Help fight Garland's bid for the Supreme Court

From The National Right To Work Committee:

Barack Obama is plotting to cripple the fight to protect worker freedom by installing Merrick Garland, a Big Labor approved justice on the Supreme Court.

And to make matters worse, as many as 16 Republicans may be wavering on their commitment to block Garland's nomination by agreeing to meet with Obama's nominee.

The consequences of Republicans folding on their pledge to block Garland's nomination would be disastrous.

A recent 4-4 split vote in the Friedrichs case left a lower court ruling in place upholding forced-union dues.

The California teachers fighting to be free from the clutches of union bosses and their forced dues scheme petitioned the Court to rehear their case.

Observers believe the Supreme Court could take up the case again as soon as next year.

But if Republicans wilt under Big Labor's pressure campaign, Garland is very likely to vote with the Court's four liberal justices to deliver a gut-punch to the worker freedom movement.

That's why I'm asking for your immediate help.

Your National Right to Work Committee has launched a "Stop the Obama Takeover" Banner Bomb to raise $30,000 by May 1st to blanket the states of wavering Senators with ads urging them to live up to their word and block Garland's nomination.

A 5-4 ruling in favor of forced-dues is not even the worst decision that a Big-Labor dominated Supreme Court could hand down.

Recently, liberal law professors bragged that a pro Big Labor Supreme Court majority could rule Right to Work itself as unconstitutional.

And now, one Wisconsin judge just handed the nation a peek at the future of Right to Work if Barack Obama gets his way and installs a pro-Big Labor nominee on the Supreme Court.

The judge's ruling struck down the state's Right to Work law by agreeing with Big Labor's lawyers that the state of Wisconsin cannot protect employees from union bosses who threaten to have them fired for refusing to pay dues or fees to a union they don't support.

If Barack Obama's union label nominee, Merrick Garland, is confirmed to the Supreme Court, I'm afraid his record proves he could very well cast the deciding vote to eliminate Right to Work laws across the country.

His 20 year record on the D.C. Court of Appeals reveals his Big Labor bias.

In fact, in two cases he sided against workers represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

He even voted to gut the Supreme Court's decision in the Beck case, which allows workers to opt-out of paying the portion of their dues that funds union politics.

And AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka heaped praise upon Garland and called his pro-Big Labor credentials "impeccable."

That's why I was so disturbed by the news some Republicans might be faltering on their commitment to block Garland's nomination.

So I'm asking you to chip in a contribution to the "Stop the Obama Takeover" Banner Bomb right away.

Your generous support will help your National Right to Work Committee launch a targeted online advertising campaign in states like Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire and Ohio urging their senators to stand firm on their commitment to block Garland's nomination.

With the November elections around the corner, Big Labor is cranking up the pressure on Republicans in the Senate to confirm Garland.

And unless Right to Work supporters across America rise up in opposition, I'm afraid of what may happen.

The good news is, despite the union boss arm-twisting, at least one Republican responded to the grassroots uprising against Garland's nomination and reversed course on his intention to hold hearings on the Garland nomination.

I'm convinced you and I have a chance to hold the line against Garland's nomination.

But that is going to require a megaphone to compete with Big Labor.

That's why I'm asking you to chip in and support the "Stop the Obama Takeover" Banner Bomb.

Your contribution will allow your National Right to Work Committee to gin up grassroots pressure in targeted states by blanketing the Internet and social media with ads urging key Senators to hold the line against the Garland nomination.

This won't be easy -- or cheap.

That's why we have until May 1st to raise the $30,000 necessary to fund this crucial program.

So please chip in a contribution before the deadline and help your National Right to Work Committee fight back against Big Labor's court-packing scheme.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix
President, National Right to Work

P.S. Barack Obama is plotting to cripple the fight to protect worker freedom by installing Merrick Garland, a Big Labor approved Justice on the Supreme Court.

And to make matters worse, as many as 16 Republicans may be wavering on their commitment to block Garland's nomination by agreeing to meet with Obama's nominee.

So your National Right to Work Committee has launched a "Stop the Obama Takeover" Banner Bomb to raise $30,000 by May 1st to blanket the states of wavering senators with ads urging them to live up to their word and block Garland's nomination.

Please chip in a contribution before the May 1st deadline and help turn up the pressure on key senators to hold firm on their pledge to block the Garland nomination.

Should the National Right To Work Committee fight on or give up?

From The National Right To Work Committee:

Let me get right to the point.

Over the past 12 months, the union bosses' seemingly endless power grabs -- perpetrated with the help of Obama's radical National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) -- have been "taxing" the National Right to Work Foundation's resources like never before.

And that means you and I face some difficult decisions.

First, the good news: I'm increasingly encouraged that America's waking up to just how dangerous Big Labor's $20 billion (BILLION!) empire is . . .

. . . How they extort the precious wages of hard-working men and women as a condition of employment and corrupt our politics, strangle businesses, penalize taxpayers and mock our Constitution.

In 2012, Indiana and Michigan rejected forced unionism and became the 23rd and 24th Right to Work states.

And just a few months ago, Wisconsin followed suit and became America's 25th Right to Work state!

But as you and I know, Big Labor does not easily relinquish its forced-dues power, so union boss lawyers are attacking these reforms in the courts.

The good news is, your National Right to Work Foundation is going toe-to-toe with union boss lawyers, defending these laws from Big Labor's legal assaults.

But make no mistake: The Obama Administration's sweetheart deals for Big Labor, and the $1.7 billion political spending blitz by the union bosses in 2012, have exposed just how powerful Big Labor remains.

Powerful union officials and their government allies are fuming mad at the hard-fought battles opponents of forced unionism have won in recent years, and they're using every trick in the book not only to take back lost ground, but also to expand their forced-dues power.

That's why I must hear from you immediately. Please sign your Confidential Supporter Directive right away.

Fighting the Obama Administration's power grabs for Big Labor is taxing the National Right to Work Foundation's resources like never before.

And even in the face of their recent setbacks, forced-unionism advocates aren't throwing in the towel.

On the contrary, with BILLIONS of forced-dues dollars at stake, the union bosses are redoubling efforts to reclaim lost ground and expand their forced-unionism privileges.

And they have a powerful ally in the Obama-stacked NLRB, which just declared war on all state Right to Work laws.

A Foundation client and I were invited to testify at a Congressional hearing on this issue earlier this month.

That's why your Right to Work Foundation's work is so critical.

The fact is, taking on the out-of-control NLRB is just one of the fronts we're fighting on.

With nearly 200 active cases right now, here's just a glimpse of what Foundation attorneys are working on:

*** Five federal lawsuits designed to build on the reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court gave in our Harris and Knox precedents with the goal of ending other government-granted Big Labor forced-unionism schemes, including union bosses' power to extract forced dues from public employees.

*** Scores of cases attacking Big Labor's use of forced dues to fund its political machine -- vitally important now as union operatives are already gearing up to install another puppet politician in the White House and take back the U.S. Senate.

*** Challenges to the aggressive compulsory unionism policies pushed by Obama appointees in the executive branch, including the Department of Labor and the NLRB.

*** Critical cases defending and enforcing state Right to Work protections, especially in the newest Right to Work states: Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Here's the rub. Your Foundation continues to operate on a tight budget in 2015, and it's crucial we allocate our resources to cover all our bases.

Soon, I'll sit down with the five-member Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees to decide whether changes must be made in the Foundation's program budget.

But before I do, I'd like to have your guidance and help.

Can you spare just a few minutes of your time and fill out your Supporter Directive?

You see, right now choices must be made among certain priorities in our program. And I'm asking your advice before I act.

The fact is, I'd rather scale back in a few fights (even though we believe we could win!) than get stretched too thin.

Here's an in-depth view of some of the most important fights the Foundation is waging right now:

>>> Pushing forward with cutting-edge cases that directly challenge the constitutionality of forced union dues for all public employees.

In our most recent Supreme Court victories, the Justices indicated that they may be open to repealing all forced dues in the government sector, and Foundation staff attorneys are working on filing a brief in one such challenge right now.

>>> Attacking forced-dues-for-politics schemes and illegal diversion of union money into partisan politics.

After all, you and I know we can't just trust union bosses to voluntarily comply with Foundation-won precedents that protect employees from forced-dues-for-politics schemes.

>>> Defending workers from Big Labor's aggressive Top Down Forced-Unionism strategy.

Utilizing new Obama NLRB rules, Big Labor is expanding its aggressive organizing tactics to push more workers into forced-unionism ranks, including quick-snap elections and "Card Check."

>>> Bolstering our outreach program. The impact of our legal victories is limited if workers aren't informed.

Our informational campaigns ensure workers harmed by Organized Labor's forced-dues schemes know they have an ally in the fight to resist union boss subjugation.

I'm sure you can see why now would be a terrible time to throttle back our efforts.

But I need input from our supporters detailing where you want the Foundation to focus our efforts.

So please fill out your Confidential Supporter Directive right away.

The fact is, in the coming months, Big Labor will unleash their multi-billion dollar, forced-dues-funded political warchest to maintain their iron-fisted control of the White House, recapture the U.S. Senate and take over state legislatures and governors' mansions nationwide.

But your Foundation is hitting back hard -- fighting forced-dues-for-politics schemes in state courts and agencies, in federal courts and at the NLRB.

With the union bosses using their political clout to launch still more power grabs, it's vital that you and I not let up now.

I hope you understand what a profound threat opponents of forced unionism face.

Time after time, you have loyally stood with the Right to Work Foundation as we have fought pivotal battles.

After all you and I have achieved, it would be a devastating blow to have to pull back -- especially now when our achievements hold the promise of attracting new supporters to our cause.

In fact, national leaders including Steve Forbes and U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) are helping in a nationwide campaign to build new support for Right to Work. But identifying and recruiting new supporters takes resources, too.

So, along with your completed Supporter Directive, I hope I can count on your most generous tax-deductible contribution right away.

You see, with the spate of Right to Work victories, union officials are pressing harder and in more sophisticated ways to expand their forced-dues empire.

That's why it's vital the Right to Work Foundation keep up the fight on all fronts.

And why your completed Supporter Directive is so important.

At this moment, Foundation attorneys are representing tens of thousands of employees in nearly 200 active legal aid cases.

Each case is unique, and vital precedents are at stake. It is difficult to consider abandoning any of them.

But fighting all the battles I've described will cost an estimated $4,960,000 through the end of the year.

And, if the Foundation is not in a strong position, there's no doubt Big Labor will be all the more eager to launch new attacks on America's workers or on the Foundation itself.

The fact is, for many years, the National Right to Work Foundation has stood in the breach. And you've stood with us.

Now, I'm writing to you and all of the Foundation's best supporters because, according to my calculations, if you and our other most generous supporters gave a tax-deductible gift of $10 to the Foundation today, it would be enough to fully fund the rest of our 2015 program.

I realize that $10 is a lot to ask, but too much is at stake and your Committee needs your help.

Unfortunately, I know a few people won't or can't give at all right now, and I understand that.

They will count on others to carry their load. Some folks may set this letter aside (despite the urgency) and forget to send a contribution.

That's why, if you can, please consider making a $10 contribution today to fund our vital programs.

It could be that's more than you've given as a single gift before, but I hope you will seriously consider this request.

More than anything, your investment is a testament to just how critical the Foundation's ongoing projects are.

If I can count on generous donors like you to give such a contribution now, I could put aside any thoughts of scaling back our programs and focus on challenging Big Labor's forced-dues assaults.

You see, with your investment, the Foundation can maintain and hopefully even increase its aggressive attack on Big Labor's compulsory unionism schemes.

If, for some reason, you just can't send $10 today, please give at least $5 or whatever you can afford right away.

Whether you send $10 or $5 -- or if a lesser amount is the most you can do -- please fill out your Confidential Supporter Directive giving me your advice, and please be as generous as you are able.

Please, help today. Your support will make a real difference.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix

P.S. Your National Right to Work Foundation stands in the breach, protecting the right of all Americans to be free from union boss tyranny.

Yet at this crucial moment, I fear the Foundation may not have the resources needed to fight all the threats you and I face.

So, your advice today is critical. Please submit your Confidential Supporter Directive at once, and please agree to your most generous tax-deductible contribution of $10 to fund our vital programs.

Labor Unions want to gut Right To Work laws

From The National Right To Work Committee:

The Obama Labor Board just declared a full-scale assault upon all 25 state Right to Work laws.

As you know, in March, Wisconsin became the third state in three years to adopt Right to Work. The worker freedom movement is growing, and momentum is on our side.

Now the former union lawyers on Barack Obama's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are taking revenge and moving forward with a scheme to gut all 25 state Right to Work laws.

From the outrageous persecution of Boeing for creating jobs in Right to Work South Carolina to ambushing workers with quick-snap unionization elections, the Obama Labor Board has rammed through one union-boss power grab after another.

I've been warning concerned citizens like you for two years that the worst may be yet to come, now that Barack Obama is no longer accountable to the American people.

Thanks to the surrender of a few weak-kneed Republicans in the U.S. Senate in 2013, Barack Obama has a fully-stocked NLRB stacked with a gaggle of union lawyers to do Big Labor's bidding.

And now the Obama Labor Board is seizing that opportunity and preparing to overturn over 60 years of precedent and ignore the plain language of federal and state law.

National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys identified this threat over a year ago.

United Steelworkers (USW) union bosses in Florida have asked the NLRB for permission to charge fees to workers who exercise their right under Florida law to cut off financial support to a union they don't support.

Foundation staff attorneys filed a brief in the case last June, arguing that this scheme would effectively eviscerate by administrative fiat Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which authorizes state Right to Work laws.

Under the union lawyers' twisted logic, unions in Right to Work states should be able to require independent-minded workers to pay "contract grievance fees."

But by seeking and gaining monopoly bargaining power, union bosses have taken away the individual worker's freedom to represent himself or herself in dealing with the employer.

Not only that, the union controls the entire "contract grievance" process, and individual workers cannot seek any remedies without the union's permission and involvement.

The worker never agreed to the process or the rules -- the union imposed all of it.

Adding insult to injury, union bosses forbid nonmembers from voting on the contact, meaning workers have zero opportunity whatsoever to change the rules or process.

Everything about this system is coercive, and coercion is precisely why Right to Work laws are necessary to protect workers.

Earlier Boards and federal courts have correctly interpreted the law in case after case since 1953, holding that Right to Work laws mean exactly what they say.

Independent-minded workers in Right to Work states don't have to pay a single penny to an organization they did not ask for and do not want.

The Obama NLRB has already signaled its intent to overturn all those precedents and ignore the law's plain language.

"When this board is asking for an amicus brief on the reconsideration of a rule, the majority's already decided that it wants to change the rule," one labor law expert commented.

Foundation staff attorneys are already working on a new brief to dismantle the union lawyers' contrived arguments for this scheme.

But the real battle is likely to be in federal court.

In fact, Foundation staff attorneys are providing free legal aid to an independent-minded worker in Texas in a similar case.

We could be in for another years-long legal battle against this outrageous power grab.

Your Foundation needs an influx of financial resources to help combat this scheme and any others the Obama NLRB cooks up while it still can.

I hope I can count on your continuing support today to help us fight back against the Obama Labor Board's direct assault upon all 25 state Right to Work laws.

Make no mistake, they're trying to undo everything the worker freedom movement has accomplished in recent years.

We can't back down. Please act at once.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix

P.S. The Foundation relies completely on voluntary contributions from our supporters to provide free legal aid.

Please chip in with a tax-deductible contribution of $10 or more today to support the Foundation's programs.

The shame of Wisconsin

Prosecutor John Chisholm
Judge Barbara Kluka
From the May 4, 2015, issue of NR ‘THEY CAME WITH A BATTERING RAM.” Cindy Archer, one of the lead architects of Wisconsin’s Act 10 — also called the “Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill,” it limited public-employee benefits and altered collective-bargaining rules for public-employee unions — was jolted awake by yelling, loud pounding at the door, and her dogs’ frantic barking. The entire house — the windows and walls — was shaking. She looked outside to see up to a dozen police officers, yelling to open the door. They were carrying a battering ram.

She wasn’t dressed, but she started to run toward the door, her body in full view of the police. Some yelled at her to grab some clothes, others yelled for her to open the door. “I was so afraid,” she says. “I did not know what to do.” She grabbed some clothes, opened the door, and dressed right in front of the police. The dogs were still frantic. “I begged and begged, ‘Please don’t shoot my dogs, please don’t shoot my dogs, just don’t shoot my dogs.’ I couldn’t get them to stop barking, and I couldn’t get them outside quick enough. I saw a gun and barking dogs. I was scared and knew this was a bad mix.”

She got the dogs safely out of the house, just as multiple armed agents rushed inside. Some even barged into the bathroom, where her partner was in the shower. The officer or agent in charge demanded that Cindy sit on the couch, but she wanted to get up and get a cup of coffee. “I told him this was my house and I could do what I wanted.” Wrong thing to say. “This made the agent in charge furious. He towered over me with his finger in my face and yelled like a drill sergeant that I either do it his way or he would handcuff me.”

They wouldn’t let her speak to a lawyer. She looked outside and saw a person who appeared to be a reporter. Someone had tipped him off. The neighbors started to come outside, curious at the commotion, and all the while the police searched her house, making a mess, and — according to Cindy — leaving her “dead mother’s belongings strewn across the basement floor in a most disrespectful way.” Then they left, carrying with them only a cellphone and a laptop.

“IT’S A MATTER OF LIFE OR DEATH.” That was the first thought of “Anne” (not her real name). Someone was pounding at her front door. It was early in the morning — very early — and it was the kind of heavy pounding that meant someone was either fleeing from — or bringing — trouble. “It was so hard. I’d never heard anything like it. I thought someone was dying outside.” She ran to the door, opened it, and then chaos. “People came pouring in. For a second I thought it was a home invasion. It was terrifying. They were yelling and running, into every room in the house. One of the men was in my face, yelling at me over and over and over.”

It was indeed a home invasion, but the people who were pouring in were Wisconsin law-enforcement officers. Armed, uniformed police swarmed into the house. Plainclothes investigators cornered her and her newly awakened family. Soon, state officials were seizing the family’s personal property, including each person’s computer and smartphone, filled with the most intimate family information. Why were the police at Anne’s home? She had no answers. The police were treating them the way they’d seen police treat drug dealers on television. In fact, TV or movies were their only points of reference, because they weren’t criminals. They were law-abiding. They didn’t buy or sell drugs. They weren’t violent. They weren’t a danger to anyone. Yet there were cops — surrounding their house on the outside, swarming the house on the inside. They even taunted the family as if they were mere “perps.” As if the home invasion, the appropriation of private property, and the verbal abuse weren’t enough, next came ominous warnings.

Don’t call your lawyer.

Don’t tell anyone about this raid.

Not even your mother, your father, or your closest friends. The entire neighborhood could see the police around their house, but they had to remain silent. This was not the “right to remain silent” as uttered by every cop on every legal drama on television — the right against self-incrimination. They couldn’t mount a public defense if they wanted — or even offer an explanation to family and friends. Yet no one in this family was a “perp.” Instead, like Cindy, they were American citizens guilty of nothing more than exercising their First Amendment rights to support Act 10 and other conservative causes in Wisconsin. Sitting there shocked and terrified, this citizen — who is still too intimidated to speak on the record — kept thinking, “Is this America?”


“THEY FOLLOWED ME TO MY KIDS’ ROOMS.” For the family of “Rachel” (not her real name), the ordeal began before dawn — with the same loud, insistent knocking. Still in her pajamas, Rachel answered the door and saw uniformed police, poised to enter her home. When Rachel asked to wake her children herself, the officer insisted on walking into their rooms. The kids woke to an armed officer, standing near their beds. The entire family was herded into one room, and there they watched as the police carried off their personal possessions, including items that had nothing to do with the subject of the search warrant — even her daughter’s computer. And, yes, there were the warnings. Don’t call your lawyer. Don’t talk to anyone about this. Don’t tell your friends. The kids watched — alarmed — as the school bus drove by, with the students inside watching the spectacle of uniformed police surrounding the house, carrying out the family’s belongings. Yet they were told they couldn’t tell anyone at school. They, too, had to remain silent.

The mom watched as her entire life was laid open before the police. Her professional files, her personal files, everything. She knew this was all politics. She knew a rogue prosecutor was targeting her for her political beliefs. And she realized, “Every aspect of my life is in their hands. And they hate me.” Fortunately for her family, the police didn’t taunt her or her children. Some of them seemed embarrassed by what they were doing. At the end of the ordeal, one officer looked at the family, still confined to one room, and said, “Some days, I hate my job.”

For dozens of conservatives, the years since Scott Walker’s first election as governor of Wisconsin transformed the state — known for pro-football championships, good cheese, and a population with a reputation for being unfailingly polite — into a place where conservatives have faced early-morning raids, multi-year secretive criminal investigations, slanderous and selective leaks to sympathetic media, and intrusive electronic snooping. Yes, Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement and home of the “Wisconsin idea” — the marriage of state governments and state universities to govern through technocratic reform — was giving birth to a new progressive idea, the use of law enforcement as a political instrument, as a weapon to attempt to undo election results, shame opponents, and ruin lives.

Most Americans have never heard of these raids, or of the lengthy criminal investigations of Wisconsin conservatives. For good reason. Bound by comprehensive secrecy orders, conservatives were left to suffer in silence as leaks ruined their reputations, as neighbors, looking through windows and dismayed at the massive police presence, the lights shining down on targets’ homes, wondered, no doubt, What on earth did that family do? This was the on-the-ground reality of the so-called John Doe investigations, expansive and secret criminal proceedings that directly targeted Wisconsin residents because of their relationship to Scott Walker, their support for Act 10, and their advocacy of conservative reform. Largely hidden from the public eye, this traumatic process, however, is now heading toward a legal climax, with two key rulings expected in the late spring or early summer. The first ruling, from the Wisconsin supreme court, could halt the investigations for good, in part by declaring that the “misconduct” being investigated isn’t misconduct at all but the simple exercise of First Amendment rights.

The second ruling, from the United States Supreme Court, could grant review on a federal lawsuit brought by Wisconsin political activist Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth, the first conservatives to challenge the investigations head-on. If the Court grants review, it could not only halt the investigations but also begin the process of holding accountable those public officials who have so abused their powers. But no matter the outcome of these court hearings, the damage has been done. In the words of Mr. O’Keefe, “The process is the punishment.” It all began innocently enough. In 2009, officials from the office of the Milwaukee County executive contacted the office of the Milwaukee district attorney, headed by John Chisholm, to investigate the disappearance of $11,242.24 from the Milwaukee chapter of the Order of the Purple Heart. The matter was routine, with witnesses willing and able to testify against the principal suspect, a man named Kevin Kavanaugh.

What followed, however, was anything but routine. Chisholm failed to act promptly on the report, and when he did act, he refused to conduct a conventional criminal investigation but instead petitioned, in May 2010, to open a “John Doe” investigation, a proceeding under Wisconsin law that permits Wisconsin officials to conduct extensive investigations while keeping the target’s identity secret (hence the designation “John Doe”). John Doe investigations alter typical criminal procedure in two important ways: First, they remove grand juries from the investigative process, replacing the ordinary citizens of a grand jury with a supervising judge. Second, they can include strict secrecy requirements not just on the prosecution but also on the targets of the investigation. In practice, this means that, while the prosecution cannot make public comments about the investigation, it can take public actions indicating criminal suspicion (such as raiding businesses and homes in full view of the community) while preventing the targets of the raids from defending against or even discussing the prosecution’s claims.

Why would Chisholm seek such broad powers to investigate a year-old embezzlement claim with a known suspect? Because the Milwaukee County executive, Scott Walker, had by that time become the leading Republican candidate for governor. District Attorney Chisholm was a Democrat, a very partisan Democrat. Almost immediately after opening the John Doe investigation, Chisholm used his expansive powers to embarrass Walker, raiding his county-executive offices within a week. As Mr. O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth explained in court filings, the investigation then dramatically expanded

Over the next few months, [Chisholm’s] investigation of all-things-Walker expanded to include everything from alleged campaign-finance violations to sexual misconduct to alleged public contracting bid-rigging to alleged misuse of county time and property. Between May 5, 2010, and May 3, 2012, the Milwaukee Defendants filed at least eighteen petitions to formally “[e]nlarge” the scope of the John Doe investigation, and each was granted. . . . That amounts to a new formal inquiry every five and a half weeks, on average, for two years.

This expansion coincided with one of the more remarkable state-level political controversies in modern American history – the protest (and passage) of Act 10, followed by the attempted recall of a number of Wisconsin legislators and, ultimately, Governor Walker. Political observers will no doubt remember the events in Madison — the state capitol overrun by chanting protesters, Democratic lawmakers fleeing the state to prevent votes on the legislation, and tens of millions of dollars of outside money flowing into the state as Wisconsin became, fundamentally, a proxy fight pitting the union-led Left against the Tea Party–led economic Right. At the same time that the public protests were raging, so were private — but important — protests in the Chisholm home and workplace. As a former prosecutor told journalist Stuart Taylor, Chisholm’s wife was a teachers’-union shop steward who was distraught over Act 10’s union reforms. He said Chisholm “felt it was his personal duty” to stop them. Meanwhile, according to this whistleblower, the district attorney’s offices were festooned with the “blue fist” poster of the labor-union movement, indicating that Chisholm’s employees were very much invested in the political fight. In the end, the John Doe proceeding failed in its ultimate aims. It secured convictions for embezzlement (related to the original 2009 complaint), a conviction for sexual misconduct, and a few convictions for minor campaign violations, but Governor Walker was untouched, his reforms were implemented, and he survived his recall election.

But with another election looming — this time Walker’s campaign for reelection — Chisholm wasn’t finished. He launched yet another John Doe investigation, “supervised” by Judge Barbara Kluka. Kluka proved to be capable of superhuman efficiency — approving “every petition, subpoena, and search warrant in the case” in a total of one day’s work.

If the first series of John Doe investigations was “everything Walker,” the second series was “everything conservative,” as Chisholm had launched an investigation of not only Walker (again) but the Wisconsin Club for Growth and dozens of other conservative organizations, this time fishing for evidence of allegedly illegal “coordination” between conservative groups and the Walker campaign. In the second John Doe, Chisholm had no real evidence of wrongdoing. Yes, conservative groups were active in issue advocacy, but issue advocacy was protected by the First Amendment and did not violate relevant campaign laws. Nonetheless, Chisholm persuaded prosecutors in four other counties to launch their own John Does, with Judge Kluka overseeing all of them. Empowered by a rubber-stamp judge, partisan investigators ran amok. They subpoenaed and obtained (without the conservative targets’ knowledge) massive amounts of electronic data, including virtually all the targets’ personal e-mails and other electronic messages from outside e-mail vendors and communications companies.

The investigations exploded into the open with a coordinated series of raids on October 3, 2013. These were home invasions, including those described above. Chisholm’s office refused to comment on the raid tactics (or any other aspect of the John Doe investigations), but witness accounts regarding the two John Doe investigations are remarkably similar: early-morning intrusions, police rushing through the house, and stern commands to remain silent and tell no one about what had occurred. At the same time, the Wisconsin Club for Growth and other conservative organizations received broad subpoenas requiring them to turn over virtually all business records, including “donor information, correspondence with their associates, and all financial information.” The subpoenas also contained dire warnings about disclosure of their existence, threatening contempt of court if the targets spoke publicly. For select conservative families across five counties, this was the terrifying moment — the moment they felt at the mercy of a truly malevolent state. Speaking both on and off the record, targets reflected on how many layers of Wisconsin government failed their fundamental constitutional duties — the prosecutors who launched the rogue investigations, the judge who gave the abuse judicial sanction, investigators who chose to taunt and intimidate during the raids, and those police who ultimately approved and executed aggressive search tactics on law-abiding, peaceful citizens. For some of the families, the trauma of the raids, combined with the stress and anxiety of lengthy criminal investigations, has led to serious emotional repercussions. “Devastating” is how Anne describes the impact on her family. “Life-changing,” she says. “All in terrible ways.” O’Keefe, who has been in contact with multiple targeted families, says, “Every family I know of that endured a home raid has been shaken to its core, and the fate of marriages and families still hangs in the balance in some cases.” Anne also describes a new fear of the police: “I used to support the police, to believe they were here to protect us. Now, when I see an officer, I’ll cross the street. I’m afraid of them. I know what they’re capable of.” Cindy says, “I lock my doors and I close my shades. I don’t answer the door unless I am expecting someone. My heart races when I see a police car sitting in front of my house or following me in the car. The raid was so public. I’ve been harassed. My house has been vandalized. [She did not identify suspects.] I no longer feel safe, and I don’t think I ever will.” Rachel talks about the effect on her children. “I tried to create a home where the kids always feel safe. Now they know they’re not. They know men with guns can come in their house, and there’s nothing we can do.” Every knock on the door brings anxiety. Every call to the house is screened. In the back of her mind is a single, unsettling thought: These people will never stop. Victims of trauma — and every person I spoke with described the armed raids as traumatic — often need to talk, to share their experiences and seek solace in the company of a loving family and supportive friends. The investigators denied them that privilege, and it compounded their pain and fear. The investigation not only damaged families, it also shut down their free speech. In many cases, the investigations halted conservative groups in their tracks. O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth described the effect in court filings:

O’Keefe’s associates began cancelling meetings with him and declining to take his calls, reasonably fearful that merely associating with him could make them targets of the investigation. O’Keefe was forced to abandon fundraising for the Club because he could no longer guarantee to donors that their identities would remain confidential, could not (due to the Secrecy Order) explain to potential donors the nature of the investigation, could not assuage donors’ fears that they might become targets themselves, and could not assure donors that their money would go to fund advocacy rather than legal expenses. The Club was also paralyzed. Its officials could not associate with its key supporters, and its funds were depleted. It could not engage in issue advocacy for fear of criminal sanction.

These raids and subpoenas were often based not on traditional notions of probable cause but on mere suspicion, untethered to the law or evidence, and potentially violating the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The very existence of First Amendment–protected expression was deemed to be evidence of illegality. The prosecution simply assumed that the conservatives were incapable of operating within the bounds of the law.

Even worse, many of the investigators’ legal theories, even if proven by the evidence, would not have supported criminal prosecutions. In other words, they were investigating “crimes” that weren’t crimes at all. If the prosecutors had applied the same legal standards to the Democrats in their own offices, they would have been forced to turn the raids on themselves. If the prosecutors and investigators had been raided, how many of their computers and smartphones would have contained incriminating information indicating use of government resources for partisan purposes? With the investigations now bursting out into the open, some conservatives began to fight back. O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth moved to quash the John Doe subpoenas aimed at them.

In a surprise move, Judge Kluka, who had presided over the Doe investigations for more than a year, recused herself from the case. (A political journal, the Wisconsin Reporter, attempted to speak to Judge Kluka about her recusal, but she refused to offer comment.) The new judge in the case, Gregory Peterson, promptly sided with O’Keefe and blocked multiple subpoenas, holding (in a sealed opinion obtained by the Wall Street Journal, which has done invaluable work covering the John Doe investigations) that they “do not show probable cause that the moving parties committed any violations of the campaign finance laws.” The judge noted that “the State is not claiming that any of the independent organizations expressly advocated” Walker’s election. O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth followed up Judge Peterson’s ruling by filing a federal lawsuit against Chisholm and a number of additional defendants, alleging multiple constitutional violations, including a claim that the investigation constituted unlawful retaliation against the plaintiffs for the exercise of their First Amendment rights. United States District Court judge Rudolph Randa promptly granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, declaring that “the Defendants must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation.” From that point forward, the case proceeded on parallel state and federal tracks. At the federal level, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Randa’s order. Declining to consider the case on the merits, the appeals court found the lawsuit barred by the federal Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits federal courts from issuing injunctions against some state-court proceedings.

O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth have petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and expect a ruling in a matter of weeks. At the same time, the John Doe prosecutors took their case to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals to attempt to restart the Doe proceedings. The case was ultimately consolidated before the state supreme court, with a ruling also expected in a matter of weeks.

And so, almost five years after their secret beginning, the John Doe proceedings are nearly dead — on “life support,” according to one Wisconsin pundit — but incalculable damage has been done, to families, to activist organizations, to the First Amendment, and to the rule of law itself. In international law, the Western world has become familiar with a concept called “lawfare,” a process whereby rogue regimes or organizations abuse legal doctrines and processes to accomplish through sheer harassment and attrition what can’t be accomplished through legitimate diplomatic means. The Palestinian Authority and its defenders have become adept at lawfare, putting Israel under increasing pressure before the U.N. and other international bodies. The John Doe investigations are a form of domestic lawfare, and our constitutional system is ill equipped to handle it. Federal courts rarely intervene in state judicial proceedings, state officials rarely lose their array of official immunities for the consequences of their misconduct, and violations of First Amendment freedoms rarely result in meaningful monetary damages for the victims.

As Scott Walker runs for president, the national media will finally join the Wall Street Journal in covering John Doe. Given the mainstream media’s typical bias and bad faith, they are likely to bring a fresh round of pain to the targets of the investigation; the cloud of suspicion will descend once again; even potential favorable court rulings by either the state supreme court or the U.S. Supreme Court will be blamed on “conservative justices” taking care of their own. Conservatives have looked at Wisconsin as a success story, where Walker took everything the Left threw at him and emerged victorious in three general elections. He broke the power of the teachers’ unions and absorbed millions upon millions of dollars of negative ads. The Left kept chanting, “This is what democracy looks like,” and in Wisconsin, democracy looked like Scott Walker winning again and again. Yet in a deeper way, Wisconsin is anything but a success. There were casualties left on the battlefield — innocent citizens victimized by a lawless government mob, public officials who brought the full power of their office down onto the innocent. Governors come and go. Statutes are passed and repealed.

Laws and elections are important, to be sure, but the rule of law is more important still. And in Wisconsin, the rule of law hangs in the balance — along with the liberty of citizens. As I finished an interview with one victim still living in fear, still shattered by the experience of nearly losing everything simply because she supported the wrong candidate at the wrong time, I asked whether she had any final thoughts. “Just one,” she replied. “I’m hoping for accountability, that someone will be held responsible so that they’ll never do this again.” She paused for a moment and then, with voice trembling, said: “No one should ever endure what my family endured.”

Source

It's often asked "Can it happen here? Can what happened in Nazi Germany and/or Soviet Russia happen here? Yes it can. This is also verifiable proof that it can happen here. We must be on guard to prevent it or prosecute those that cross that line. It's time to clean house in Wisconsin. We can start with a certain DA and his wife,along with most of the police officers in that jurisdiction.

Right to work victories

From The National Right To Work Committee:

The headlines have been stunning.

***SEIU Hit With Second-Biggest Campaign Finance Fine in Michigan History

***Wisconsin AFL-CIO Failed to Disclose Special Election Spending

***Big Labor, ‘Looking for Revenge,’ Expects to Dump $300 Million into 2014 Elections
And even so, they’ve barely scratched the surface of Big Labor’s forced-dues-funded election-year schemes.

Any day now, another headline may soon be spreading from coast to coast:

***Right to Work for All Civil Servants, Supreme Court Holds
The High Court’s term wraps up later this month, so a ruling in your National Right to Work Foundation’s Harris v. Quinn case is imminent.

A major Right to Work victory could “demolish a major source of funding and support for the Democratic Party,” one Big Labor apologist recently wrote.

But it’s a dangerous game to predict how the frequently cautious Supreme Court will rule.

That’s why Foundation staff attorneys are prepared to keep up the fight, especially as more and more stories come out this year exposing Big Labor’s corruption of our politics.

You see, during the last major election cycle, a Wall Street Journal report showed that, “the unions’ reports to the Labor Department capture an additional $3.3 billion that unions spent” on politics between 2005 and 2011 beyond their self-reported numbers.

And those staggering figures don’t even include Big Labor’s enormous local and regional political expenditures.

The fact is, as another election season shifts into high gear, Big Labor is once again pulling out all the stops.

Your help is vital right now to fight back against Big Labor’s multi-billion-dollar forced-dues political activism.

And Foundation attorneys tell me daily about ever more brazen examples of union boss forced-unionism misconduct.

Outraged workers are literally flooding our phone and e-mail systems with complaints of union boss abuse and requests for help.

With the election just around the corner, time is short.

If you and I don’t act, Big Labor will have spent all the workers’ money on politics before these workers can force them to give it back.

So it’s vital your Foundation be able to respond immediately to the flood of worker complaints with lawsuits, NLRB charges, Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaints, exposure in the media . . .

. . . Whatever it takes.

That’s why I am asking you to make a special contribution today to help the National Right to Work Foundation fight back.

With your help, the Foundation will be able to dramatically step up efforts to use legal action to block Big Labor’s illegal forced-dues-funded political electioneering.

A top Foundation priority for the rest of the year is to file new legal actions to force union officials to comply with prohibitions on collecting and using forced dues for politics.

You see, Big Labor is striving to undo recent Right to Work gains -- especially the passage of Right to Work Laws in Indiana and Michigan, as well as Wisconsin’s government-sector monopoly bargaining reforms.

That’s why in addition to spending hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars on U.S. Senate races, they’re scheming to take over state legislatures in all three states and governors’ mansions in both Michigan and Wisconsin.

Right to Work victories in Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin have begun to put a crimp in the forced-dues-to-politics pipeline.

But with billions of dollars at stake, the union bosses will stop at nothing to open the spigots all the way.

And they’ll have help.

As you know, union officials still have unprecedented access to a Big Labor-friendly White House and control of the U.S. Senate.

The fact is, President Barack Obama literally let top AFL-CIO union boss Richard Trumka handpick the new members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

That’s just one in a series of behind-the-scenes maneuvers the Obama Administration has made to reward its Big Labor benefactors, who unleashed another billion-dollar spending blitz two years ago to re-elect Barack Obama and lock in its majority in the U.S. Senate.

And even before that election was over, they were already scheming for 2014.

I hope you understand the real threat opponents of forced unionism face this year. I’m sure you must be as concerned as I am about the prospect of Big Labor’s forced-dues political machine targeting pro-Right to Work politicians in November.

With your help, the Foundation will:

***Prosecute cases against union officials who illegally seize and spend forced-dues money to get their cronies elected to positions of power.

***Protect popular state Right to Work laws that make union affiliation voluntary in 24 states. Union bosses are mounting end-runs around these laws and continuing to file nuisance lawsuits to block their implementation.

***Expose Big Labor’s misdeeds. Every time Foundation attorneys file charges against union bosses for breaking the law, misusing union dues or instigating violence against workers, the Foundation hammers the union bosses in the press for these ugly abuses.

The Foundation has been a much-needed watchdog against the union bosses countless times, including our recent victory for a New York teacher whose religious objection to union membership had been met with years of delay and law-breaking by local union officials.

In fact, no other nationwide organization is poised to stop Big Labor’s illegal use of workers’ forced-dues cash to advance its political agenda.

***It was our FEC complaint that led to a massive fine – the third largest in FEC history – against a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) front group.

***It was National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys who won the Knox case in 2012, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that union bosses must obtain the affirmative consent of non member public-employees before collecting fees for an “emergency” political slush fund in an election year.

***And Foundation attorneys were back at the High Court earlier this year and a ruling is imminent in our Harris v. Quinn case that could expand on that victory and stop the collection of all forced union fees from public employees.

Time and time again, the Foundation has been on the front lines against Big Labor’s schemes to buy elections with money seized from unwilling workers.

That’s why it’s vital you help the Foundation today. Would you take a moment right now to help with a timely contribution of $50?

Please consider making a gift that generous. But if $50 is more than you can spare today, then I hope you’ll consider a gift of at least $35 or $15.

With your help, Foundation attorneys will be fighting to block Big Labor’s illegal use of forced dues for politics wherever we find it.

Whether you can afford to give $50 or $35, or if for you a contribution of $15 is a sacrifice, the most important thing is to act today.

With so many challenges ahead of us, it is vital that we act immediately to stop Big Labor illegality.

Please make a generous, tax-deductible gift today.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix

P.S. With union bosses mounting their largest forced-dues political effort in history, it’s vital the Foundation fight back with lawsuits, NLRB charges, FEC complaints, exposure in the media . . . on every possible front.

And with the elections right around the corner, you and I must act TODAY.

So please respond today with a generous, tax-deductible gift of $50, $35, $15 or whatever you can afford.