not blinded by ideology that Prosser was suggesting that the Bishop get rid of Feeney, knowing that was the best Prosser could hope for, since his preliminary investigation made it clear to him that he would not be able to get a conviction, was to have Feeny removed from the church and away from the Merryfield family.

    That’s not “collusion.” That is making the best of a bad situation.

    But please, continue to ignore every thing that has been written here and keep repeating yourself over and over again. Maybe you’ll convince your buddy JB. He seems simple-minded enough for your story to work on him.

    Like

  178. 400metres Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 3:52 pm
    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2008/05_06/2008_05_15_WisPolitics_TheSurvivors.htm

    Nice try.
    That’s a LETTER written by an organization of people who were abused by priests, and the majority of the letter consists of cherry-picked comments taken out of context – and not even quoted, just interpreted.

    That’s not FACTS; it’s this group’s interpretation of a letter that had been written 16 years earlier BEFORE other information came to light.

    Like

  179. Jesus Beck Says: Scott Walker looks like a young, pale boy with downy pubic hair

    Sounds like somebody has an unhealthy obsession. What are you going to do when he doesn’t respond to your love letters? Your buddies usually resort to death threats…

    Like

  180. wiser,

    Doesn’t it bother you that despite Prosser’s claims to the contrary, the evidence actually was there, as the real investigators quite easily discovered 23 years later? Remember, according to the court documents, the detectives in 2002 discovered the Merryfield brothers when they investigated Feeney regarding a new complaint of sex assault. They went to the brothers and talked to them, verified their claims, and Father Feeney was convicted.

    That’s the same damn thing the police would have done in 1979, were they given the opportunity. But no, Detective Prosser was on the case, and he just didn’t feel there was enough evidence, so that’s that.

    And it is collusion when a one political entity (the DAs office) refuses to issue an arrest warrant when probable cause exists that a priest sexually molested two boys (remember, PC is not the same as the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard necessary to convict), and in fact he refuses to get the police involved at all. Instead, he conducts “his own investigation” and takes it upon himself to negotiate with the employer of the suspect to simply have this molester sent elsewhere. Remember, the Bishop described his agreement with Prosser this way: “as is usual in such cases and out of respect for the position of the church, and in order to prevent unnecessary scandal.'”

    “As is usual is such cases”? Yea, there’s no collusion there…

    Like

  181. And the group that wrote that letter (SNAP) has had some questionable practices in the past:
    http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0915/054.html

    Snap and other lawyer-funded victim groups are now awash in money. Snap started up in 1990, and for most of its existence the group has squeaked by on less than $2,000 a year. Last year Snap raised $140,000, spending $52,000 on salaries.

    Now, I don’t know why that letter was sent to Mr. Prosser in 2008, nor do I know what prompted the letter. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the group was hoping to make some money off of litigation against the city/state.

    However, to use that letter as justification that there was wrongdoing on Mr. Prosser’s part is ridiculous. It is nothing more than conjecture on the part of a third party who had no standing in the matter whatsoever.

    Like

  182. Teresa in Fort Worth, TX Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    400metres Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 3:52 pm
    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2008/05_06/2008_05_15_WisPolitics_TheSurvivors.htm

    Nice try.
    That’s a LETTER written by an organization of people who were abused by priests, and the majority of the letter consists of cherry-picked comments taken out of context – and not even quoted, just interpreted.”

    Yea, what’s their motivation anyway? Oh, that’s right, they seek to uncover the longstanding corruption that kept child molesters from being brought to justice. The letter was part of a civil discovery request. If you can’t distinguish between where they are stating their opinions and where the quote the Bishop’s letter, I don’t know what to tell you (hint: the letter excerpts have these “..” around them).

    “That’s not FACTS; it’s this group’s interpretation of a letter that had been written 16 years earlier BEFORE other information came to light.”

    I don’t what you’re talking about here. The letter was one of thousands of private, intra-church communications that were received by way of civil discovery in another suit against the church. The statements are direct quotes detailing the arrangement that Prosser has already agreed occurred. There’s no real interpretation there, the Bishop clearly states that this deal struck between him and Prosser was “usual in such cases” and was struck “out of respect for the position of the church, and in order to prevent unnecessary scandal.”

    Like

  183. Remember, according to the court documents, the detectives in 2002 discovered the Merryfield brothers when they investigated Feeney regarding a new complaint of sex assault. They went to the brothers and talked to them, verified their claims, and Father Feeney was convicted.

    Convicted not in the Merryfield case, but in the new case. Different era, more witnesses, less stigma, more evidence and better investigative techniques in 2002 than in 1979, wouldn’t you admit?

    How many allegations had been made against Feeney in 1979? You are comparing two totally different situations and are expecting Prosser to have access to the same capabilities and environment that existed in 2002 than did in 1979.

    Yet again, you are twisting reality and inventing facts to support your position. They may have verified the claims, but you are, yet again, assuming that nothing at all was done in the case originally. That is, yet again, at best a baseless assumption and, at worst, yet another lie.

    “As is usual is such cases”? Yea, there’s no collusion there…

    Yeah, they almost never go talk to the people who are involved in any investigations of this sort, especially when it involves a church.

    Oh…. waitaminute… they do that all the time!! They actually talk to the people who may have some knowledge of the suspect and the situation, especially when it involves the church, which is generally a large part of many people’s lives in the community. Are you being intentionally obtuse or are you seriously this uninformed?

    Do you even know what “collusion” actually means?

    You assume that Prosser’s motives were bad when he spoke to the Bishop. I have repeatedly pointed out to you why it is just as reasonable, in fact moreso, to believe that Prosser was in fact trying to do what he could to protect these children from Feeney by having him removed from his position. It is extremely likely that instead of attempting to protect the church, Prosser knew that they would probably not ever win a conviction against Feeny and was, as I have repeatedly said, making the best of a bad situation.

    Am I 100% positive that this is the actual chain of events? Of course not. But neither are you. No one can be. But then, I am not a hyper-partisan liberal for whom this sort of vile character assassination is just another means to an end. Instead of simply jumping to the worst possible conclusions, I actually try to imagine what the actual situation must have been like and ascribe honesty and integrity to people who have yet to show me a reason not to.

    (What a coincidence that your interpretation of the facts, as fantastical as it may be, also seems to help the left, the public sectors unions, and the rest of the whiny, greedy leeches you are quite obviously in full support of, for reasons I can only imagine, by hurting the candidate that you oppose. Just sheer luck there, I imagine.)

    I’m done with you. You earlier accused us of being closed-minded, yet you have proven yourself wholly incapable of looking at the facts from any other point of view than your own. You have done nothing but repeat your ridiculous accusations again and again, as though that will make them true. It has become tiresome and certainly nonproductive.

    You are simply, for lack of a better definition, a lying partisan hack who has absolutely no problem with destroying an honest man to get your way.

    You and your ilk are vile and disgusting humans and I am a lesser person for having interacted with you.

    Like

  184. “as is usual in such cases and out of respect for the position of the church”, “and in order to prevent unnecessary scandal “, “out of the courts and the public eye”, “evidence against”, “for the courts to hide any longer”
    Those are the only quotations in that letter from SNAP that are attributed to the December, 1978 letter from the Bishop. NOTHING else is quoted. THAT’S cherry-picking when everything else is interpretation by SNAP of what those phrases meant. (hint: You REALLY don’t want to be condescending to me – I’ve raised 3 teenaged daughters….)

    …the Bishop clearly states…
    Again, the letter that you were citing in your previous argument was the one from SNAP – THEY are the ones who say that “the Bishop clearly states”. The reality is that they are using a letter that was written 30 YEARS earlier, and they have no way of knowing what the Bishop meant or what went on in the conversation between Mr. Prosser and the Bishop. Those words were the recollection of the Bishop AS HE REMEMBERED THEM.

    The letter was written BY the Bishop, who was trying like Hell to cover his ass. Those very nice words that he used were politically civil. I’d be willing to bet that there are many other letters with very similar wording that were written to other authorities in regards to this particular priest wherever he was assigned.

    I’d also be willing to bet that there are letters all over the COUNTRY that have very similar wording regarding other priests who also molested parishioners. Before you pinpoint this particular D.A. in this particular case, you need to do your homework on other cases throughout the United States.

    Like

  185. wiserbud Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    “Convicted not in the Merryfield case, but in the new case. Different era, more witnesses, less stigma, more evidence and better investigative techniques in 2002 than in 1979, wouldn’t you admit?”

    Jesus, this is so ridiculous. Yes, Father Feeney was convicted of abusing the Merryfield brothers in 2004 (along with others too). That’s the freaking point! Once the police actually had the opportunity to investigate the claims made by the Merryfield brothers back in the 1970’s, they had little difficulty in finding there was sufficient evidence to convict Father Feeney. They didn’t use any fancy gizmos or anything, just plain ol’ investigative techniques like interviewing witnesses and establishing corroborating evidence.

    In other words, they made Detective Prosser look like the imposter he was. He should have turned the matter over to the police immediately and let them conduct the investigation. Because he didn’t, two boys had to wait over two decades to see their abuser get convicted.

    Like

  186. wiserbud Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    “You and your ilk are vile and disgusting humans and I am a lesser person for having interacted with you.”

    Hey, glad to hear you had such a great time. Let’s do it again real soon.

    Like

  187. Also, Mr. Prosser was appointed to the Court by Governor Tommy G. Thompson in 1998, and elected in 2001.

    In the 2011 Supreme Court Primary, Mr. Prosser received almost twice as many votes as did Ms. Kloppenberg (David Prosser (incumbent) 231,017 55%; Joanne Kloppenburg 105,002 25% ). He appears to have run unopposed in 2001.

    If Mr. Prosser is such an evil man, please tell me why he has such a stellar judicial record, and why this event from his past is only surfacing 30+ years later.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Prosser,_Jr.

    Like

  188. I can’t believe you are still on this.

    As I stated before, you and everyone else here understands that your arguments for Prosser’s unprofessional behavior are a mirage. You want him defeated because you desire a prog to be elected to the court. At least admit it and stop hiding behind what everyone, including the actual people involved in the case, know to be a flimsy charge.

    Now fetch me a juicebox.

    Like

  189. ….they had little difficulty in finding there was sufficient evidence to convict Father Feeney

    Based solely on the Merryfield brothers’ testimony? I don’t think so. By that time, MANY more people had come forward and there was an entire BODY of evidence against this priest.

    The Merryfield brothers’ testimony would not have stood by itself in a court of law then, and I seriously doubt it would stand by itself today. It was the cumulative evidence of not only the priest’s actions but also those of the Church’s role in the cover-up that led to Fr. Feeney’s conviction.

    Like

  190. MJ Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    “I can’t believe you are still on this. ”

    I’m just responding to comments directed at me here MJ. If you got a problem with that, you can easily not read them or whatever. I really don’t care what your opinion is on the strength of my position, particularly when you refuse to offer any specific criticism beyond “shadup stoopid librul.”

    This idea of yours that somehow because I want Prosser defeated politically that compromises all the evidence of his misconduct regarding the Merryfield case is completely illogical too.

    Like

  191. Hey BiW! Haven’t seen you in a while. I hope you and your family are well.

    Thank you, MJ. The Mrs. is employed again, and I am finally done with the trial that has dominated my life for the last month and don’t have another one until June. I hope you and Mrs. MJ are well.

    The Merryfield brothers’ testimony would not have stood by itself in a court of law then,

    Which is an excellent point, because it is notoriously difficult, even in cases of molestation to get minors, especially young minors, qualified as competent to testify. Something that Prosecutor Prosser, as an attorney looking at the testimony of only two boys at a time when molestation prosecutions were already rare, undoubtedly had in mind.

    20 years later, at a time when such prosecutions had become more commonplace (and when the precedents making such prosecutions easier to pursue were now in place), and there was considerably more testimony, from multiple sources and locales, the ability to gain a conviction was undoubtedly easier.

    But please, continue the politically motivated prognostication 400. Watching the logicistical contortionism has been entertaining thus far…

    Like

  192. Teresa in Fort Worth, TX Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 5:43 pm
    “Based solely on the Merryfield brothers’ testimony? I don’t think so. By that time, MANY more people had come forward and there was an entire BODY of evidence against this priest.

    The Merryfield brothers’ testimony would not have stood by itself in a court of law then, and I seriously doubt it would stand by itself today. It was the cumulative evidence of not only the priest’s actions but also those of the Church’s role in the cover-up that led to Fr. Feeney’s conviction.”

    Um, no. Father Feeney was convicted in 2004 of three counts of 1st degree sex assault and 1 count of 2nd degree sex assault against the Merryfield brothers for his actions back in 1978.

    People cannot be convicted of sex assault of one person based on “cumulative evidence” that they assaulted other people more recently. Father Feeney was tried in front of a jury and convicted for specifically molesting the Merryfield brothers back in 1978.

    Like

  193. People cannot be convicted of sex assault of one person based on “cumulative evidence” that they assaulted other people more recently.

    Not directly, no. But prosecutors know how to play the game, and also know how to get evidence and allegations of other instances in front of juries all the time. I used to watch them do it every single day. No amount of admonition from the bench about disregarding statements and evidence, or that certain testimony or evidence cannot be considered for a certain purpose can cause a juror to ‘unhear’ such things, or not consider them a certain way, even when they are told not to consider it by a Judge. And if you think otherwise, you’re kidding yourself.

    Like

  194. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    “But please, continue the politically motivated prognostication 400. Watching the logicistical contortionism has been entertaining thus far…”

    (a) I don’t what you think I’m “prognosticated” when I examine events that happened 30 years ago and give my opinion on whether professional misconduct occurred.

    (b) what “logical contortions” have I exhibited thus far? My position and the evidence I have for that position has remained the same since my first comments on this thread. If anyone is contorting themselves it’s the regulars here constantly trying to deflect the conversation to all their favorite liberal boogeymen.

    Like

  195. I asked a specific question, which you failed to answer. If you understood the legal process relevant to this case, you would know that the premise of your argument isn’t very solid. In a way, I’m trying to help you not make such an unbelievable fool of yourself.

    “If you got a problem with that, you can easily not read them or whatever.”

    Very good point. Enjoy the rest of your blissfully ignorant weekend.

    Like

  196. Rosetta finally says something I think we can all agree upon:

    “There isn’t an easier entity to bring pedophile charges against than the Catholic church, sad to say.”

    With so many perpetrators to choose from it’s kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Like

  197. MJ Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    “I asked a specific question, which you failed to answer. If you understood the legal process relevant to this case, you would know that the premise of your argument isn’t very solid. In a way, I’m trying to help you not make such an unbelievable fool of yourself. ”

    No, I didn’t answer because your question was vague and overbroad. So I responded with a request for clarification.

    You responded to that reasonable request with personal insults.

    But you really can’t understand why I didn’t obey your command to answer your “specific question”?

    Sheesh, talk about ignorant…

    Like

  198. a) I don’t what you think I’m “prognosticated” when I examine events that happened 30 years ago and give my opinion on whether professional misconduct occurred.

    I think that you’ve established very little in terms of the base of knowledge out of which you have developed your opinion about whether a “professional malpractice” occurred, and I think that a bias that is satisfied with the conclusion that you cling to has prevented you from examining other facts and circumstances that would go against that conclusion. But then, what do I know. 5 years as a clerk or intern in both civil and criminal law firms, and then 11 years in practice on my own doesn’t give me any perspective that matters, I’m sure.

    Like

  199. Shorter Nice Deb commenters: “We’ll bring up any subject to distract from the truth of this story.” Jesus, you guys do go on.

    Like

  200. It is interesting that in this article from 2004 that NOBODY ever felt that anyone in the D.A.’s office had been accused of misconduct in regards to this case. If anything, it appears that by not prosecuting back in 1978, they were then the ONLY plaintiffs who were able to bring this man to justice. The statute of limitations had run out on all of the other cases:

    The only reason the Merryfields’ case could be prosecuted was because Feeney left the state in 1983, which “stopped the clock” on the statute of limitations, making it possible to reopen their case in 2002.

    If Mr. Prosser were trying to sweep this under the rug, then there wouldn’t have been any reason for the D.A.’s office to keep this case active all those years, now would there?

    Biskupic told the jurors during his closing argument that the Merryfields had no ulterior motive in prosecuting Feeney after all these years.

    “They were sought out, for the most part,” he said. “They had moved on with their lives. This is not a case where they went to law enforcement. Law enforcement came to them.”

    The jury apparently agreed. On the one count that was dismissed, attempted sexual assault of a child, it would have required the jury to believe two separate acts of sexual assault occurred when Feeney touched Todd Merryfield in his bed in May 1978.

    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2004_02_27_Wilson_FeeneyVerdict_John_P_Feeney_6.htm

    Like

  201. The letter from SNAP to Mr. Prosser was apparently part of a much larger net they were casting in regards to a possible lawsuit against the Green Bay Diocese because of the actions of Fr. Feeney – they weren’t targeting Mr. Prosser specifically:
    http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local_allouez_SNAP_questions_Green_Bay_Catholic_Diocese_20081211_rev1

    A short blurb about the 2008 lawsuit:
    http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/103763964.html

    Like

  202. It’s only a matter of time till the desperate union apologists resort to the death threats. It’s what they do when all of their other tactics fail. So far all that’s been determined is that they’ve had to reach back 32 years in order to fake an argument.

    Like

  203. It appears that the reason the State of Wisconsin was able to bring the case against Feeney in regards to the Merryfield brothers in 2002 is precisely BECAUSE Mr. Prosser’s decision in 1979 had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

    ¶17 Second, the record reveals that the district attorney’s decision in 1979 not to charge Feeney was unrelated to the merits of the case. Instead, the district attorney was concerned about the stress Todd and Troy would face as witnesses in the trial, as well as publicity regarding the trial because of Feeney’s well-known brother, a singer on the popular Lawrence Welk television program.

    The decision not to litigate in 1979 also played a role in the appellate court denying Mr. Feeney’s appeal in 2005:

    ¶18 Third, when we look at the test for issue preclusion it is apparent that the doctrine is wholly inapplicable.[3] Issue preclusion limits relitigation of issues actually decided in a previous case. Paige K.B. v. Steven G.B., 226 Wis. 2d 210, 219, 594 N.W.2d 370 (1999). This is immediately telling—there was no initial litigation so there is no relitigation to limit.

    And then there is this from the original testimony:

    ¶33 The court rejected probation, believing it minimized the impact of the crime and was therefore inappropriate. It also noted several factors that it believed required the sentence. It considered the gravity of the offense and the impact Feeney’s conduct had on his victims. After Sharon went to the police, Feeney told his friends in his parish that Todd and Troy were accusing him of something he did not do. Children at school stopped talking to the boys and the community treated the family like pariahs…..

    http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20657

    Like

  204. Turnabout is fair play. Let’s find every prosecutor in MA who heard the name John Geoghan from 1962 forward and didn’t stop that bastard. How many of them are judges and legislators up for re-election?

    Like

  205. The decision not to litigate in 1979 also played a role in the appellate court denying Mr. Feeney’s appeal in 2005:

    ¶18 Third, when we look at the test for issue preclusion it is apparent that the doctrine is wholly inapplicable.[3] Issue preclusion limits relitigation of issues actually decided in a previous case. Paige K.B. v. Steven G.B., 226 Wis. 2d 210, 219, 594 N.W.2d 370 (1999). This is immediately telling—there was no initial litigation so there is no relitigation to limit.

    Only as a means to dismiss an affirmative defense. It really isn’t significant to the case proper.

    Like

  206. Instead, the district attorney was concerned about the stress Todd and Troy would face as witnesses in the trial, as well as publicity regarding the trial because of Feeney’s well-known brother, a singer on the popular Lawrence Welk television program.

    Huh. You mean that even if he could have gotten them declared competent to testify, he was concerned about how they would have been treated on cross examination by a competent defense attorney?

    What an evil, heartless man!

    Like

  207. That SNAP letter to Mr. Prosser?

    The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests has asked Prosser to explain his connection to the church after details of a meeting between Prosser and Bishop Aloysius Wycislo surfaced in documents connected to a fraud lawsuit against the Green Bay Diocese and its insurance company.

    Judge Prosser wasn’t the target of that investigation, the Diocese and their insurance company were….
    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-179185773.html

    Like

  208. Teresa, I disagree with the word “shenanigans” for SNAP. What it was in 2008, I can’t vouch for, but when this whole scandal broke open with the Boston Globe story in 2002, they were a legitimate group of people hurt by priests and rightly pissed at the bishops for not dealing with the problem.

    Like

  209. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    a) I don’t what you think I’m “prognosticated” when I examine events that happened 30 years ago and give my opinion on whether professional misconduct occurred.

    “I think that you’ve established very little in terms of the base of knowledge out of which you have developed your opinion about whether a ‘professional malpractice’ occurred, and I think that a bias that is satisfied with the conclusion that you cling to has prevented you from examining other facts and circumstances that would go against that conclusion. But then, what do I know. 5 years as a clerk or intern in both civil and criminal law firms, and then 11 years in practice on my own doesn’t give me any perspective that matters, I’m sure.”

    First, I never said Prosser committed “malpractice” specifically. I’ve repeatedly categorized the way he handled the Merryfield case as “misconduct” or “professional neglect.” I’m not contending that he could be formally challenged for misconduct since as a prosecutor he enjoys wide discretionary latitude. As I’ve said from the outset, I simply feel that based on the facts presented that Prosser was grossly negligent in the manner in which he handled the Merryfield case and I think it disqualifies him from a seat on the highest court in my state.

    In the end though, I still don’t know what any of that (or your resume for that matter) has to do with your weird characterization of my review of these events as “politically motivated prognostication”. I don’t recall predicting or forecasting anything, so I don’t understand your word choice there.

    Like

  210. It appears as if by 2008 they were being “sponsored” by lawyers; I agree that when they started out, they did a lot of good. It just sounds like as time has gone on, they have been co-opted while other groups haven’t.

    Like

  211. they did a lot of good. It just sounds like as time has gone on, they have been co-opted while other groups haven’t.

    {{{{{{{{gasp!!!}}}}}}}

    That never happens, does it???

    Like

  212. I’d like to know since when making a decision on where to spend one’s money constitutes “thuggery”. I mean, I’m not a union member, but I haven’t set foot in a Wal Mart in over 15 years, because I don’t care for their labor practices and a lot of other things about the way they operate. Does this make me a “thug” as well? Did the law change when I wasn’t looking, am I now mandated to spend my money with Wal Mart no matter how much I dislike them? Just curious.

    As for Prosser, no, he’s not a pedophile himself and probably not even a proponent of pedophilia. But get real. The guy is running to be a judge on the highest court in the state. Failure to investigate this incident shows, if nothing else, poor judgement on his part. Is there something in the wingnut coda that insists that all incompetence on the part of members of the tribe must be defended? Or is the issue that the party can’t come up with candidates who ARE competent?

    Like

  213. The guy is running to be a judge on the highest court in the state.

    Which he has already been sitting on.

    Failure to investigate this incident shows, if nothing else, poor judgement on his part.

    Soooo, you failed reading comprehension. Any other subjects that exceeded your abilities that we should know about?

    Is there something in the wingnut coda that insists that all incompetence on the part of members of the tribe must be defended?

    1a : a concluding musical section that is formally distinct from the main structure b : a concluding part of a literary or dramatic work
    2: something that serves to round out, conclude, or summarize and usually has its own interest
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coda
    So, English is your second language?

    Or is the issue that the party can’t come up with candidates who ARE competent?

    Seriously? I don’t recall this being about his conduct or rulings as a judge. Perhaps you can point out for the class some charge that actually is?

    I didn’t think so.

    This is an unfortunate but predictable little game seizing upon events from more than 30 years ago that occurred in a very different legal climate under much more restrictive rules of evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. But don’t let that take all the steam out of your tempest in a teapot.

    Like

  214. I’d like to know since when making a decision on where to spend one’s money constitutes “thuggery”. I mean, I’m not a union member, but I haven’t set foot in a Wal Mart in over 15 years, because I don’t care for their labor practices and a lot of other things about the way they operate. Does this make me a “thug” as well? Did the law change when I wasn’t looking, am I now mandated to spend my money with Wal Mart no matter how much I dislike them? Just curious.

    Who said what you described constituted thuggery? No one. It’s a strawman argument.

    Now if you threatened a Walmart with a massive boycott unless they disavowed their neutral position on an issue, and put a sign in their window endorsing yours, and you had the political power to follow up on that threat —that would constitute thuggery.

    Have you done that to Walmart?

    Like

  215. I mean, I’m not a union member, but I haven’t set foot in a Wal Mart in over 15 years, because I don’t care for their labor practices and a lot of other things about the way they operate. Does this make me a “thug” as well?

    but we are the ones who attempt to deflect from the topic…….

    btw, how’s life, Blackie? hope the kids are well.

    Like

  216. It’s better, Wiser, since the Mrs. rejoined the ranks of the employed. Thank you. And congrats on landing the new gig yourself. It sounds promising.

    As soon as Heir No. Two overcomes The Crud that ate Tacoma™ everything will be fine except for the tax bill. 😉

    Like

  217. And congrats on landing the new gig yourself. It sounds promising.

    Thanks, man. I am extremely excited about this opportunity.

    except for the tax bill.

    heh heh heh…

    When I was let go last June, we had just refinanced and reduced our mortgage by ~$200.

    I just got a letter from my mortgage holder, telling me my mortgage will increase by ~$200, to cover the increase in property taxes.

    s’funny how that happens, huh?

    Like

  218. This reminds me of the sex-smear campaign Dems went on in 1998 to intimidate Republican members of Congress, and run cover for the adulterer in chief Clinton.

    They were able to slime up a 30 + year old extramarital affair of Henry Hyde’s, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the man who was leading the impeachment hearings..

    That is how Dems play. They will defend one of theirs’ whether it’s rape, murder, or running a gay brothel from an apartment, they circle the wagons, baby.

    But when the political stakes are high it’s dig, dig, dig, like wombats for any kind of dirt they can find on an opponent, no matter how old, no matter how dubious.

    Apparently, that’s what they’re doing in Massachusetts right now with Scott Brown because he’s got high approval numbers and needs to be brought down a peg.

    Democrats disgust me to no end.

    Like

  219. Democrats disgust me to no end.

    On the plus side, their game is no longer being played under the cloak of darkness. They may still win this game for a while, it’s just a matter of time before the standard playbook fails due to the efforts of people like you, Deb.

    Dems are who they are. And the best disinfectant is the light of truth.

    I may not be here very often, but I’ve always got your back.

    Like

  220. Thanks, man. I am extremely excited about this opportunity.

    I’m glad to see you got it. It has to be a relief to know something is coming back in again.

    s’funny how that happens, huh?

    I might be able to laugh in July or August. Maybe.

    Of course, if the clients would actually pay their bills after the trials, I might not be quite so troubled. It’s that gulf between what is earned and what is paid that is troubling me right now.

    Like

  221. Exactly Deb,

    This also reminds me of how DemoncRats constantly and unfairly accuse Newt Gingritch of hypocrisy. They are always attempting to denigrate Mr Gingritch’s sterling family values and dedication to God’s law by dredging up his cancer-ridden, bitter ex-wives.

    Like

  222. This also reminds me of how DemoncRats constantly and unfairly accuse Newt Gingritch of hypocrisy. They are always attempting to denigrate Mr Gingritch’s sterling family values and dedication to God’s law by dredging up his cancer-ridden, bitter ex-wives.

    How cute.

    Like

  223. By the way…it’s more than a little odd that you would put on the mock Christian tone, when no arguments are being made on this thread using an overtly Christian attitude.

    WTF?

    Like

  224. Of course, if the clients would actually pay their bills after the trials, I might not be quite so troubled. It’s that gulf between what is earned and what is paid that is troubling me right now.

    best wishes, my friend.

    Like

  225. it’s more than a little odd that you would put on the mock Christian tone, when no arguments are being made on this thread using overtly Christian arguments.

    psssst….. deb…. it’s another TBogger……. expecting rational cognitive honesty from one of them is a fool’s game…..

    Like

  226. Can I play, too?

    Senator Widestance…sterling Christian values …blablabla—God’s law!, eleventy!!11!

    I just made an argument that makes sense to average TBogg reader.

    Like

  227. Well, at least it was better than your assertion that it is worse to bring up a man’s history of poor judgment than it is to let a pedophile walk so he can go on a twenty-five year child rape spree.

    Like

  228. Well, at least it was better than your assertion that it is worse to bring up a man’s history of poor judgment than it is to let a pedophile walk so he can go on a twenty-five year child rape spree.

    Repeating a demonstrably stupid argument doesn’t make it any less stupid. But maybe you have a problem with reading comprehension too?

    Like

  229. Pingback: Moonlight Swim-2 April 11 | adeliemanchot

  230. So, BlackisWhite, let me sum it up:
    1)Since Prosser has been drawing a government check ever since his deplorable lapse of judgement in this incident, no one should take that deplorable lapse of judgement into consideration.
    2)Prosser didn’t even have the police investigate the incident. Who is it with the poor reading comprehension?
    3)Typos now constitute evidence that English is someone’s second language.
    4)Because this incident happened before Prosser was a judge, it doesn’t count. See also #1.

    Typical wingnut weak tea, as per usual.

    As for you “nice”deb, since your pal BlackisWhite is a big fan of the dictionary, I suggest you look up the definition of “thug”: a brutal ruffian or assassin : GANGSTER. KILLER. Now, I know that like so much else, words often don’t mean what you wingnuts wish they meant. But taking your business elsewhere, or even threatening someone with a boycott because they support policies that undermine your own interests is what is known as “free speech”. Note that making said threat is not akin to inflicting physical harm or death; hence, rather than being “thugs” these people are merely “people who do not believe the same things you believe.”

    Get back to us when people start killing shopkeepers who don’t support union rights. Maybe then you’ll have a point.

    Like

  231. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 2, 2011 at 10:28 pm

    “So, English is your second language?”

    Hey Blackiswhite, if you’re going to judge others so harshly for employing the wrong word, why don’t you explain to the rest of the class how exactly I’ve been practicing “prognostication” throughout this thread?

    Furthermore, QQ Moar was right, I think you meant to say “logical contortionist”, not logistical. There is a distinct difference between the two terms.

    [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logical]
    [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logistical]

    Like

  232. nicedeb Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 12:07 am

    Here’s Merryfield’s statement to the media about the slimy ad, by the way. I should have linked to this in the post:

    Click to access Troy_Merryfield_Statement.pdf

    And here’s a Journal-Sentinel article wherein Troy asks Prosser to recuse himself from a sex offender case that could have resulted in the release of Father Feeney:
    http://prosserfacts.com/victim-statement_01_mjs.htm

    Further down the article there’s this interesting tidbit:

    “According to police reports, the Merryfields’ mother initially complained to the diocese, and she dropped the matter when she was told the priest had been removed from the ministry. When she found out he had been moved to another parish, she called police. Prosser, accompanied by a deacon and another member of the parish, went to the woman’s home, where he told her the trial would be too hard on her sons.

    ‘I was ready to take the stand,’ Troy Merryfield said Monday. ‘He (Prosser) said it would be too embarrassing for a kid my age and said what jury would believe a kid testifying against a priest? Then he said, what really makes it bad is that Feeney’s brother, Joe, sang on the Lawrence Welk show and everybody watched that back then.'”

    I just wish you guys would admit that Prosser exercised poor judgment in failing to pursue Father Feeney to the full extent of the law. And because of that poor judgment, untold number of other children were molested.

    Does that make Prosser an accessory to Feeney? No, that’s a crazy conclusion. But it does make Prosser incompetent and, in my opinion, unfit to serve any longer on the highest court in my state.

    Like

  233. I just wish you guys would admit that Prosser exercised poor judgment in failing to pursue Father Feeney to the full extent of the law.

    I think we all wish that Prosser had prosecuted Father Feeney. We all wish that he’d felt that he had a strong case, with solid witnesses and incontrovertible proof. We wish that he could have made his decision in today’s environment, where pedophilia by priests is a well-understood, well-litigated problem. We’re happy that once those conditions existed, he fully supported prosecution of Feeney.

    That doesn’t mean that he exercised poor judgment in not prosecuting 30 years ago. And even if he had exercised poor judgment, it wouldn’t “make Prosser incompetent.” That’s a wild logical leap. You need to show a systematic problem where Prosser consistently let pedophiles go free to make that case, rather than relying on a single instance. Then you need to show that being a bad prosecutor translates into being a bad judge. Skipping those steps makes for a puerile argument.

    And let’s be honest – none of the TBoggians are worried about pedophiles roaming the streets because Prosser serves in the state supreme court. It’s his other decisions that bother them.

    Like

  234. “You need to show a systematic problem where Prosser consistently let pedophiles go free to make that case, rather than relying on a single instance.”

    As I am sure you are well aware: once you fuck a sheep, you’re pretty much known as a sheep fucker.

    Like

  235. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 10:20 am
    “That doesn’t mean that he exercised poor judgment in not prosecuting 30 years ago. And even if he had exercised poor judgment, it wouldn’t ‘make Prosser incompetent.’ That’s a wild logical leap. You need to show a systematic problem where Prosser consistently let pedophiles go free to make that case, rather than relying on a single instance. Then you need to show that being a bad prosecutor translates into being a bad judge. Skipping those steps makes for a puerile argument.”

    So you don’t think it was poor judgment to allow a man to escape the clutches of the justice system (before even being fully investigated) to commit untold sex offenses for another couple of decades?

    And I’m frankly shocked at your contention that the highest county prosecutor any particular county should be allowed a mulligan when his poor judgment allows a sex predator to go unpunished. Hey, we all make mistakes, right?

    I’m not saying Prosser should be disbarred or jailed. All I’m saying is that I don’t want a person who exercises this level of poor judgment to be a supreme court justice.

    “And let’s be honest – none of the TBoggians are worried about pedophiles roaming the streets because Prosser serves in the state supreme court. It’s his other decisions that bother them.”

    Well, it’s good to see that you refrain from making any of those “wild logical leaps” you so casually accuse others of committing.

    Again, this notion that somehow all the evidence of Prosser’s misconduct and poor judgment regarding the Merryfield case are instantly discredited by the simple fact that folks like me don’t want him to win another 10 year term is completely illogical.

    Let me ask you this: Did Clinton not commit perjury because the people who pursued the case wanted him removed from power? Did Obama not attend Rev. Wright’s church or “pal around” with Bill Ayers because the people who harp on those facts want Obama removed from power?

    Like

  236. “You can only argue/judge THE CASE THAT YOU HAVE, and quite frankly, in 1978 – heck, even today – the facts of this particular case would not have risen to meet the burden of proof to go to trial.”

    Yes, things were JUST SO HARD in 1978…

    …especially the Catholic priests.

    Interestingly. the facts must “have risen to meet the burden of proof” or the priest wouldn’t be in prison serving a 15-year sentence (instead of continuing servicing 15-year-olds in the confessional as he did for another 25 years when Prosser refused to refer this case to the Sheriff’s office for investigation.)

    “Oops! My bad” just ain’t gonna cut it anymore.

    Like

  237. nicedeb Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 12:07 am

    Here’s Merryfield’s statement to the media…

    How come you place so much value on what he says recently, but completely discount what he said 25 years ago when he told Prosser that a priest molested him, and Prosser did nothing?

    (Well, that’s not completely true – Prosser did get the church to agree to transfer Feeney to another diocese so he could molest another community’s children for 25 years, and that’s gotta count as doing something!)

    Which statement Merryfield made is actually really more important?

    Like

  238. As I am sure you are well aware: once you fuck a sheep, you’re pretty much known as a sheep fucker.

    I’ll let that stand on its own merits, few as they are.

    So you don’t think it was poor judgment to allow a man to escape the clutches of the justice system (before even being fully investigated) to commit untold sex offenses for another couple of decades?

    I think it’s poor judgment for you to characterize the situation that way. Try again, this time with a little less hindsight and a bit more objectivity.

    I will say, though, that it’s very encouraging that the liberal set is joining conservatives in our desire to be tougher on crime. Welcome!!

    Like

  239. How come you place so much value on what he says recently, but completely discount what he said 25 years ago when he told Prosser that a priest molested him, and Prosser did nothing?

    When did I discount what Merryfield said 25 years ago?

    And why would you say Prosser did nothing, when you know that’s not true?

    Like

  240. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 12:02 pm
    “So you don’t think it was poor judgment to allow a man to escape the clutches of the justice system (before even being fully investigated) to commit untold sex offenses for another couple of decades?

    I think it’s poor judgment for you to characterize the situation that way. Try again, this time with a little less hindsight and a bit more objectivity.”

    Or how about you try toning down the condescension and dismissive attitude and just answer the question. Or at least you could attempt to explain how exactly I mischaracterized what happened back in 1978?

    “I will say, though, that it’s very encouraging that the liberal set is joining conservatives in our desire to be tougher on crime. Welcome!!”

    You know, you can just debate me directly and ignore that monolithic liberal stereotype that exists only in your fevered imagination. Or do you honestly believe that “liberals” didn’t care at all about child sex assault until this story came about? Do you realise that the chief reason society became so much more conscious about pedophile priests and sex assault in general was due to those two stalwart liberal boogeymen: trial attorneys and feminists?

    Like

  241. All I’m saying is that I don’t want a person who exercises this level of poor judgment to be a supreme court justice.

    Do you feel the same way about Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe School Czar?

    I’m not changing the subject. The subject is your hypocrisy, and real motivation for going after Prosser for a mistake in judgment he made over 30 years ago, (which was made with the family’s acquiescence, and to protect the victims from further embarrassment).

    The group Jennings founded and led, GLSEN, recommended books from this perverted reading list for school aged kids:

    http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2009/12/breaking-obamas-safe-schools-czar-is-promoting-porn-in-the-classroom-kevin-jennings-and-the-glsen-reading-list/

    Read some of the passages from the books, I dare you. Books that include sex between kindergartners and first graders. Books that promote sex between adults and boys. Books, I might add, Obama’s Safe School Czar recommended through the group GLSEN.

    I would think the pedophile-averse lot over at TBogg would strongly object to such a thing.

    Yes, of course Media Matters responded. I’ll save you the time. Their defense of this was laughably weak. The GLSEN recommended reading page offered a blurb that some parents might not find these books suitable for their children. Actually no parents would find these books suitable for their kids, and no responsible adult would recommend these books. But Jennings’ group, GLSEN did.

    GLSEN sponsoring conferences where fisting is demonstrated and perverted handouts are distributed to middle school kids is something I would think pedophile-averse people would strongly object to.

    Here’s what the morally outraged at Prosser for a decision he made over 30 years ago with the family’s approval, TBogg, said about the Kevin Jennings story:

    Hoft has been beating his meat the Jennings story like a four-hour erection drum for about two weeks now, mostly with misrepresentations, conspiracy theories, hardened nipples, exaggerations, thinly concealed envy, feigned outrage, a small but noticeable bulge, and what some people call “lies” or, as they are known in more polite circles: “undiluted bullshit”.

    http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2009/12/15/the-tree-of-liberty-needs-to-be-probed-from-time-to-time-with-the-fist-of-freedom/

    No, you guys are full of undiluted bullshit. Like I said: you will defend the most morally repugnant people imaginable, when they’re one of your own. But it’s balls to the wall when you feel like there’s a vulnerability in an opponent, no matter how old, or how dubious your case. No matter even if the person you would think has the ultimate moral authority to set things straight, tells you you’re wrong.

    “Feigned outrage” indeed.

    Like

  242. I mercifully left out Jennings’ own mistake in judgment when as a student councilor, he didn’t report that a 15/16 year old boy was having sex with a grown man/men.
    The statute in Massachusetts mandating the report of sexual activity between an adult and child under 18 at that time.

    http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/09/28/the-saga-of-kevin-jennings-and-brewster-enter-robertson/

    And I left out Jennings’ ringing endorsement of famed NAMBLA supporter, Harry Hay, whom Jennings called, “an inspiration”.

    http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=990

    http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=1152

    Like

  243. Shorter Nicedeb: “Throckmorton, Jennings, blah blah blah, I can’t think of anything slimier than accusing someone with enabling pedophilia, knowing it’s a false charge, but doing it anyway for raw political power, blah blah blah, Jennings, Throckmorton.”

    The finger of flame has turned upon itself.

    BTW – I spent the afternoon making sure a pedophile priest is transferred to another district instead of investigated, and I know you’re ALL gonna stand by me in 25 years because god knows conservatives would never defend the most morally repugnant people imaginable, when they’re one of your own. But it’s never balls to the wall when you feel like there’s a vulnerability in an opponent, no matter how old, or how dubious your case with this sad, sorry lot.

    Like

  244. making sure a pedophile priest is transferred to another district instead of investigated,

    Um, no, as Merryfield himself said; Prosser was assured by the Green Bay Catholic Diocese that administrative action would be taken against the priest, which in retrospect appears to have been a lie.

    But keep mischaracterizing what happened. It’s all you people have. A sense of shame you certainly don’t have.

    Like

  245. By the way. Objecting to Jennings as “Safe School Czar”, has nothing to do with raw politics. It has to do with objecting to a person with his problematic and perverse background having influence over policy in the schools. It has something to do with being a mother of 6 kids, 4 in public schools, and 2 in college. It’s personal.

    With you people it’s always about power. Always. You don’t understand anything else, so you project your own motives onto others.

    Like

  246. Or how about you try toning down the condescension and dismissive attitude and just answer the question. Or at least you could attempt to explain how exactly I mischaracterized what happened back in 1978?

    Nyoop, I’m not going to address your prejudiced strawman, nor am I going to try to clean it up for you. I don’t do homework for libs. Besides, it would be a waste of time for both of us: the flaws in your characterization have been shown throughout this thread, but you persist in bleating the same inaccurate blither.

    Or do you honestly believe that “liberals” didn’t care at all about child sex assault until this story came about?

    Another outstanding strawman!! They just roll off your tongue. Let me help you out on this one: I honestly believe that liberals are not as tough on crime as conservatives. And I, for one, am pleased as punch that you’re pushing so hard for prosecutors to lower their standards when deciding whether to prosecute the accused.

    Like

  247. nicedeb Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 2:00 pm
    “Do you feel the same way about Kevin Jennings, Obama’s ‘Safe School Czar?’

    I’m not changing the subject.”

    Of course you are, since the subject of your post was David Prosser and David Prosser is the only subject that I’ve discussed on this thread. But go ahead with your diversion…

    “The subject is your hypocrisy, and real motivation for going after Prosser for a mistake in judgment he made over 30 years ago, (which was made with the family’s acquiescence, and to protect the victims from further embarrassment).”

    So I’m a “hypocrite” simply because I disagree with your characterization of how Prosser handled the Merryfield case 30 years ago. I wasn’t aware that was the definition of hypocrite, but again, go on…

    “The group Jennings founded and led, GLSEN, recommended books from this perverted reading list for school aged kids:

    http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2009/12/breaking-obamas-safe-schools-czar-is-promoting-porn-in-the-classroom-kevin-jennings-and-the-glsen-reading-list/

    Read some of the passages from the books, I dare you.”

    Only if you double-dog dare me….

    “Books that include sex between kindergartners and first graders. Books that promote sex between adults and boys. Books, I might add, Obama’s Safe School Czar recommended through the group GLSEN.”

    Okay, if any of that is true, I can understand your outrage. What I can’t understand at all is why you think it’s relevant to whether I’ll vote for David Prosser or JoAnne Kloppenburg this Tuesday. Unless I’ve missed something, the “Safe Schools Czar” is not an elected position and I have no control over whether Ken Jennings is appointed to that position or not. Finally, if you are sourcing your outrage to Gateway Pundit, well, that’s not exactly very reliable is it?

    “Here’s what the morally outraged at Prosser for a decision he made over 30 years ago with the family’s approval, TBogg, said about the Kevin Jennings story:

    ‘Hoft has been beating his meat the Jennings story like a four-hour erection drum for about two weeks now, mostly with misrepresentations, conspiracy theories, hardened nipples, exaggerations, thinly concealed envy, feigned outrage, a small but noticeable bulge, and what some people call ‘lies’ or, as they are known in more polite circles: ‘undiluted bullshit’.

    http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2009/12/15/the-tree-of-liberty-needs-to-be-probed-from-time-to-time-with-the-fist-of-freedom/

    No, you guys are full of undiluted bullshit. Like I said: you will defend the most morally repugnant people imaginable, when they’re one of your own. But it’s balls to the wall when you feel like there’s a vulnerability in an opponent, no matter how old, or how dubious your case. No matter even if the person you would think has the ultimate moral authority to set things straight, tells you you’re wrong.

    ‘Feigned outrage’ indeed.”

    Boy, you must have felt very relieved getting that screed off your chest.

    First, I’m not TBogg, okay? I don’t have anything to do with him or his site. So I certainly don’t speak for him (he speaks well enough for himself anyway) and I don’t like being lumped in with every person you don’t like as if all of us folks who dare to be left-of-Glenn Beck are just some monolithic, single-minded collective that exists solely to frustrate and anger you Nicedeb.

    Second, where have I defended even one “morally repugnant” person? I’ve certainly never defended Ken Jennings (especially since I’ve never even heard of the guy before). Not everyone exists in your weird rightwing echochamber where you guys apparently endlessly dissect the moral failings of Bill Ayers, Ken Jennings, Eric Holder, and Bill Clinton.

    Instead, I have steadily defended my position that David Prosser is unfit to continue on the WI Supreme Court because, in my opinion, he exercised gross neglect of duty regarding the Merryfield case. This is the first time we Wisconsinites have had the opportunity to vote for Prosser since the full story of this case has been exposed over the last decade, and I will be voting against his re-election. Sorry you find that personal decision so gosh-darned offensive, but I guess you’re just going to have to live with it.

    Like

  248. First, I never said Prosser committed “malpractice” specifically. I’ve repeatedly categorized the way he handled the Merryfield case as “misconduct” or “professional neglect.” I’m not contending that he could be formally challenged for misconduct since as a prosecutor he enjoys wide discretionary latitude. As I’ve said from the outset, I simply feel that based on the facts presented that Prosser was grossly negligent in the manner in which he handled the Merryfield case and I think it disqualifies him from a seat on the highest court in my state.

    No, you just used a word that is applied when prosecutors are guilty of wrongdoing. Purely coincidental, I’m sure. Especially when it gives your “feelings” that special “umpf”.

    So, BlackisWhite, let me sum it up:
    1)Since Prosser has been drawing a government check ever since his deplorable lapse of judgement in this incident, no one should take that deplorable lapse of judgement into consideration.

    No. What I’m saying is one exercise of discretion over 30 years ago, in the absence of nothing more for you to add to your consideration is hardly a reasonable basis for considering him to be incompetent or unfit to continue in a job that there is no evidence that he has performed incompetently or negligently already.

    2)Prosser didn’t even have the police investigate the incident. Who is it with the poor reading comprehension?

    You. I’ll direct you to the decision of the court of appeals which was linked prior to your first comment, specifically this passage:

    When Sharon learned of these incidents the next morning, she sought guidance from the church hierarchy before filing a police report in January 1979. The district attorney at the time initially declined to prosecute the case.

    [Emphasis Mine.]

    You see, this didn’t originate in the prosecutor’s office, but then cases that begin with someone filing a police complaint don’t. When a person makes a complaint, the police investigate, before the prosecutor gets involved
    .

    The complaint Sharon filed appears to have resurfaced when, in response to another victim’s allegations made in April 2002, detectives began searching records for any similar abuse complaints against Feeney. Finding the 1979 complaint, detectives contacted and re-interviewed Todd and Troy.

    [Emphasis Mine.]

    “Re-interviewed”. That means that an investigation was done at the time the case was filed. Huh. I guess that means that Prosser didn’t stop anyone from investigating. Curious, that.

    3)Typos now constitute evidence that English is someone’s second language.

    I wasn’t aware that someone so sure of herself could make a mistake.

    4)Because this incident happened before Prosser was a judge, it doesn’t count. See also #1.

    I never said it didn’t count. In fact, I’m pretty sure that I’ve called to attention certain difficulties that would have made trying this case a difficult proposition…such as the fact that sexual abuse cases really didn’t become commonplace until the mid to late 80s…several years after the event’s Feeney was eventually convicted of in the case in question. Then there is the fact that the boys were 12 and 15…both minors. This means that before their statements or testimony can be taken, they have to be adjudged competent to testify. Before the bubble of sexual abuse cases in the mid to late 80’s, getting these young victims qualified to testify was very difficult, and in many cases, there was no procedure allowing the use of their out of court statements to investigators in lieu of testimony, as there are in many states today. That meant that IF they were allowed to testify, they would be subject to cross-examination, and being bullied and pushed by the defense attorney. Before you poo-poo that, ask a rape victim who testified against their attacker before many of the rape shield laws were passed. Now imagine it with a 12 and 15 year old. Prosser did, as the court of appeals recognized:

    Second, the record reveals that the district attorney’s decision in 1979 not to charge Feeney was unrelated to the merits of the case. Instead, the district attorney was concerned about the stress Todd and Troy would face as witnesses in the trial, as well as publicity regarding the trial because of Feeney’s well-known brother, a singer on the popular Lawrence Welk television program.

    For all the talk of “professional misconduct” and “incompetence” and “lapse of judgement” from people who have neither the responsibility or liability that go with the discretion inherent in the position, who lack the perspective that is part and parcel of the profession, and who steadfastly ignore the lack of admonishment from people who were, in fact, in a position to call attention to Prosser’s actions, and criticize them, I have to say I’m soundly disappointed.

    If you had a pattern of such behavior to point to…
    If you had a history of continually being reversed on appeal…
    If you had a strong record of misconduct or malfeasance, then you might have something.

    What you have is politically motivated outrage. Either you’re willingly going along, or you’re being used. I don’t care which. The question is whether or not you do.

    Like

  249. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    Or how about you try toning down the condescension and dismissive attitude and just answer the question. Or at least you could attempt to explain how exactly I mischaracterized what happened back in 1978?

    Nyoop, I’m not going to address your prejudiced strawman, nor am I going to try to clean it up for you. I don’t do homework for libs. Besides, it would be a waste of time for both of us: the flaws in your characterization have been shown throughout this thread, but you persist in bleating the same inaccurate blither.”

    Nyoop? Blither? Oookay. Anyway, regardless of your dodging, you’ve already addressed my POV by attacking it as an “unfair characterization” and now as a “prejudiced strawman”. All I’ve asked is that you actually explain what the hell you mean beyond those empty catchphrases. If you think I’m asking you to do my homework by requesting you more fully explain your position, well, I don’t what to say to that, other than I think you might be a little confused.

    “Or do you honestly believe that “liberals” didn’t care at all about child sex assault until this story came about?

    Another outstanding strawman!! They just roll off your tongue. Let me help you out on this one: I honestly believe that liberals are not as tough on crime as conservatives. And I, for one, am pleased as punch that you’re pushing so hard for prosecutors to lower their standards when deciding whether to prosecute the accused.”

    How is that a strawman? Do you even understand what a “strawman” is? Here’s a hint: it doesn’t mean anything your debate opponent says that you find disagreeable.

    I simply replied to your sarcastic charge that it was refreshing that liberals suddenly care about the crime of sex assault with the fact that it was liberals who led the exposure of the pedophile priest scandal as well as the reform of sex assault laws overall. And how exactly would it be a lowering of standards for prosecutors to get an arrest warrant for a man for whom probable cause exists to believe he sexually assaulted two boys. Or order an full police investigation of the matter?

    Like

  250. “Re-interviewed”. That means that an investigation was done at the time the case was filed. Huh. I guess that means that Prosser didn’t stop anyone from investigating. Curious, that.

    Well, in fairness, Prosser had already made his decision not to prosecute before the detectives did their interviews in 1979. But they obviously didn’t come up with enough evidence to pursue charges.

    Or maybe they, too, are soft on pedophiles and unworthy to serve in public office!!

    Like

  251. Do you even understand what a “strawman” is? Here’s a hint: it doesn’t mean anything your debate opponent says that you find disagreeable.

    Here’s another hint: when I say “I’m glad you’re getting tougher on crime,” it doesn’t mean “liberals don’t care about sexual assault against children.” That’s why it’s a strawman, see? Because you’ve made up an absurd, distorted statement to debate, rather than the real statement.

    And how exactly would it be a lowering of standards for prosecutors to get an arrest warrant for a man for whom probable cause exists to believe he sexually assaulted two boys.

    It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t know the answer to that question. Let’s ask this instead: why didn’t the Sheriff’s department issue an arrest warrant when the complaint was filed in 1979? Prosser didn’t stop them.

    …with the fact that it was liberals who led the exposure of the pedophile priest scandal as well as the reform of sex assault laws overall.

    Yeah, I just ignored that because it was silly. Feminists? Har. Trial attorneys? Hunh? Try prosecutors and The Boston Globe. From Wikipedia:

    It was not until early 2002 that the Boston Globe coverage of a series of criminal prosecutions of five Roman Catholic priests thrust the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests into the national limelight.

    The Globe is certainly liberal, so kudos to the libs for that. The criminal prosecutors, on the other hand, are hopefully apolitical in their work.

    Like

  252. Today’s conservatives when it comes to men who molest children:

    Tough on crime!Taking assurances that churches are pursuing “Administrative Action” for pedos! Since 1978!!

    Although, transferring a pedo to rape another community’s children is generally considered “an administrative action” too. So, you know, good job Prosser! Also!

    Like

  253. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    “Do you even understand what a ‘strawman’ is? Here’s a hint: it doesn’t mean anything your debate opponent says that you find disagreeable.

    Here’s another hint: when I say ‘I’m glad you’re getting tougher on crime,’ it doesn’t mean ‘liberals don’t care about sexual assault against children.’ That’s why it’s a strawman, see? Because you’ve made up an absurd, distorted statement to debate, rather than the real statement.”

    First, here’s exactly what you said: “I will say, though, that it’s very encouraging that the liberal set is joining conservatives in our desire to be tougher on crime.”

    Here’s what I said in response: “do you honestly believe that “liberals” didn’t care at all about child sex assault until this story came about?”

    You think I didn’t notice that you left off “until this story came about”? I’m sure that was purely accidental? If read in it’s entirety, my response to your statement is completely reasonable and not in anyway an “absurd distortion” of what you said. It’s perfectly in line with what you intimated.

    “It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t know the answer to that question. Let’s ask this instead: why didn’t the Sheriff’s department issue an arrest warrant when the complaint was filed in 1979? Prosser didn’t stop them.”

    Um, because the Sheriff’s Department doesn’t have the power to issue arrest warrants, nor did they ever have the opportunity to investigate the claims made by the Merryfield brothers.

    “with the fact that it was liberals who led the exposure of the pedophile priest scandal as well as the reform of sex assault laws overall.

    Yeah, I just ignored that because it was silly. Feminists? Har. Trial attorneys? Hunh?”

    So you don’t think feminists lead the charge to reform sex assault laws? Really?

    And yes, despite your apparent ignorance on the matter, trial attorneys have brought thousands of civil actions against various dioceses, exposing how widespread the corruption of the church was with regard to shielding pedophile priests from prosecution. In fact, if wasn’t for trial attorneys winning a massive discovery demand against the Green Bay Diocese, the extent of Father Feeney’s crimes might have never been exposed. If you just go upthread, we already discussed this issue pretty extensively.

    “Try prosecutors and The Boston Globe. From Wikipedia:

    It was not until early 2002 that the Boston Globe coverage of a series of criminal prosecutions of five Roman Catholic priests thrust the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests into the national limelight.

    The Globe is certainly liberal, so kudos to the libs for that. The criminal prosecutors, on the other hand, are hopefully apolitical in their work.”

    Well, since you’re so sensitive to those dastardly “strawmen” logical fallacies, I’m sure you’re not attempting to mischaracterize my earlier statements as somehow claiming that criminal prosecutors had nothing to do with bringing these pedophile priests to justice. And it’s weird that you’re so confident that not one single prosecutor could ever be a liberal.

    Like

  254. Today’s conservatives when it comes to men who molest children:

    Tough on crime!Taking assurances that churches are pursuing “Administrative Action” for pedos! Since 1978!!

    And you say that knowing that the extent of the molestation was creepy touching that didn’t include the genitals.

    Your BS isn’t flying, here, buddy.

    Like

  255. Why is Deb pretending that this wasn’t rape? That’s not nice, Deb.

    “According to the 1979 police report: “Fr. Feeney then slipped his hand down and under his pajama bottom.” In 2004, Feeney was convicted of three counts of first degree sexual assault and one second degree. These charges included both the attack in the children’s bedroom, which Prosser knew about, as well the second assault in the confessional booth.”

    Like

  256. nicedeb Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    “Why is Deb pretending that this wasn’t rape?

    Because it wasn’t rape.”

    Pray tell Deb, what in your view occurred between Father Feeney and the Merryfield brothers in 1978 if it wasn’t rape?

    Like

  257. And stop arguing that Prosser is pro-pedo, or his defenders are pro-pedo. It’s a slimy, dishonest argument, and I’m banning the next person who makes it.

    Like

  258. It’s perfectly in line with what you intimated.

    Absolutely incorrect. The part I “left out” was irrelevant and remains so. The simple fact is, I never claimed that liberals, at any point in time, did not care about sexual assault against children. I never intimated it. I don’t care to discuss that premise because it’s absurd. It’s a strawman.

    Um, because the Sheriff’s Department doesn’t have the power to issue arrest warrants, nor did they ever have the opportunity to investigate the claims made by the Merryfield brothers.

    I’m so sorry, I was sloppy. Why didn’t they seek an arrest warrant? And why didn’t they have an opportunity to investigate the claims? They certainly opened an investigation and interviewed the brothers. And Prosser was no longer in the picture.

    And yes, despite your apparent ignorance on the matter, trial attorneys have brought thousands of civil actions against various dioceses, exposing how widespread the corruption of the church was with regard to shielding pedophile priests from prosecution.

    Yes, trial attorneys have brought a number of cases forward. But what brought the problem nationwide attention was the work of criminal prosecutors and the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting of the Globe. This was what “led the exposure,” etc.

    I’ll grant you that feminists did push for more aggressive laws against sexual crimes, though they have caused much harm as well as good. I glossed over that clause in your sentence, so I had mistakenly thought that you were crediting them with leading the charge in priest pedophilia cases as well.

    And it’s weird that you’re so confident that not one single prosecutor could ever be a liberal.

    You don’t read well, do you. Once again you’ve taken what I said and created a silly hyperbole from it. Show me where I said that not one single prosecutor could ever be a liberal. And while you’re at it, you might explain how having a single liberal prosecutor would cause the credit for the prosecution of priest pedophilia cases would accrue to the liberal side. Silly.

    Funny that you should get so bent out of shape over this. I applaud the fact that you’re pushing for a tougher stance on crime, and you get defensive. Don’t fight it: once the conservative seed has been planted, your fate is sealed. The next thing you know, you’ll start talking about fiscal responsibility.

    Like

  259. nicedeb Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    “A mild form of molestation.

    Rape is defined as forced intercourse which this was not, so stop characterizing it as such.”

    So you disagree with the WI jury that convicted Father Feeney of First Degree and Second Degree Sex Assault in 2004 for what he did to the Merryfield brothers in 1978?

    Like

  260. So you disagree with the WI jury that convicted Father Feeney of First Degree and Second Degree Sex Assault in 2004 for what he did to the Merryfield brothers in 1978?

    Prosser says that he didn’t hear about the first degree assault charges. All he had to go on was the touching of the chests, the wandering south, and the talking about penises. The first degree assault charges emerged in 1979, when Prosser had already moved on to the State Assembly.

    You’re trying to convict Prosser of not prosecuting crimes that he’d never heard of.

    Like

  261. Pray tell Deb, what in your view occurred between Father Feeney and the Merryfield brothers in 1978 if it wasn’t rape?

    You DID read the decision of the Court of Appeals, right?

    “Rape” is Third Degree Sexual Assault.

    Third degree sexual assault is rape. Wisconsin law defines third degree sexual assault as sexual intercourse with a person without consent of that person. Third degree sexual assault also occurs if a person intentionally ejaculates, urinates, or defecates upon any part of the body clothed or unclothed of the victim if such act was intended for purposes of sexual degradation, sexual humiliation, sexual arousal, or sexual gratification.

    http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Custom/sexual-assault.asp

    Feeney was convicted of sexual assault because his conduct was sexual contact, not intercourse.

    Sexual assault under Wis. Stat. § 940.225, whether first or second degree, occurs when one person “has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with another person without consent of that person….” Feeney had sexual contact with the boys, and sexual contact has a specific statutory meaning.[4] Sexual contact “means any intentional touching of the intimate parts … of another, if that intentional touching can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification….” Wis. Stat. § 940.225(5)(b).

    http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=20657

    Rape is a specific term, and one with a statutory definition.

    However, what Feeney was convicted of doesn’t even meet the general definition of rape.

    1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
    2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
    3. statutory rape.
    4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
    5. Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape

    Like

  262. I take a bit of that back – the confessional incident was unknown to Prosser, as was the pajama bottom business (does anybody have a link to that Police Report, BTW?). He did know about the attempt to touch in the bedroom, which was later charged as a first degree assault, as was the touching of the chest (in one case).

    The Sheriff’s Department knew all this (except for the confessional incident) in 1979. So what was their problem?

    Like

  263. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    “So you disagree with the WI jury that convicted Father Feeney of First Degree and Second Degree Sex Assault in 2004 for what he did to the Merryfield brothers in 1978?

    Prosser says that he didn’t hear about the first degree assault charges. All he had to go on was the touching of the chests, the wandering south, and the talking about penises. The first degree assault charges emerged in 1979, when Prosser had already moved on to the State Assembly.

    You’re trying to convict Prosser of not prosecuting crimes that he’d never heard of.”

    I’m doing no such thing! I was addressing my question to Nicedeb, who claims “rape” didn’t occur between Feeney and the Merryfield brothers.

    Roll upthread and educate yourself before leaping in.

    Like

  264. Can’t help but notice that pointing out nicedeb’s sliming of pro-union activists as “thugs”, which is every bit as dishonest, according to the dictionary, as the characterization of Prosser as “pro-pedophile”. Case the second, according to deb, is History’s Greatest Injustice™. Meanwhile, it has been pointed out to deb that “thug” has a defined meaning quite different than the one she would like to assign to it, and this observation has been met with the sound of crickets.

    Demonstrating once again that IOKIYAR.

    (released from spam bucket, 11:41pm)

    Can you really be this obtuse? You don’t get why some union people (not all) but a significant number have earned the nickname “union thugs”? Go to youtube sometime, and type in “union thug”…okay? I’m not going to spell it out for you. You can see it for yourself. As for the mob-like protection racket unions have going with their threats against neutral businesses in Wisconsin, um… extortion is a crime. Thug means criminal. Get it?

    Good lord. -Ed

    Like

  265. I’m doing no such thing! I was addressing my question to Nicedeb, who claims “rape” didn’t occur between Feeney and the Merryfield brothers.

    A claim that has been confirmed…pesky old laws and courts…what the hell kind of business do they have kicking the legs out from underneath your allegations, anyway?

    Educate yourself, indeed. I love it when laypeople with an agenda play lawyer.

    Like

  266. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    “Pray tell Deb, what in your view occurred between Father Feeney and the Merryfield brothers in 1978 if it wasn’t rape?

    You DID read the decision of the Court of Appeals, right?

    “Rape” is Third Degree Sexual Assault.

    Third degree sexual assault is rape. Wisconsin law defines third degree sexual assault as sexual intercourse with a person without consent of that person. Third degree sexual assault also occurs if a person intentionally ejaculates, urinates, or defecates upon any part of the body clothed or unclothed of the victim if such act was intended for purposes of sexual degradation, sexual humiliation, sexual arousal, or sexual gratification.

    http://www.vanwagnerwood.com/CM/Custom/sexual-assault.asp

    Feeney was convicted of sexual assault because his conduct was sexual contact, not intercourse.”

    Yes, I did read the WI COA decision, wherein they affirmed his convictions for first and second degree sex assault.

    And just for your information, first and second degree sex assault are rape too.

    First Degree SA in WI is distinguished from third degree sex assault when the activity involves forcible sexual contact or intercourse along with violence causing great bodily harm or impregnation, use of a dangerous weapon, or the aiding and abetting of either.

    Of course, if you’d bothered to study the link you posted a bit closer, you’d have noted the fact that “Sexual assault of a minor child can also be charged as a 1st degree sexual assault crime.”

    Yes, third degree SA is “rape” too. All but Fourth Degree SA involve rape. It’s the degree of force, violence, and coercion that distinguish their severity, not whether forcible intercourse occurred. I would have thought a fancy lawyer like you Blackiswhite would know that First Degree SA is more severe than Third Degree SA.

    Like

  267. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    “I’m doing no such thing! I was addressing my question to Nicedeb, who claims ‘rape’ didn’t occur between Feeney and the Merryfield brothers.

    A claim that has been confirmed…pesky old laws and courts…what the hell kind of business do they have kicking the legs out from underneath your allegations, anyway?

    Educate yourself, indeed. I love it when laypeople with an agenda play lawyer.”

    So now you’re claiming that convictions of First and Second Degree SA against minors don’t constitute rape? Am I understanding you correctly?

    Like

  268. So now you’re claiming that convictions of First and Second Degree SA against minors don’t constitute rape?

    No, I’m saying in this case, it wasn’t “rape”.

    It was first degree because it was sexual contact with a minor. I did read the link, which made it clear that “rape” is forcible intercourse, consistent with the traditional definition.

    Be careful. If you wander around on the surface of your pretzel logic long enough, you might just run into yourself.

    Like

  269. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    “Be careful. If you wander around on the surface of your pretzel logic long enough, you might just run into yourself.”

    Or, as in your case, the logical trail you’ve chosen may lead you to the ignominious position of diminishing the crimes of a child pedophile…

    Like

  270. Or, as in your case, the logical trail you’ve chosen may lead you to the ignominious position of diminishing the crimes of a child pedophile…

    Or just being precise.

    It was creepy as hell. It was inappropriate. And a jury decided it was sexually gratifying for him. But it wasn’t intercourse. And if it wasn’t intercourse, it wasn’t rape.

    Like

  271. I’m doing no such thing! I was addressing my question to Nicedeb, who claims “rape” didn’t occur between Feeney and the Merryfield brothers.

    Well of course it didn’t. They were sexually assaulted, not raped. From the Wisconsin Legislature site:

    322.120
    322.120 Article 120 — Rape and carnal knowledge.

    322.120(1)
    (1) Any person who commits an act of sexual intercourse, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    322.120(2)
    (2) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape , commits an act of sexual intercourse with a person who is not that person’s spouse, and who has not attained the age of 16 years; is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    322.120(3)
    (3) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.

    Since the rape point was stupid, I was trying to clarify which crimes Prosser could have know about and prosecuted.

    Like

  272. Well I’m done with this until one of the TBoggians decides to explain to me why the Sheriff’s Department didn’t pursue charges against Feeney in 1979, even though they had more justification than Prosser.

    Like

  273. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    “Well I’m done with this until one of the TBoggians decides to explain to me why the Sheriff’s Department didn’t pursue charges against Feeney in 1979, even though they had more justification than Prosser.”

    Geoff – according to PolitiFact [http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/29/greater-wisconsin-committee/greater-wisconsin-committee-says-supreme-court-jus/]:

    “Prosser said in the editorial board interview that he interviewed both boys and found another Feeney victim, but that victim refused to testify. He did not ask a police agency — in this case, the Sheriff’s Department — to investigate, so the ad is correct on that claim.

    It is an open question whether the Sheriff’s Department would have investigated the Merryfield boys incident and related cases more vigorously than Prosser did.”

    The didn’t investigate because they were never made aware of the claims made by the Merryfield brothers nor the other complainant.

    Like

  274. The didn’t investigate because they were never made aware of the claims made by the Merryfield brothers nor the other complainant.

    They were certainly made aware of the claims when Sharon Merryfield filed her complaint in January 1979. They were certainly made aware of the claims when they interviewed the boys after the complaint was filed. They were certainly made aware of the claims when they prepared the police report that you all have been quoting.

    They opened an investigation after Prosser left the DA’s office. How is it possible that your statement is true?

    Like

  275. Let’s clarify the timing:

    May 21, 1978: Bedroom assault occurs
    December 18, 1978: Green Bay Bishop writes letter saying that he told Prosser that they were moving Feeney.
    January, 1979: Prosser leaves for State Assembly, Sharon Merryfield files police complaint.
    Some time in 1979: Police file report of their investigation.

    Like

  276. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 7:46 pm
    “They were certainly made aware of the claims when Sharon Merryfield filed her complaint in January 1979. They were certainly made aware of the claims when they interviewed the boys after the complaint was filed. They were certainly made aware of the claims when they prepared the police report that you all have been quoting.

    They opened an investigation after Prosser left the DA’s office. How is it possible that your statement is true?”

    Yes, but by then Father Feeney was long gone thanks to the deal that Prosser worked out with the Bishop, remember? All we know is that Mrs. Merryfield, frustrated when she heard the church had done nothing to punish Father Feeney as they and Prosser had promised her would occur, filed a police complaint.

    So the Sheriff’s Dept. would have basically the same information that Prosser had (statements of the three child vicitms, one of whom refused to testify), but would have been denied the critical access to the criminal suspect whom they could arrest and potentially retrieve incriminating statements from (which is how most criminal defendants are convicted, btw).

    That’s my main beef with Prosser – that he didn’t allow a full investigation of the events in question when the Sheriff’s Dept. would have had full access to all the evidence available. Because Prosser decided to serve the interests of the powerful by cutting a deal with the church in exchange for not arresting and prosecuting Feeney, the chief piece of incriminating evidence was allowed to flee the jurisdiction.

    What I don’t understand is why the Sheriff’s Dept. didn’t file a warrant for Feeney’s arrest and seek to have him extradited back to Outagamie County.

    In the end, what occurred following the departures of Feeney and Prosser is only tangential to the central question of whether Prosser’s behavior when he was the DA and was in charge of the Merryfield case was negligent enough to make him unfit to continue on the WI SC. I think so, most here don’t.

    Like

  277. the chief piece of incriminating evidence was allowed to flee the jurisdiction.

    The chief piece of incriminating evidence flatly denied the accusations. And it’s not like he was inaccessible – he was still in the state, where an arrest warrant was still valid.

    What I don’t understand is why the Sheriff’s Dept. didn’t file a warrant for Feeney’s arrest and seek to have him extradited back to Outagamie County.

    Exactly my point. They could have asked for an arrest warrant, and he would have been arrested in whatever county he was in, and returned to Outagamie County to face charges. But they didn’t. Just like Prosser didn’t.

    In the end, what occurred following the departures of Feeney and Prosser is only tangential to the central question of whether Prosser’s behavior…

    Not. At. All. The fact that the Sheriff’s Department took exactly the same action that Prosser did suggests that his decision was neither outlandish nor incompetent. A second, independent look at the evidence resulted in no charges.

    It was only when the additional accusations surfaced that the case was made. And Prosser supported that prosecution.

    End of story.

    Like

  278. hey could have asked for an arrest warrant, and he would have been arrested in whatever county he was in, and returned to Outagamie County to face charges.

    They could also have simply visited him in his new parish and questioned him there. But they didn’t.

    Like

  279. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 8:39 pm
    “In the end, what occurred following the departures of Feeney and Prosser is only tangential to the central question of whether Prosser’s behavior…

    Not. At. All. The fact that the Sheriff’s Department took exactly the same action that Prosser did suggests that his decision was neither outlandish nor incompetent. A second, independent look at the evidence resulted in no charges.

    It was only when the additional accusations surfaced that the case was made. And Prosser supported that prosecution.

    End of story.”

    No, I can’t agree. I see your POV, but my focus is on Prosser and how he specifically handled the case. He had probable cause to arrest and he didn’t issue an arrest warrant. He didn’t notify the Sheriff’s Department so they could conduct a full investigation. Instead, he went to the suspect’s employer and worked out a deal that ensured no one save the victims would have to worry about being embarrassed by any controversy. That’s despicable behavior for a man elected to use the full force of the law to pursue scumbags like Father Feeney. In fact, it’s a dereliction of duty.

    But don’t listen to me when you can listen to the POV of the people who were actually there:
    “One of Feeney’s victims, Troy Merryfield, on Monday called on Prosser to step aside when cases involving priest sexual misconduct come before the high court.

    ‘He knows damn well what happened and what was said,’ said Merryfield, now 43. ‘He dropped the ball, and he should recuse himself.'”

    […]

    “Troy Merryfield differs, saying other children could have been spared abuse.

    ‘It wasn’t as if sexual abuse of a child wasn’t a felony back then,’ he said. ‘The laws were on the books, and he should have prosecuted.'”

    Like

  280. Hi 400metres.

    You look exceptionally sexy in that Pokemon costume.

    I hope you have thousands of union thugs ready to intimidate voters on Tuesday. Because you’re going to need to step up your cheat to win this.

    Also, did you know that Prosser never prosecuted a single puppy-stomper?

    You should run with that. RUN LIKE THE WIND!!!

    Like

  281. He had probable cause to arrest and he didn’t issue an arrest warrant.

    He didn’t think so. He said that his case was weak, so he leaned on the Bishop to take some internal action. You claim that he should have gone forward. But other investigators came to the same conclusion that he did. While both parties could be wrong, it at least tells you that Prosser’s decision not to press charges was not exceptional.

    That’s the simple fact. Prosser’s decision was the same as the Sheriff’s Department.

    ‘He knows damn well what happened and what was said,’ said Merryfield, now 43. ‘He dropped the ball, and he should recuse himself.’”

    Which has been completely overturned by Merryfield’s latest statement. Merryfield says today that he understands why Prosser didn’t go forward with the case. Why don’t you?

    Like

  282. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 9:08 pm
    “He had probable cause to arrest and he didn’t issue an arrest warrant.

    He didn’t think so. He said that his case was weak, so he leaned on the Bishop to take some internal action. You claim that he should have gone forward. But other investigators came to the same conclusion that he did. While both parties could be wrong, it at least tells you that Prosser’s decision not to press charges was not exceptional.”

    No, he didn’t think he had the evidence to convict Feeney, he undoubtedly had Probable Cause to arrest. PC is not a high evidentiary standard – basically was it more probable that Feeney molested these boys than not? Certainly enough evidence was there to arrest.

    Like

  283. Certainly enough evidence was there to arrest.

    …and the Sheriff’s Department, who had the additional incident to report, didn’t arrest him because…?

    And why are you so hung up on arresting the guy? It’s pointless unless it’s necessary for questioning, you think he’s dangerous, or you thing he’ll flee. Prosser questioned him, he wasn’t violent, and he had no flight risk. What’s the point of arresting him, particularly if you think a conviction is not possible? An arrest with no conviction will only look bad for the justice system, and earn undeserved sympathy for the scumbag.

    If Prosser had Feeney arrested, he would have been out on bail within hours, there would have been no additional information gained, and the community would have been very agitated. Feeney’s career could have been unfairly harmed (what if the boys were lying or exaggerating, as has happened in many other cases?), and the Archdiocese’s reputation unfairly tainted. All for a case that wasn’t going anywhere.

    Like

  284. 400metres, I didn’t learn this until today but did you know that Feeney also molested Willie Horton right before Michael Dukakis furloughed him and then he killed those people?

    It’s true. You can look it up.

    Like

  285. What if Prosser had taken the case forward, but lost?
    In 2004, the defense attorney asked “is it sexual motivation when someone touches a young man’s chest? I am not going to say they are bad or evil or making things up. Under any view of the facts, you cannot find John Patrick Feeney guilty of sexual assault.”

    Weak tea in 2004, considering the Priest’s history of assault, and the very recent Catholic church’s priest scandals.

    But not in 1978/79, when a jury may not have been willing to find a popular priest guilty of sexual assault based on the evidence Prosser knew of.

    Prosser certainly had no motive to collude with the Catholic church, not being Catholic, himself, but he did have a motive to protect the boys as “a longtime friend” of the Merryfield’s.

    Like

  286. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 9:35 pm
    “Certainly enough evidence was there to arrest.

    …and the Sheriff’s Department, who had the additional incident to report, didn’t arrest him because…?

    And why are you so hung up on arresting the guy? It’s pointless unless it’s necessary for questioning…”

    Yea, exactly. They could hold him for 48 hours, confront him with the victim statements and any other evidence and try to elicit incriminating statements. That’s police work. Of course, Feeney could simply remain silent, request an attorney and maybe no charges are eventually filed (bail would only come into play were he actually charged with something), but so what? At least they would be trying to gather incriminating evidence against the guy instead of simply trying to “avoid controversy”.

    Plus, why not try and scare this guy a little? Criminal suspects are arrested everyday and pounded with all manner of psychological coercion, but Father Feeney was handled with the utmost respect despite Prosser knowing that he had molested at least 3 kids.

    Furthermore, why didn’t Prosser ask the Diocese to help convict this creep? As later evidence revealed, the church had already dealt with several complaints against Feeney. Why didn’t Prosser try the tack of asking them if they knew of any other instances of Feeney sexually abusing kids, etc. Again, maybe they refuse to cooperate, but at least he would be trying to get to the bottom of the charges.

    Instead, it was just a rush to brush it all under the rug…

    Like

  287. …and the Sheriff’s Department, who had the additional incident to report, didn’t arrest him because…?

    I would address the other completely speculative claptrap you threw together, but I’m not going to bother until you answer that question. This has gotten tedious. Explain why an independent judgment of whether to press charges has no bearing, or accept the fact that the Sheriff’s Department concurred with Prosser’s decision.

    Like

  288. nicedeb Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    “What if Prosser had taken the case forward, but lost?”

    Then at least he would have fulfilled the duty for which he was elected – i.e., used all the resources at his disposal to attempt to convict a man he knew was a child molester, but nevertheless failed.

    That sounds a whole lot more noble and consistent with what I want in either a County DA or a Supreme Court Justice than a guy who instead personally works out a deal with the molester’s employer, wherein he will drop the case if they agree to ship the creep somewhere else.

    Like

  289. If you’re going to ignore me then I’m breaking up with you.

    *takes off engagement ring that’s engraved “If he didn’t have evidence, why didn’t he call in the FBI?”*

    *takes off wig*

    *runs home, crying*

    Like

  290. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    “…and the Sheriff’s Department, who had the additional incident to report, didn’t arrest him because…?”

    Why would I know that and why is it relevant to whether Prosser possessed PC to arrest? Remember we are discussing this issue as it pertains to Prosser’s behavior, since, um, he’s the subject of the inquiry.

    In other words, the last time I checked, the Outagamie County Sheriff from 1979 isn’t asking for my vote on April 5th to retain his seat on the Supreme Court.

    Like

  291. So much for reality-based discussions. Those poor Wisconsin DA’s, force to throw themselves on the pyre of futility just to satisfy 400m’s hindsight. 400m doesn’t seem to understand that the priest was innocent until proven guilty, and that the DA didn’t have the proof. Doesn’t matter, I guess. In 400m’s world, you just throw the entire justice system at any accused person, no matter how likely a conviction is.

    Like

  292. Why would I know that and why is it relevant to whether Prosser possessed PC to arrest?

    …because the Sheriff’s Department possessed the same probable cause information. Plus more. And they didn’t think they had probable cause.

    Which turns your entire argument to fluff.

    Like

  293. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    “More Decades Later Quarterbacking by someone who doesn’t do it for a living…”

    Ah, so this is the new front in the ever-shifting rationalisations for Prosser’s misconduct: now only anyone who has ever been or currently is a county DA is qualified to criticise the decisions of Prosser regarding his handling of the Merryfield case.

    Like

  294. Remember we are discussing this issue as it pertains to Prosser’s behavior, since, um, he’s the subject of the inquiry.

    And one more time, really, really slowly to enhance reader comprehension.

    You are discussing the competence of Prosser’s decision-making. We have found that another authority corroborated his decision. That suggests that his decision making was no less competent than that of the law enforcement agency. And that the outcome was no different than would have occurred had he asked for an investigation in the first place.

    Like

  295. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 10:05 pm
    “Why would I know that and why is it relevant to whether Prosser possessed PC to arrest?

    …because the Sheriff’s Department possessed the same probable cause information. Plus more. And they didn’t think they had probably cause.

    Which turns your entire argument to fluff.”

    [Shakes head in amazement] No, it doesn’t. PC is an objective evidentiary standard which has been utilised forever as the grounds to arrest. Probable Cause is defined thusly:

    ” Probable cause is defined as facts sufficient to support a reasonable belief that criminal activity is probably taking place or knowledge of circumstances indicating a fair probability that evidence of crime will be found. It requires more than a mere “hunch,” but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    Do you disagree that there was an objective basis for Prosser to believe that with three victim statements that Feeney molested them, that there was PC to arrest or not?

    Like

  296. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 10:11 pm
    “And one more time, really, really slowly to enhance reader comprehension.

    You are discussing the competence of Prosser’s decision-making. We have found that another authority corroborated his decision.”

    But that’s my point Geoff – you don’t need to appeal to some other authority to corroborate whether or not Prosser had PC to arrest or not. You or anyone else can judge it for themselves. We can’t really know if Prosser had sufficient evidence to convict Feeney, but we sure as hell can judge for ourselves if there was PC to arrest.

    Like

  297. Ah, so this is the new front in the ever-shifting rationalisations for Prosser’s misconduct: now only anyone who has ever been or currently is a county DA is qualified to criticise the decisions of Prosser regarding his handling of the Merryfield case.

    No. Simply pointing out the ridiculousness of questioning why someone didn’t do this or that when you don’t understand the process and the climate in which the decisions were made, and yet your “feelings” are conclusive proof of his “professional misconduct”, despite the fact that the actions of others who were involved…at the time…shortly after, and then years after when those actions were reviewed by the Courts, all either tacitly or expressly approve of his decision…but because 400 metres “feels” he committed “professional misconduct”, then that’s what MUST have happened. Just like Feeney raped the two boys…because you “felt” it to be true.

    Like

  298. Then at least he would have fulfilled the duty for which he was elected – i.e., used all the resources at his disposal to attempt to convict a man he knew was a child molester, but nevertheless failed.

    Had the prosecution taken the case forward, and lost, the later conviction with the new evidence would have been impossible.

    Like

  299. And I can’t wait to tell my friend in the Prosecutor’s Office that they have to start issuing arrest warrants EVERY TIME they have probable cause, regardless of the strength of their evidence for trial.

    She’ll look at me like a grew a third eye in the middle of my forehead, then tell me I need a vacation.

    Like

  300. We can’t really know if Prosser had sufficient evidence to convict Feeney, but we sure as hell can judge for ourselves if there was PC to arrest.

    So it’s agreed. The Sheriff’s Department came to the same conclusion that Prosser did: there was insufficient evidence to file charges against Feeney.

    And now to probable cause. I’m sorry 400m, but I trust the Sheriff’s Department’s decision on probable cause far more than yours.

    But you go ahead and make your decision based on the small fraction of facts you have available from that case 30 years ago. I wouldn’t, because it would be rash and indefensible, but you go right ahead.

    Like

  301. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 10:16 pm
    “No. Simply pointing out the ridiculousness of questioning why someone didn’t do this or that when you don’t understand the process and the climate in which the decisions were made, and yet your “feelings” are conclusive proof of his “professional misconduct”, despite the fact that the actions of others who were involved…at the time…shortly after, and then years after when those actions were reviewed by the Courts, all either tacitly or expressly approve of his decision…but because 400 metres “feels” he committed “professional misconduct”, then that’s what MUST have happened. Just like Feeney raped the two boys…because you “felt” it to be true.”

    Yes, all I’ve stated as support for my position are my personal squishy, girly feelings. No facts or decisions that actually occurred that reasonable, intelligent people can form opposing opinions upon.

    Tell me Blackiswhite, is it a stone cold irrefutable fact that Prosser was right not to arrest Feeney or notify the Sheriff’s Department or file charges against Feeney, or is that simply your feeling?

    Like

  302. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 10:25 pm
    “So it’s agreed. The Sheriff’s Department came to the same conclusion that Prosser did: there was insufficient evidence to file charges against Feeney.”

    Well, duh. Did they file charges Geoff? Again, why is that relevant to the discussion regarding Prosser’s behavior? Did the Sheriff go to the Bishop and work out a secret deal too? Is the Sheriff running for a set on the WI Supreme Court next Tuesday?

    “And now to probable cause. I’m sorry 400m, but I trust the Sheriff’s Department’s decision on probable cause far more than yours.”

    Again, PC is an objective standard. You can judge for yourself, that’s all I said. I believe three statements from child victims specifically detailing child molestation by Father Feeney is enough to show that it was more probable than not that he molested them. He should have been arrested and an interrogation should have occurred.

    “But you go ahead and make your decision based on the small fraction of facts you have available from that case 30 years ago. I wouldn’t, because it would be rash and indefensible, but you go right ahead.”

    Yes, it’s indefensible to ever criticise the well-chronicled choices made by those we elect to protect and serve us. It’s patently un-American.

    Like

  303. Tell me Blackiswhite, is it a stone cold irrefutable fact that Prosser was right not to arrest Feeney or notify the Sheriff’s Department or file charges against Feeney, or is that simply your feeling?

    Ahhh, the dueling “feelings” fallacy. That’s right, 400m, your feelings are just as valid as BiW’s, yes they are. Don’t worry about the burden of proof or anything, just let those feelings flow!

    Like

  304. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 10:22 pm
    “And I can’t wait to tell my friend in the Prosecutor’s Office that they have to start issuing arrest warrants EVERY TIME they have probable cause, regardless of the strength of their evidence for trial.”

    Is it a fact that I claimed that prosecutors “have to issue an arrest warrant EVERY TIME they have probable cause”, or is that simply how you feel Blackiswhite?

    Like

  305. Edward von Bear Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    “hey 400m: maybe I am mistaken, but only police can arrest somebody, not a DA.”

    Yes, but the police can only arrest without a warrant if they personally observe enough evidence to form PC. In this instance, Prosser would get an arrest warrant empowering the police to arrest Feeney.

    Like

  306. Yes, all I’ve stated as support for my position are my personal squishy, girly feelings.

    Tell you what, Perry Mason. When we start convicting people on nothing more than the gut feelings of other people, you might convince me that Prosser is guilty of “professional misconduct”.

    But you still lose on the rape claim.

    Like

  307. >> Is it a fact that I claimed that prosecutors “have to issue an arrest warrant EVERY TIME they have probable cause”,

    Now you’re just being obtuse.

    Like

  308. 400metres, by any chance is your name Kyle?

    http://tinyurl.com/4yoomg7

    Stop arguing the same stupid shit that you’ve been arguing the last two days. I poked holes in it and I’m a fucking moron.

    And you never answered my question about who is sexier, Chris Matthews or Ed Schultz.

    I will assume by your non-response that you find then both equally hot.

    Idiot.

    Like

  309. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 10:22 pm
    “And I can’t wait to tell my friend in the Prosecutor’s Office that they have to start issuing arrest warrants EVERY TIME they have probable cause, regardless of the strength of their evidence for trial.”

    And while your at it Blackiswhite, why not ask your prosecutor friend if he or she think it’s right for a County DA to receive three separate victim statements alleging clear sexual abuse of a minor to decide to not investigate further, or issue an arrest warrant for the suspect, or even notify the police, but instead work out a deal with the suspect’s employer to drop the whole thing so long as they agree to ship the child molester to another parish where he’s certain to abuse more children?

    I wonder what your friend’s feelings would be about such conduct from a county district attorney.

    Like

  310. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 10:41 pm
    “Tell you what, Perry Mason. When we start convicting people on nothing more than the gut feelings of other people, you might convince me that Prosser is guilty of ‘professional misconduct’.

    But you still lose on the rape claim.”

    Hey, I’m not the one who claims to be a highfalutin lawyer who know prosecutors and everything!

    And when did I say that Prosser had enough evidence to convict Feeney?

    He had sufficient evidence to arrest, but he didn’t even bother to notify the police. And then a child molester was allowed to continue committing crimes. Yea, how dare I criticise that when I’ve never been a DA before!

    Like

  311. Is it a fact that I claimed that prosecutors “have to issue an arrest warrant EVERY TIME they have probable cause”, or is that simply how you feel Blackiswhite?

    I’m not the one who pinched off this little nugget:

    We can’t really know if Prosser had sufficient evidence to convict Feeney, but we sure as hell can judge for ourselves if there was PC to arrest.

    So you, without all the facts and circumstances available to you that were available to Prosser, can determine if there was PC to arrest, and condemn him for not doing so, regardless of not knowing if there was enough evidence to convict, and you feel good about that, as you said

    Then at least he would have fulfilled the duty for which he was elected – i.e., used all the resources at his disposal to attempt to convict a man he knew was a child molester, but nevertheless failed.

    No doubt because you feel it makes sense to use limited resources to try cases with regardless of certainty of outcome. Because it makes everyone safer. You know, when the perps who you could convict walk because you devoted time and resources to a case that you couldn’t win, so no one goes to jail. Or at least fewer than you would otherwise send to jail. Sounds like a sure way to make a community safer and get re-elected, too!

    Like

  312. Edward von Bear Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 10:49 pm

    “400: but did the cops go to the DA?”

    Dude, you gotta catch yourself up with the facts on your own. But, no, the cops didn’t go to Prosser because Mrs. Merryfield brought the issue directly to Prosser himself. She filed a complaint with the police months later when she realised that the molester had been simply shipped to another parish and by then Prosser had left his DA position.

    Like

  313. He had sufficient evidence to arrest, but he didn’t even bother to notify the police.

    …and on an endless loop, he drones on and on. He doesn’t have a good reason for having him arrested, but some gesture must be made.

    This has gotten pathetic.

    Like

  314. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 10:55 pm
    “Is it a fact that I claimed that prosecutors “have to issue an arrest warrant EVERY TIME they have probable cause”, or is that simply how you feel Blackiswhite?

    I’m not the one who pinched off this little nugget:

    We can’t really know if Prosser had sufficient evidence to convict Feeney, but we sure as hell can judge for ourselves if there was PC to arrest.”

    Uh, huh, and how does my statement in anyway align with your characterisation?

    I’m talking about a specific situation, where we know the facts that Prosser possessed regarding whether there was PC to arrest, and you turn that into something completely absurd.

    You’re getting a bit hysterical there, Mr. Facts.

    Like

  315. This has gotten pathetic.

    But I predicted this outcome. Once his argument fell apart, he would continue to flail away.

    I expected him to do a better job of slightly adjusting his arguments to keep it interesting, though.

    Like

  316. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 10:57 pm
    “He had sufficient evidence to arrest, but he didn’t even bother to notify the police.

    …and on an endless loop, he drones on and on. He doesn’t have a good reason for having him arrested, but some gesture must be made.

    This has gotten pathetic.”

    So let me see if I understand: you don’t agree that three statements from three separate victims describing sexual molestation by Feeney is sufficient to form PC to arrest?

    Do you understand there is a gulf between the standard to arrest and the standard to convict?

    Like

  317. Uh, huh, and how does my statement in anyway align with your characterisation?

    I know it’s hard for you…two of those three functioning brain cells just about ready to throw in the towel from the fatigue…but finish the thought…there were more of your statements quoted, and together, they flesh out Criminal Prosecutors According to 400 Metres.

    On second thought, you could save yourself any further humiliation and just stop.

    Like

  318. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 10:56 pm
    “I swear, my seven year old knows better than to argue like you do.”

    Are you sure or is that just a feeling you composed into a pointless cheap shot?

    Like

  319. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 11:05 pm
    “Uh, huh, and how does my statement in anyway align with your characterisation?

    I know it’s hard for you…two of those three functioning brain cells just about ready to throw in the towel from the fatigue…but finish the thought…there were more of your statements quoted, and together, they flesh out Criminal Prosecutors According to 400 Metres.”

    No, that was the entirety of my statement which you quoted. I know I’m so burdened by hysterical feelings that I’m basically impervious to facts, but even in that state I’m capable of scrolling upthread a few comments to verify that for myself.

    Like

  320. 400: I am asking questions because unlike what I just read in your profile, I actually have a life outside of a computer screen. In fact, I spent a good portion of the weekend with my wife and daughter, enjoying the beauty of an early spring that had just shaken off the 5″ of Algore’s Global Warming that had fallen just a few days prior, so, yeah, I may not be completely up to speed on every nuance that has transpired.

    However, I can ascertain this: since the Make Believe Media have spiked the pro-Prosser commercial, it must be true.

    Like

  321. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 11:07 pm
    “Do you understand that arrest without having met the standards to convict wastes time, resources, and can actually make a case harder to win?”

    So no criminal suspect should ever be arrested until there’s evidence sufficient to convict him or her beyond a reasonable doubt?

    That’s an interesting new standard of police procedural that I was previously unacquainted with.

    Boy, if what you say is true Blackiswhite, there’s a lot of money being wasted on training all those detectives on coercive interrogation techniques.

    Like

  322. hey 400: maybe after two days of getting the Jodie Foster on the pinball machine treatment by truth and logic, maybe you should take one of those “long walks” in your profile.

    Like

  323. Edward von Bear Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 11:12 pm
    “400: I am asking questions because unlike what I just read in your profile, I actually have a life outside of a computer screen. In fact, I spent a good portion of the weekend with my wife and daughter, enjoying the beauty of an early spring that had just shaken off the 5″ of Algore’s Global Warming that had fallen just a few days prior, so, yeah, I may not be completely up to speed on every nuance that has transpired. ”

    Cool story bro.

    And maybe you haven’t heard (being out with family so much and all), but the “Warming” in “Global Warming” is the cause, not the effect.

    Like

  324. So no criminal suspect should ever be arrested until there’s evidence sufficient to convict him or her beyond a reasonable doubt?

    No. But if a prosecutor is making the decision to arrest, they shouldn’t go there until they have enough evidence to go to trial with.

    I’m thinking that we could use your skull to redefine the Mohs scale. Who knew there could be a naturally occurring substance beyond 10?

    Like

  325. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 11:13 pm
    “No. There were two statements quoted. Again with the reading comprehension FAIL!”

    Uh, the other thing you quoted had nothing at all to do with your claim that I said a prosecutor must arrest every time he or she has PC to do so.

    You’re just flailing now bud.

    Like

  326. So let me see if I understand: you don’t agree that three statements from three separate victims describing sexual molestation by Feeney is sufficient to form PC to arrest?

    No. Absolutely not. 1) One of the victims was not willing to testify. 2) The brothers testimony cannot be considered to be completely independent. 3) We don’t know any mitigating circumstances, such as credibility of the witnesses, the strength of their testimony, and whether he felt that they might have fabricated or inflated their stories. 4) The priest flatly denied the allegations.

    But don’t take my word for it. I certainly don’t. Once again I defer to the experts who already decided that Prosser was right. Experts whose decision makes your certainty that Prosser should have arrested Feeney look ridiculous.

    And you still haven’t explained why it so important to arrest him. Your ramblings above consisted of “something might happen,” while completely disregarding the negatives of ill-advisedly arresting a prominent figure in the community.

    To his credit, despite having no case Prosser put pressure on the Archdiocese to deal with the situation. He didn’t just let it lapse like the police did.

    Like

  327. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 11:17 pm
    “So no criminal suspect should ever be arrested until there’s evidence sufficient to convict him or her beyond a reasonable doubt?

    No. But if a prosecutor is making the decision to arrest, they shouldn’t go there until they have enough evidence to go to trial with.”

    Whatever man, you just restated exactly what I said and but a “No.’ in front of it.

    Like

  328. So no criminal suspect should ever be arrested until there’s evidence sufficient to convict him or her beyond a reasonable doubt?

    And the strawman stupidity continues.

    Like

  329. geoff Says:
    April, 3, 2011 at 11:19 pm
    “No. Absolutely not. 1) One of the victims was not willing to testify. 2) The brothers testimony cannot be considered to be completely independent. 3) We don’t know any mitigating circumstances, such as credibility of the witnesses, the strength of their testimony, and whether he felt that they might have fabricated or inflated their stories. 4) The priest flatly denied the allegations. ”

    Geoff, you’re conflating what’s necessary to arrest with what’s necessary to convict. All you need are the statements to arrest, regardless of how they stand up in court. You talk about what a great bluff it was for Prosser to get the Bishop to work with him, but couldn’t he have bluffed Feeney too? And the arrest is important because it’s a potential avenue to gather incriminating evidence. I never said it was certain to gather incriminating evidence, but to not even try when you know you’re dealing with a child molester? That’s pretty negligent.

    Like

  330. “Cool story bro. {it’s not a story, it’s reality. In fact, many of the people here have met my family and/or me. And if being able to fall asleep in between the legs of a beautiful woman, the same woman who bore the most precious gift ever bestowed upon me is a story, I never want to reach “The End’, so fuck you for calling it that as you pine for “long walks”}

    And as for the rest of your comment, for assuring us that you are intelligent, you defend Manbearpig and his church of fraudology with the vigor of, dare I say it, a religious zealot. Where in the “solving the human condition with a DIY type” does that jibe with religious zealotry and the lack of skepticism which naturally ensues?

    Like

  331. I’m going to cash it in as well. As I said, twice previously, if 400m can’t show why Prosser’s decision was wrong when the same decision by the Sheriff’s was right, he has no case. And he didn’t even try, simply admitting that the Sheriff’s decision was beyond him. That’s funny, because we know about as much of what they knew as we know about what Prosser knew. Somehow 400m can judge Prosser’s decision, but he’s baffled by the Sheriff’s decision.

    Brilliant.

    I’m done here. I didn’t know much about Prosser before this started, but it’s managed to convince me that he deserves election to Wisconsin’s Supreme Court.

    Like

  332. Pingback: Video: David v.s. The Organized Left: David Prosser Makes His Case « Nice Deb

  333. Well, the people have spoken and overwhelmingly voted out Prosser. I’m sure you’re all “respect the will of the voters” and “rule of law” people, aren’t you?

    Too bad Prosser’s brother didn’t dance for Lawrence Welk! Seemingly, if that gives you such magic powers that local prosecutors work to have you moved to another community to rape their children instead of sending your case to the Sheriff’s Office for investigation, it should help win a simple election.

    Like

  334. Uh oh…

    from Josiah Cantrall in Wisconsin:

    ” A discrepancy was discovered in vote totals from a community in Waukesha county. More votes were cast for the school board race than the state supreme court one. Now local precinct workers are claiming they’ve found 500-600 ballots which would explain this discrepancy. This community voted 70% for Justice Prosser. Officials are confirming if these “lost” ballots are valid. These ballots could give Prosser a majority.

    However, this all may be a technical error. The village and town both voted for the school board candidate and thus, votes may have simply been double counted.

    Investigation is under way.”

    Like

  335. Oh, so Prosser couldn’t find the time or will or phone number for the Sheriff’s office to forward an investigation of sexual assault of a child, but they somehow found extra votes for him to “win” an election.

    It’s amazing, what with conservatives seeming inability to count the first time, that they always find extra votes just at the end… grinning while they “find” them on their antiquated, personal computer.

    Questions were immediately raised about the new announcement. As Schneider wrote, prior to the election, Nickolaus “was heavily criticized for her decision to keep the county results on an antiquated personal computer, rather than upgrade to a new data system being utilized statewide.”

    Added Schneider: “Nickolaus cited security concerns for keeping the data herself — yet when she reported the data, it did not include the City of Brookfield, whose residents cast nearly 14,000 votes.

    “The Waukesha County Board also heavily criticized the clerk after she brushed aside their recommendations for improving election security. At one point during a hearing in January, board chairman Jim Dwyer grew exasperated with Nickolaus and said, “There really is nothing funny about this, Kathy. Don’t sit there and grin when I’m explaining what this is about.”

    “Wisconsin deserves elections that are fair, clean and transparent,” said Scot Ross, the executive director of the progressive advocacy group One Wisconsin Now. “There is a history of secrecy and partisanship surrounding the Waukesha County Clerk and there remain unanswered questions.”

    Like

  336. Oh dear. How sad. Are we trying to allege fraud even after Media Matters informed everyone that election fraud is extremely rare?

    Brookfield City Results Were Reported Accurately On Election Night

    It turns out the now not so mysterious big bump of over 7,000 votes for Prosser in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race were accounted for all along. A contemporaneous local media report on election night, linked further down, proves it. The AP might not have gotten them, but the media, in one form, or another, most assuredly did.

    http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2011/04/brookfield-city-results-were-reported-accurately-on-election-night.html

    Did you miss the part of the Press Conference where the Waukesha Democrat who helped tabulate the votes stepped forward to confirm that the new numbers are right and Prosser’s ahead by 7,500?

    Like

  337. Looks like Harry’s not willing to

    “respect the will of the voters” and “rule of law” people,

    Just another hypocritical liberal, and a sore loser at that.

    But from what little I know, I do think that Nickolaus’s job performance should be reviewed.

    Like

  338. “But from what little I know”

    Yeah. That pretty much sums up this site.

    It’s OK – take the win anyway you can steal“win” it. We all know how well