Wisconsin
Regulators file complaint against former justice who led 2020 election probe
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Judicial regulators filed a complaint Tuesday against a former conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who spread election conspiracy theories and was hired by Republicans to lead an investigation into President-elect Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 election, accusing him of violating multiple rules of conduct.
The Office of Lawyer Regulation 10-count complaint accuses former Justice Michael Gableman of violations which could result in a variety of sanctions, including possibly losing his law license. The complaint does not make a specific recommendation regarding what sanction the Wisconsin Supreme Court should apply.
Gableman did not immediately return text messages seeking comment.
The complaint stems from Gableman’s work investigating allegations of fraud and abuse related to the 2020 election that Trump narrowly lost in Wisconsin. Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos had hired him to lead the inquiry. Gableman found no evidence of widespread fraud during his investigation, drew bipartisan derision and cost taxpayers more than $2.3 million.
Vos said in 2021 when he hired Gableman that he was “supremely confident” in his abilities. But when he fired Gableman in August 2022, Vos called him an “embarrassment.” Gableman this year helped backers of Trump who were attempting to recall Vos from office. Two of their efforts failed to gather enough valid signatures to force a vote.
Vos in 2022 said Gableman should lose his law license over his conduct during the election probe. Vos did not return a message Tuesday seeking comment.
In his seven-month inquiry, Gableman was sued over his response to open records requests and subpoenas and countersued. He was ridiculed for scant expense records, criticized for sending confusing emails and making rudimentary errors in his filings and called out for meeting with conspiracy theorists.
The complaint accuses Gableman of making false statements, disrupting a court hearing, questioning a judge’s integrity, making derogatory remarks about opposing counsel, violating open records law and revealing information about representing Vos during the investigation while Gableman was promoting a failed effort to recall Vos from office.
Among the complaint’s allegations:
— Gableman filed writs in Waukesha County Circuit Court in an attempt to force Madison and Green Bay’s mayors to submit to depositions without telling the court that his office had agreed depositions wouldn’t be needed because the two cities had turned over election documents Gableman requested.
— He falsely accused Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe and officials in five Wisconsin cities of trying to cover up how election grants from the Center for Tech and Civic Life were used during testimony to the Assembly elections committee. The CTCL is a liberal group backed by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
— Gableman’s office destroyed public records that liberal group American Oversight had requested.
— During a hearing before Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington on whether the records were inadvertently destroyed, Gableman accused Remington from the witness stand of railroading him into jail and acting as an
advocate for American Oversight. Gableman also was captured on a microphone while the court was in recess making sarcastic comments about Remington and American Oversight attorney Christa Westerberg’s ability to do
her job without Remington’s help.
Remington ultimately found Gableman in contempt of court for not complying with open records laws. The judge forwarded the contempt order to the OLR.
Attorneys from the liberal law firm Law Forward also requested sanctions against Gableman in 2023. They alleged that Gableman “has embraced conspiracy theories, spread lies, rejected facts, impugned the character of
people he perceives to be his adversaries, and abused the legal process.”
Gableman was a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 2008 to 2018 and joined with the conservative majority in several major rulings, including one that upheld the state law that effectively ended collective bargaining for public workers. The court is now controlled 4-3 by liberal justices, including one who was elected to fill the seat vacated by Gableman.
Maryland
Naval Academy graduate charged with hate crime for tearing down LGBTQ pride flag
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — A U.S. Naval Academy graduate ripped down a tattoo shop’s LGBTQ pride flag and put it in the trash, Annapolis police said in documents charging him with a hate crime.
Charlie Garrett, co-owner of the Dapper Dog Tattoo Shop, told police Friday morning that the store had been vandalized. He said was the third time someone had removed the flag, which reads “ABIDE NO HATRED”. In response, Garrett said he installed a security camera.
Closed-circuit video footage showed a man in a black puffer-style vest walking toward the store at approximately 1 a.m. Friday, police said, before he “forcefully ripped” the flag from above the shop’s awning. According to charging documents, the man was then putting it into a trash can.
The tattoo shop posted a photo of the man on social media and asked for help identifying the suspect.
Police wrote in charging documents that the suspect is a Dallas resident who served in the U.S. Marine Corps and graduated from the academy, The Baltimore Sun reported. According to a Marine Corps spokesperson, he served from 2004 to 2013.
A woman who worked at a nearby restaurant contacted authorities Saturday morning and told police she had served the man in the video the night before, according to the charging documents.
After providing police with the man’s name and credit card receipt, the woman said she had “immediately” recognized him from the Dapper Dog post, police said.
He was also charged with malicious destruction of property. Both it and the hate crime charge, which in this case relates to property crimes, are misdemeanors.
California
City to pay nearly $1M to a woman after police dog bit into her scalp
BRENTWOOD, Calif. (AP) — A Northern California city has agreed to pay nearly $1 million to settle a lawsuit alleging police used excessive force after a K-9 dog bit into a woman’s scalp during her arrest, requiring her to get more than 200 stitches and other treatment.
Talmika Bates will receive $967,000 from the city of Brentwood, located about 60 miles (100 km) east of San Francisco in Contra Costa County, her attorneys announced Friday.
Bates, who was wanted on suspicion of shoplifting items from a makeup store, was hiding in bushes when the German Shepherd bit her head during the arrest in February 2020.
The woman required more than 200 stitches in her head, tissue rearrangement and laceration repair. She’s been diagnosed with mild diffuse traumatic brain injury, mild post-traumatic brain syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder, according to her attorneys.
“We need to recognize that K-9s are dangerous, sometimes lethal, weapons that can cause life-altering damage or kill someone even when an officer is trying to get them to release and relent,” said civil rights attorney Adante Pointer. “Here we saw a trained K-9 handler stand by while his dog mauled an unarmed young lady who was surrendering.”
The settlement comes six months after a federal judge stripped the officer handling the police K-9 of some of his qualified immunity protection, because the extended amount of time he allowed his dog to bite Bates could be considered by a jury as excessive force, her attorneys said.
Brentwood Police Chief Timothy Herbert said the city and its insurance providers agreed to settle the case to avoid further litigation and appeal costs.
“The lone claim by Ms. Bates in this litigation was excessive force per the Fourth Amendment. In the litigation, the District Court ruled that Officer Rezentes lawfully deployed his canine in this search ... and that he had a lawful right to use his canine to apprehend Ms. Bates under the Fourth Amendment,” Herbert said in a statement.
Herbert said the police department currently has no working K-9 officers.
Delaware
Judge tosses Huckabee lawsuit against Meta over ads suggesting he endorsed canabis gummies
WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — A federal judge in Delaware on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee against social media giant Meta over advertisements using his name and image to sell CBD products.
Huckabee, a Baptist minister and President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be U.S. ambassador to Israel, claimed Meta allowed and profited from the advertisements that falsely claimed he used and endorsed CBD gummies. CBD, or cannabidiol, is one the main active ingredients in marijuana but does not, by itself, provide the high caused by psychoactive THC.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, argued that it was immune from liability under Section 230 of the Federal Communication Decency Act.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Williams rejected that claim. He concluded, however, that Huckabee, a political commentator and two-time presidential candidate, had failed to allege valid claims for invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment and violation of Arkansas’ Publicity Protection Act.
Williams agreed with Huckabee that, in collecting user data and using algorithms to determine which posts and advertisements appeared at the top of users’ newsfeeds, Meta was an “information content provider” that was not immune from liability for the illegitimate ads.
The judge nevertheless determined that Huckabee failed to demonstrate that Meta knew the ads were fake, or that it was at least aware of facts and circumstances that would give rise to such knowledge. Huckabee’s assertion that Meta approved and maintained the ads with actual malice or reckless disregard for their truthfulness was merely a “mere conclusory statement,” Williams wrote.
“It is not reasonable to infer that Meta entertained serious doubts about the asserted advertisements since Governor Huckabee has publicly denounced marijuana,” the judge wrote. “There is no allegation that Meta was required to conduct ‘due diligence’ on the truth of the asserted advertisements. Even if there was, such requirement would be insufficient to infer malice.”
Regulators file complaint against former justice who led 2020 election probe
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Judicial regulators filed a complaint Tuesday against a former conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who spread election conspiracy theories and was hired by Republicans to lead an investigation into President-elect Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 election, accusing him of violating multiple rules of conduct.
The Office of Lawyer Regulation 10-count complaint accuses former Justice Michael Gableman of violations which could result in a variety of sanctions, including possibly losing his law license. The complaint does not make a specific recommendation regarding what sanction the Wisconsin Supreme Court should apply.
Gableman did not immediately return text messages seeking comment.
The complaint stems from Gableman’s work investigating allegations of fraud and abuse related to the 2020 election that Trump narrowly lost in Wisconsin. Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos had hired him to lead the inquiry. Gableman found no evidence of widespread fraud during his investigation, drew bipartisan derision and cost taxpayers more than $2.3 million.
Vos said in 2021 when he hired Gableman that he was “supremely confident” in his abilities. But when he fired Gableman in August 2022, Vos called him an “embarrassment.” Gableman this year helped backers of Trump who were attempting to recall Vos from office. Two of their efforts failed to gather enough valid signatures to force a vote.
Vos in 2022 said Gableman should lose his law license over his conduct during the election probe. Vos did not return a message Tuesday seeking comment.
In his seven-month inquiry, Gableman was sued over his response to open records requests and subpoenas and countersued. He was ridiculed for scant expense records, criticized for sending confusing emails and making rudimentary errors in his filings and called out for meeting with conspiracy theorists.
The complaint accuses Gableman of making false statements, disrupting a court hearing, questioning a judge’s integrity, making derogatory remarks about opposing counsel, violating open records law and revealing information about representing Vos during the investigation while Gableman was promoting a failed effort to recall Vos from office.
Among the complaint’s allegations:
— Gableman filed writs in Waukesha County Circuit Court in an attempt to force Madison and Green Bay’s mayors to submit to depositions without telling the court that his office had agreed depositions wouldn’t be needed because the two cities had turned over election documents Gableman requested.
— He falsely accused Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe and officials in five Wisconsin cities of trying to cover up how election grants from the Center for Tech and Civic Life were used during testimony to the Assembly elections committee. The CTCL is a liberal group backed by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
— Gableman’s office destroyed public records that liberal group American Oversight had requested.
— During a hearing before Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington on whether the records were inadvertently destroyed, Gableman accused Remington from the witness stand of railroading him into jail and acting as an
advocate for American Oversight. Gableman also was captured on a microphone while the court was in recess making sarcastic comments about Remington and American Oversight attorney Christa Westerberg’s ability to do
her job without Remington’s help.
Remington ultimately found Gableman in contempt of court for not complying with open records laws. The judge forwarded the contempt order to the OLR.
Attorneys from the liberal law firm Law Forward also requested sanctions against Gableman in 2023. They alleged that Gableman “has embraced conspiracy theories, spread lies, rejected facts, impugned the character of
people he perceives to be his adversaries, and abused the legal process.”
Gableman was a member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 2008 to 2018 and joined with the conservative majority in several major rulings, including one that upheld the state law that effectively ended collective bargaining for public workers. The court is now controlled 4-3 by liberal justices, including one who was elected to fill the seat vacated by Gableman.
Maryland
Naval Academy graduate charged with hate crime for tearing down LGBTQ pride flag
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — A U.S. Naval Academy graduate ripped down a tattoo shop’s LGBTQ pride flag and put it in the trash, Annapolis police said in documents charging him with a hate crime.
Charlie Garrett, co-owner of the Dapper Dog Tattoo Shop, told police Friday morning that the store had been vandalized. He said was the third time someone had removed the flag, which reads “ABIDE NO HATRED”. In response, Garrett said he installed a security camera.
Closed-circuit video footage showed a man in a black puffer-style vest walking toward the store at approximately 1 a.m. Friday, police said, before he “forcefully ripped” the flag from above the shop’s awning. According to charging documents, the man was then putting it into a trash can.
The tattoo shop posted a photo of the man on social media and asked for help identifying the suspect.
Police wrote in charging documents that the suspect is a Dallas resident who served in the U.S. Marine Corps and graduated from the academy, The Baltimore Sun reported. According to a Marine Corps spokesperson, he served from 2004 to 2013.
A woman who worked at a nearby restaurant contacted authorities Saturday morning and told police she had served the man in the video the night before, according to the charging documents.
After providing police with the man’s name and credit card receipt, the woman said she had “immediately” recognized him from the Dapper Dog post, police said.
He was also charged with malicious destruction of property. Both it and the hate crime charge, which in this case relates to property crimes, are misdemeanors.
California
City to pay nearly $1M to a woman after police dog bit into her scalp
BRENTWOOD, Calif. (AP) — A Northern California city has agreed to pay nearly $1 million to settle a lawsuit alleging police used excessive force after a K-9 dog bit into a woman’s scalp during her arrest, requiring her to get more than 200 stitches and other treatment.
Talmika Bates will receive $967,000 from the city of Brentwood, located about 60 miles (100 km) east of San Francisco in Contra Costa County, her attorneys announced Friday.
Bates, who was wanted on suspicion of shoplifting items from a makeup store, was hiding in bushes when the German Shepherd bit her head during the arrest in February 2020.
The woman required more than 200 stitches in her head, tissue rearrangement and laceration repair. She’s been diagnosed with mild diffuse traumatic brain injury, mild post-traumatic brain syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder, according to her attorneys.
“We need to recognize that K-9s are dangerous, sometimes lethal, weapons that can cause life-altering damage or kill someone even when an officer is trying to get them to release and relent,” said civil rights attorney Adante Pointer. “Here we saw a trained K-9 handler stand by while his dog mauled an unarmed young lady who was surrendering.”
The settlement comes six months after a federal judge stripped the officer handling the police K-9 of some of his qualified immunity protection, because the extended amount of time he allowed his dog to bite Bates could be considered by a jury as excessive force, her attorneys said.
Brentwood Police Chief Timothy Herbert said the city and its insurance providers agreed to settle the case to avoid further litigation and appeal costs.
“The lone claim by Ms. Bates in this litigation was excessive force per the Fourth Amendment. In the litigation, the District Court ruled that Officer Rezentes lawfully deployed his canine in this search ... and that he had a lawful right to use his canine to apprehend Ms. Bates under the Fourth Amendment,” Herbert said in a statement.
Herbert said the police department currently has no working K-9 officers.
Delaware
Judge tosses Huckabee lawsuit against Meta over ads suggesting he endorsed canabis gummies
WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — A federal judge in Delaware on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee against social media giant Meta over advertisements using his name and image to sell CBD products.
Huckabee, a Baptist minister and President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be U.S. ambassador to Israel, claimed Meta allowed and profited from the advertisements that falsely claimed he used and endorsed CBD gummies. CBD, or cannabidiol, is one the main active ingredients in marijuana but does not, by itself, provide the high caused by psychoactive THC.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, argued that it was immune from liability under Section 230 of the Federal Communication Decency Act.
U.S. District Judge Gregory Williams rejected that claim. He concluded, however, that Huckabee, a political commentator and two-time presidential candidate, had failed to allege valid claims for invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment and violation of Arkansas’ Publicity Protection Act.
Williams agreed with Huckabee that, in collecting user data and using algorithms to determine which posts and advertisements appeared at the top of users’ newsfeeds, Meta was an “information content provider” that was not immune from liability for the illegitimate ads.
The judge nevertheless determined that Huckabee failed to demonstrate that Meta knew the ads were fake, or that it was at least aware of facts and circumstances that would give rise to such knowledge. Huckabee’s assertion that Meta approved and maintained the ads with actual malice or reckless disregard for their truthfulness was merely a “mere conclusory statement,” Williams wrote.
“It is not reasonable to infer that Meta entertained serious doubts about the asserted advertisements since Governor Huckabee has publicly denounced marijuana,” the judge wrote. “There is no allegation that Meta was required to conduct ‘due diligence’ on the truth of the asserted advertisements. Even if there was, such requirement would be insufficient to infer malice.”
