Well, I assume. I’m not a lawyer. But I imagine an attorney for the folks (hypothetically) suing won’t be unhappy to see the Wisconsin Supreme Court write this:
In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a “perfect storm” of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them. It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution. Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.
A lot more here. Personally, it would be my recommendation that there be civil lawsuits involved, and that they be fully paid for ahead of time by deep-pocketed individuals in the conservative movement. Because if you just let Democratic prosecutors think that they can target their political opponents without any personal professional risk, they will. If ever there was a time for a series of lawsuits where the outcome could be described using term ‘blast radius,’ this would be it*.
Again, though, I am not a lawyer. [UPDATE: see here for some speculation on what happens next, from somebody who is (I believe) a lawyer.]
Moe Lane
*Not an actual blast radius, of course. Physical violence in the private pursuit of justice is wicked. No matter how much we all enjoy Batman movies.
Speaking as someone who does have some experience in reading court decisions, this is an absolute mauling by the Court. “Not supported by reason or law” is a throat punch by the Court.
Oh and there’s a concurring opinion. In which the Justice goes on at some length about the horrific manner in which the warrants were served…..EVEN THOUGH THAT MATTER WASN’T BEFORE THE COURT. That never happens. Ever.
Yeah, I mean, that goes right up there with such classics as “we would defer to the expertise of the BATF if we could find any” and comments about writing briefs in crayon.
It is definitely time for payback. Lawfare is a tactic all can use and it needs to be used here. The prosecutors who were involved in this need to be Nifonged good and hard.
All that happened to him, was that he was disbarred.
That was insufficient in his case, and insufficient in this case.
Vigilante justice is the natural state of man. It was only superseded with centuries of effort, and a rock solid societal commitment to rule of law.
.
Neither of these seem to apply anymore.
That’s a bad thing for all concerned.
.
Nor is vigilante justice always bad. I recall a time when criminal gangs were forced out of my community when the police were unable to act.
I think the founders would disagree with your assessment of vigilantism. Or at least some of them, after all the Boston Tea Party was an act of vigilante justice, where private property was destroyed. No men were injured during that fight, but things could’ve very well happened that way. And then there is the refusal to obey the Fugitive Slave Act, again not necessarily physical violence involved but it wasn’t entirely civil disobedience ( in the MLK sense of disobeying the law and accepting the consequence).
Not saying conservatives in Wisconsin should resort to violence, The State Supreme Court’s ruling proves there is justice to be had within the system. Just disagreeing with the idea that vigilantism
I accidentally submitted too soon. that last sentence should be “Just disagreeing with the idea that vigilantism is entirely evil”
Clearly there are circumstances that can occur, and have occurred in other countries, that would justify extralegal actions.
Also I should note that conservatives should start protesting at these people’s homes and places of work. Do what they do to us. If you’re married and have kids, own property, etc. You should be too invested in Society to be a radical ( at least Burke thought so) this is why Conservatives are usually less politically involved then their Left-wing counterparts. Chisholm is married, he probably has kids, and almost certainly owns property. Threaten his standing within his community ( not just his professional standing but his private one as well) and he and other Left-wing radicals might think twice before seeking to drive a wedge into the social fabric.
Note that this course of action wouldn’t involve breaking the law or committing violence, it would result in making Chisholm as miserable as he made his victims.
I don’t think the latter is possible. Legally, anyway.
Maybe the State AG can open a John Doe investigation against Chisholm?
I have no issues with that. Let them suffer for stepping out of line to the extent that they did and yes, I support dragging their families into it and making them suffer as well.
.
If they want war, let them have it so hard that they never raise their hands against us ever again.
Uncle Billy had the right of it:
“…we are not only fighting hostile armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying newspapers to believe that we were being whipped all the time now realize the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience…”