Archive for the ‘the courts’ Category

On the Charlie Sykes (620 WTMJ Milwaukee) show in Wisconsin they are commenting on the “protection” racket that the unions are using. Let’s remind you of what the unions are saying:

“Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means ‘no’ to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.”

So in other words as far as the unions are concerned you MUST take a position and it must be theirs or they will get you. One Republican legislator called in and suggested business so contacted check out chapter 943.30 of Wisconsin law and start making complaints

So let’s take a look at what Wisconsin law states, specifically Wisconsin Statutes > Criminal Code > Chapter 943 > Subchapter III > § 943.30 – Threats to injure or accuse of crime:

943.30
943.30 Threats to injure or accuse of crime.
943.30(1) 1) Whoever, either verbally or by any written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse or accuses another of any crime or offense, or threatens or commits any injury to the person, property, business, profession, calling or trade, or the profits and income of any business, profession, calling or trade of another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened to do any act against the person’s will or omit to do any lawful act emphasis mine, is guilty of a Class H felony.

Note that since according to the letter sent out to businesses a “neutral” stance is not allowed, the union is COMPELLING the person to act against their will or suffer the consequences. That makes this section active and makes the union letter written proof of a class H felony.

A class H felony in Wisconsin carries a max of 6 years a fine of $10k or both.

And the second section is even more interesting:

943.30(2)
(2) Whoever violates sub. (1) by obstructing, delaying or affecting commerce or business or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or business is guilty of a Class H felony.

So that means that if you are a protester as part of the promised boycotts or picket of a business based on the above letter: Presto! You are subject to this same penalty!

And in our litigious society wouldn’t you like to be the lawyer starting a class action suit against the Unions who are boasting of full coffers and financial support to fight in Wisconsin? Can you imagine the size of the civil suit and award in a case like this? You want to sue people with a lot of money or insurance for a big payout. The local sub shop who gets the letter might not have it but the Union that sent it does. Every business who got that letter is a potential member of the class and the unions who supported this campaign and their national counterparts is a potential target. It’s a money tree!

I’m amazed a union lawyer didn’t spot this but it’s what comes of arrogant and unchecked power.

Update: Big Government was on this first but didn’t think of the class action angle, Ann Althouse is bother by the police involvement:

I can’t get my head around the concept of police involvement in boycotting businesses. That reads like pure corruption. I can’t believe it’s being done openly. Can someone explain to me how you can even argue that it is acceptable for police to extort political support from citizens?

If you ever wondered why the left always seemed to side with totalitarians, now you know.

POWIP noticed something from Mickey Kaus that I didn’t:

It appears the Democrats had not accepted the concessions outlined by Walker in an email to some Dem senators (an email his office released). These were discussed below. They allowed collective bargaining over a broader range of issues, but kept the provision ending mandatory union dues checkoff, which is arguably the change unions fear the most. emphasis mine

Walker was accused over and over of trying to bust the union but was willing to compromise on collective bargaining but that’s not what the unions fear. What the unions fear the most are their members.

Why do you think they were so insistent on card check? Why do you think they were so interested in eliminating the secret ballot? It is all about the ability to intimidate. If union membership actually provided enough of a benefit to the majority of their members they would not worry about the state forcing dues collection. People would be anxious to join and willing to pay. The truth is for many union membership has become all about supporting the leadership that supports the democrats and gains the majority of the benefits therein. Johnny Friendly lives!

Their latest move is not all that impressive either.

There are many Kloppenburg signs at the march and, as I’ve noted before, although it’s supposed to be a nonpartisan election, some people try to make it very political. I’ve seen many people out at the protests stressing the need to make Kloppenburg a Supreme Court Justice so that she can vote against the GOP budget repair bill and do other things that will help the party that lost the elections last fall get something back in the judicial process.

As the left becomes more desperate expect to see more and more of this kind of thing.

it’s this:

A Windsor, Ont. couple’s fight to bring their gravely ill baby home to die ended in bitter tears Thursday when a Superior Court judge dismissed their appeal to stop doctors from removing the infant’s breathing tube at the hospital.

The father and relatives of one-year-old Joseph Maraachli wept outside a London courthouse after an emotional Justice Helen Rady upheld the earlier decision of an independent provincial tribunal forcing the baby’s parents to comply with doctors’ orders.

With all of their legal avenues exhausted, the family will have to say goodbye to Joseph Monday morning — on Family Day — when his breathing tube will be removed.

Welcome to the future, it is here.

For Justice Silence is Golden unless it is not

Posted: December 23, 2010 by datechguy in the courts
Tags:

American Glob notes that the New York Times has different standards for when Supreme Court Justices should speak aloud.