Union Law in Wisconsin Blocked by Judge

[Stealth Hunter]

Madison — Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order Friday, barring the publication of Gov. Scott Walker's law that would sharply curtail collective bargaining for public employees.

Sumi's order will prevent Secretary of State Doug La Follette from publishing the law - and allowing it to take effect - until she can rule on the merits of the case. Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, is seeking to block the law because he says a legislative committee violated the state's open meetings law in passing the measure, which Walker signed on Friday.

Sumi, who was appointed to the bench by former GOP Gov. Tommy G. Thompson, said Ozanne was likely to succeed on the merits.

"It seems to me the public policy behind effective enforcement of the open meeting law is so strong that it does outweigh the interest, at least at this time, which may exist in favor of sustaining the validity of the (law)," she said.

The judge's finding - at least for now - is a setback to Walker, a Republican, and a victory for opponents, who have spent weeks in the Capitol to protest the bill. Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said the governor's side will ultimately prevail in court.

Assistant Attorney General Steven Means, who was part of the state's legal team, said after the ruling that "we disagree with it."

"And the reason they have appellate courts is because circuit court judges make errors and they have in this case."

Asked if the state would appeal, Means said: "We'll have to think about that."

He said that, if the Legislature tries to come back to re-enact the bill, they would have the right to do that.

Rep. Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) said he was pleased with the judge's ruling.

"I am very pleased with her action," Barca said. "We felt from the beginning this was a violation of the open meetings law. And now we go on from here."

Amanda Todd, a spokeswoman for the state courts system, had no immediate comment on when any possible appeal might be taken up by a higher court.

Republicans deny they violated the meetings law and say they passed the law properly.

The state constitution protects legislators from lawsuits during the legislative session. Lawmakers are expected to vote on bills through May 2012, but the session technically runs through Jan. 7, 2013 - the same day the next session begins.

Nonetheless, Sumi said Friday that the courts had the authority to hold up the law, based on past rulings.

The bill to curtail collective bargaining for public employee unions has drawn protesters to the Capitol for more than a month, with crowds swelling to tens of thousands of people on some days. Opponents now see the court cases as their only shot at stopping the law, though they are also pursuing recalls to win back Democratic control of the state Senate.

Republicans created a conference committee late March 9, and the committee met shortly thereafter to make changes to Walker's bill, setting up passage by the state Senate later that night. Passage by the committee was key to getting the bill to Walker's desk two days later.

The open meetings law requires 24 hours' public notice of meetings, or two hours in emergencies. Ozanne's suit argues the emergency standard did not apply and that even if it did, the meeting didn't follow the law because the committee met with less than two hours' notice.

Ozanne argues the meeting also violated the law because people had difficulty getting into the Capitol amid tight security and because it was held in a small room that could not accommodate the large crowd trying to get in.

Ozanne's complaint was against four Republican legislative leaders who were on the committee - Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald of Juneau, Senate President Mike Ellis of Neenah, Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald of Horicon and Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder of Abbotsford.

Named in both suits is Secretary of State Doug La Follette, a Democrat charged with publishing the new law. La Follette has said unless ordered otherwise, he will publish it March 25 and the law will take effect the next day.http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118242814.html (http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=629X1198&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsonline.com%2Fblogs%2Fnews%2 F118242109.html&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facepunch.com%2Fthreads%2F10 70631-BREAKING-Law-to-destoy-unions-in-Wisconsin-blocked-by-judge)

I lol'd. Next step should be an SSC appeal which will probably agree.
(http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/UPDATE__Judge_Temporarily_Blocks_New_State_Law.htm l)

[Ducimus]

Oh this thread should be good.

http://i49.tinypic.com/2z4wlzr.gif

[August]

We needed a separate thread? Never complain about too many Obama threads again. :salute:

[Platapus]

We needed a separate thread? Never complain about too many Obama threads again. :salute:
I think this is only the second thread on this topic. You have a long way to go to compare this to the number of Obama threads. :)

[Gerald]

Should it be interpreted, as there is room for more Obama related topics :hmmm:

[August]

I think this is only the second thread on this topic. You have a long way to go to compare this to the number of Obama threads. :)

True dat but we're off and counting!

[gimpy117]

Sounds like they wanted to push that bill through the legislature so fast they actually broke the law. It sounds really shady how they don't give notice until the last minute, but then again union busting is often cloak and dagger business so why is it any surprise?

[Aramike]

Sounds like they wanted to push that bill through the legislature so fast they actually broke the law. It sounds really shady how they don't give notice until the last minute, but then again union busting is often cloak and dagger business so why is it any surprise?They didn't break the law. There isn't a legal expert (liberal or conservative) in Wisconsin that thinks this will hold up. You probably don't know this, but the 2009 Budget Repair Bill passed by the DEMOCRATS would have violated the same rule.

Furthermore, if the Republicans wanted to they could just have another vote. They don't, however, because they know that some Dane County Circuit Court judge will find yet another reason to issue a temporary restraining order. So they are intentionally allowing this to elevate to the next level.

This ruling is a partisan joke and will be overturned at the next level. If it were not, it would throw out practically the last 10 years of laws in the state.

[Aramike]

Get this: judge is actually IGNORING the law which EXPRESSELY PERMITS the process Republicans used.

From Senate Rule 93, enacted BY DEMOCRATS, including one that still serves in the state senate, that pertains to special sessions:no notice of hearing before a committee shall be required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board

Isn't it interesting how liberals love to bypass their OWN laws when it suits their needs? Aren't we supposed to have three separate branches of government?

Judges are supposed to rule on the Constitutionality of laws, not intervene on the legislative process. This is an outrage, albeit an expected one.

[gimpy117]

You can cry over partisan politics all you want but hey, laws are laws if they didn't give proper notices to meetings then its wrong. If the democratic bill has the same mistake then it shouldn't stand either. Two wrongs do not make a right though, and even if the democrats did the same thing it goes to show how people are trying to rush these bills in for their respective side.

But im sure the republicans are freaking right now. They'll be climbing the walls screaming of partisan politics (I actually have a very amusing image of a yelling politician hanging from the ceiling right now in my head). The Ironic part of this whole boondoggle is that the GOP one of, if not the most partisan party out there will be the one complaining this time.

[Aramike]

You can cry over partisan politics all you want but hey, laws are laws if they didn't give proper notices to meetings then its wrong. Did you read senate rule 93 yet?

It's not wrong. You're just like the judge - you find comfort in ignoring things that don't support your predetermined notion. Blind liberalism used to be funny, now it's just sad.

Seriously - even if this were to hold up (which it won't) ... so???

Republicans just call another special session, leave 24 hour notice, and pass it again.

But again, this judge's ruling is way over her authority, and goes against senate rules PASSED by democrats.

Sorry gimpy, your side's gonna lose this one too - even WITH judges content to ignore the law.

[Aramike]

Stealth Hunter, I just noticed this:I lol'd. Next step should be an SSC appeal which will probably agree.Are you kidding?

What makes you think that a conservative Supreme Court is going to overturn a law when the senate rules are explicit, AND they have written that legislature procedure is determined by the body?

[gimpy117]

Sorry gimpy, your side's gonna lose this one too - even WITH judges content to ignore the law.

okay yeah we knew that all along. I'm not talking about who's winning or losing I'm speaking about the law. Obviously she thought it might have violated a law otherwise she wouldn't have done it.

[vienna]

Just because a law is a law, it is not automatically right or legal. If a law violates a state's constitution, it is technically an "illegal" law and will be struck down by state courts. Further, if it violates the U.S. Constitution, it will be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. What is galling and frustrating is how members of both parties will, when in power, enact laws or regulations they know will never meet judicial, much less constituional muster, just to make political capital. The cost in man-hours and monetary expense to pursue this partisan windmill tilting would be better served in correcting and improving problems and situations that really matter.

[Aramike]

okay yeah we knew that all along. I'm not talking about who's winning or losing I'm speaking about the law. Obviously she thought it might have violated a law otherwise she wouldn't have done it.Really? Your faith in a judge that IGNORED state law and refused to order school teachers back to work from an illegal strike is stunning.

[gimpy117]

Really? Your faith in a judge that IGNORED state law and refused to order school teachers back to work from an illegal strike is stunning.

and why is it illegal exactly? or is it just because you say so?

[Torplexed]

and why is it illegal exactly? or is it just because you say so?

Don't know about Wisconsin but here in Washington State strikes by public employees are prohibited by statute. A legal nicety the Teacher's Union consistently ignores every year.

[Aramike]

and why is it illegal exactly? or is it just because you say so?Dude, REALLY?

The LAW is what makes it illegal for public sector employees in Wisconsin to strike. This isn't exactly classified information.

You're reminding me of a kid who's being told something he doesn't want to hear and just plugs his ears, screaming "BLAH BLAH BLAH". Are there any facts that you wish to contribute or are you more inclined to just assume everyone opposing your ideology just must be wrong?

[gimpy117]

Dude, REALLY?

The LAW is what makes it illegal for public sector employees in Wisconsin to strike. This isn't exactly classified information.

You're reminding me of a kid who's being told something he doesn't want to hear and just plugs his ears, screaming "BLAH BLAH BLAH". Are there any facts that you wish to contribute or are you more inclined to just assume everyone opposing your ideology just must be wrong?

well not that i won't believe you but i wanna see the law that says that first...I did a search and couldn't find anything.

[Stealth Hunter]

and why is it illegal exactly? or is it just because you say so?

Just because he says so.

The only thing illegal here was the passage of the bill.

I just noticed this:Are you kidding?

What makes you think that a conservative Supreme Court is going to overturn a law when the senate rules are explicit, AND they have written that legislature procedure is determined by the body?

Under the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law, which I believe is the one you're trying to drum up here and use for your own argument (at least, it's the one that Judge Sumi used in her restraining order's provisions), all meetings conducted by "governmental bodies" are required to have 24 hours notice given in advance (according to Statute 19.84). In this case, only a two hour notice was given, well below the requirement. Government bodies are, for the record, defined under the OML as:

The definition of “governmental body” includes a “state or local agency, board, commission, committee,
council, department or public body corporate and politic created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule or
order[.]” Wis. Stat. § 19.82(1). This definition is broad enough to include virtually any collective governmental
entity, regardless of what it is labeled. It is important to note that a governmental body is defined primarily in
terms of the manner in which it is created, rather than in terms of the type of authority it possesses. Purely
advisory bodies are therefore subject to the law, even though they do not possess final decision making power, as
long as they are created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule, or order.More precisely, the OML applies to the state's legislature, including the senate, assembly, and any committees or subunits of those precise bodies (according to Statute 19.87) anytime and every time they have a meeting (according to Statute 19.83). There are no exemptions to be had with this case, the only ones currently in existence being applicable to deliberations with regards to judicial or quasi-judicial trials or hearings before the respective body, the purchasing of public properties, investing of public funds, unemployment compensation and worker's compensation (both cases of which require all employer members or employees to be excluded for this to apply), and the location of burial sites; additionally, exemptions exist for considerations with regards to dismissals, demotions, licensing, and discipline of public employees or person holding authority/power within a public board, commission, investigation committee, etc.; employment, promotion, compensation, or performance evaluation data holds jurisdiction and/or responsibility; probation, parole, crime detection and prevention sessions; all other cases where financial, medical, social, personal histories, disciplinary data, preliminary consideration, confidentiality, ethics, conferences with legal consultants, etc. are factors with regards to protecting the integrity and ensuring the unmolested reputation of any and all persons/businesses discussed within such data (all this is under Statute 19.85).

Oh, and considerations are also made to financial information relating to the support by a person, other than an authority figure, of a nonprofit corporation operating the Olympic Ice Training Center in your own native Milwaukee... in case you wanted to know that little detail, as well...

The point being that they clearly violated the OML's notice provision and do not qualify under any of the exemptions listed under the very same law. Judge Sumi was right to call them out on this, and that's how simple it is. Any negativity otherwise stems merely from wishful thinking and a personal desire to curb the unions of Wisconsin. The language of the OML is clear, as you can see for yourself here:

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dls/OMPR/2010OMCG-PRO/2010_OML_Compliance_Guide.pdf
http://www.wisfoic.org/an-openmeetingslaw.html

Dude, REALLY?

The LAW is what makes it illegal for public sector employees in Wisconsin to strike. This isn't exactly classified information.

Actually, it's not illegal. You cannot be sent to jail or prison or arrested for striking in Wisconsin if you are a public worker. It's not a crime. You can only be discharged from your duties.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/2011-13%20Budget/2011_03_09%20Modification%20to%20SS%20SB%2011_AB%2 011.pdf

p.16, i.3

well not that i won't believe you but i wanna see the law that says that first...I did a search and couldn't find anything.

You won't find anything, because it isn't illegal lol.

Though I find it surprising that so many people here who coo and bellow on about freedom and rights and how both are being trampled on (when something as simple as the issue of gun rights comes into the picture) have had, evidently, a sudden change of heart here...

[Aramike]

well not that i won't believe you but i wanna see the law that says that first...I did a search and couldn't find anything.Wisconsin State Statute 111.70.

And seriously - during the "sick out" every major media outlet pointed that out, because they were explaining as to why the teachers tried the "sick out" technique rather than a strike.

I'm shocked you missed it, unless you weren't interested in such facts...

[Aramike]

Actually, it's not illegal. You cannot be sent to jail or prison or arrested for striking in Wisconsin if you are a public worker. It's not a crime. You can only be discharged from your duties.Yes it IS illegal.

There are plenty of things that are illegal but not criminal, and this is one of them. That's Lawyer 101. Perhaps you should brush up on the basics.

(Odd you didn't know that considering that practically the entire illegal immigrant debate's legal basis is the fact that an illegal immigrant, by being here, is not committing a crime.)

Furthermore, you're cherry picking the open meetings law. I'll just be patient and let the upcoming rulings explain specifically why you're wrong, as you're clearly choosing to ignore other points on the books ... which I've already presented.

[Stealth Hunter]

Yes it IS illegal.

There are plenty of things that are illegal but not criminal, and this is one of them. That's Lawyer 101. Perhaps you should brush up on the basics.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/2011-13%20Budget/2011_03_09%20Modification%20to%20SS%20SB%2011_AB%2 011.pdf

No, it is not. You can only be discharged from your duties if you are a public worker and go on a strike (that is, fail to report to work for three days straight and/or show a clear dereliction in your job's tasks which have been presented to you). It is not a crime, and you cannot be sent to jail or prison or even be arrested for it... you do know what a crime is, don't you? I guess not.

To use an excerpt from your earlier post:

You're reminding me of a kid who's being told something he doesn't want to hear and just plugs his ears, screaming "BLAH BLAH BLAH". Are there any facts that you wish to contribute or are you more inclined to just assume everyone opposing your ideology just must be wrong?

Furthermore, you're cherry picking the open meetings law.

Do tell how. I merely explained how Judge Sumi was correct in citing this portion of the OML and was also correct in her verdict that the state senate had violated it by not providing adequate notice as they are required to... and that, furthermore, it does not qualify for an exemption. Nothing more or less.

I'll just be patient and let the upcoming rulings explain specifically why you're wrong, as you're clearly choosing to ignore other points on the books ... which I've already presented.

By that, you mean you'll just ignore my points and the legitimate legal aspects of this case and continue to spout that atrocious rhetoric you call "points". You have posted 8 times in this thread, yet have presented no legal argument for your side and a counterargument against Judge Sumi, whereas I have taken the time and put forth the effort to do so for you in order to explain the legal background behind this case and how there are indeed issues to be had with how this bill was passed, both of which with regards to the OML (proving why it was, moreoever, illegal in the first place with regards to the notice).

By all means, do so. I'll more than gladly oblige you in the coming weeks.

[Aramike]

Here's another one for you, Stealth Hunter. WI Senate Rule 93, which applies to the SPECIAL SESSION:

Senate Rule 93. Special, extended or extraordinary sessions. Unless otherwise provided by the senate for a specific special, extended or extraordinary session, the rules of the senate adopted for the regular session shall, with the following modifications, apply to each special session called by the governor and to each extended or extraordinary session called by the senate and assembly organization committees or called by a joint resolution approved by both houses:
(1) No senate bill, senate joint resolution or senate resolution shall be considered unless it is germane to the subjects enumerated by the governor in the proclamation calling the special session or to the subjects enumerated by the committees on organization or in the joint resolution calling the extended or extraordinary session and is recommended for introduction by the committee on senate organization or by the joint committee on employment relations.
(2) No notice of hearing before a committee shall be required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and no bulletin of committee hearings shall be published.
(3) The daily calendar shall be in effect immediately upon posting on the legislative bulletin boards. The calendar need not be distributed.
(4) Any point of order shall be decided within one hour.
(5) No motion shall be entertained to postpone action to a day or time certain. (6) Any motion to advance a proposal and any motion to message a proposal to the other house may be adopted by a majority of those present and voting.

[Aramike]

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/2011-13%20Budget/2011_03_09%20Modification%20to%20SS%20SB%2011_AB%2 011.pdf

No, it is not. You can only be discharged from your duties if you are a public worker and go on a strike (that is, fail to report to work for three days straight and/or show a clear dereliction in your job's tasks which have been presented to you). It is not a crime, and you cannot be sent to jail or prison or even be arrested for it... you do know what a crime is, don't you? I guess not.

To use an excerpt from your earlier post:

You're reminding me of a kid who's being told something he doesn't want to hear and just plugs his ears, screaming "BLAH BLAH BLAH". Are there any facts that you wish to contribute or are you more inclined to just assume everyone opposing your ideology just must be wrong?No, YOU don't know what a crime is. You should consult an attorney.

All things that are illegal are not crimes.

For instance, parking illegally in a handicapped zone is NOT a crime. Dude, this is basic stuff. It IS illegal, it IS punishable, but it is NOT a criminal violation.

[Stealth Hunter]

Here's another one for you, Stealth Hunter. WI Senate Rule 93, which applies to the SPECIAL SESSION:

As I previously stated, this qualifies as a regular legislative session, not as a special session, with regards to the OML and state senate. By all means, explain, using the legal aspects you claim are on your side, how, exactly, the passage of the union bill in question by the state senate qualified and indeed continues to qualify as a special session.

[Aramike]

As I previously stated, this qualifies as a regular legislative session, not as a special session, with regards to the OML and state senate. By all means, explain, using the legal aspects you claim are on your side, how, exactly, the passage of the union bill in question by the state senate qualified and indeed continues to qualify as a special session.Abolsutely, 100% wrong.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/spotlight/

The special session was called by Gov. Walker and is ongoing. Again, this is not classified information.

[Stealth Hunter]

No, YOU don't know what a crime is. You should consult an attorney.

Such comments from ignorance are most pitiful. Let me put it to you in this fashion: how does striking in Wisconsin constitute a crime, as you claim? What are the civil punishments or charges, etc. that can be filed against a person?

All things that are illegal are not crimes.

If something is illegal in this sense, then it is prohibited by law. If you violate the law by doing something illegal, you are committing a crime (an act which is punishable for breaking the law).

I need to consult an attorney? YOU need to consult an attorney.

For instance, parking illegally in a handicapped zone is NOT a crime.

Actually, it constitutes a civil citation. You still are probably going to be fined and might have to appear in front of a court to pay that fine. It's not any different with speeding tickets. You won't have a criminal record, so long as you aren't a repeat offender, but you still will be punished, ergo it constitutes a crime.

Dude, this is basic stuff. It IS illegal, it IS punishable, but it is NOT a criminal violation.

For the third time, it is not illegal. You are not fined, you are not held in jail, you are not required to appear in front of a court... you are simply discharged from your duties as a public employee. The employee is given notice about the action and reasons are listed.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/2011-13%20Budget/2011_03_09%20Modification%20to%20SS%20SB%2011_AB%2 011.pdf

Abolsutely, 100% wrong.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/spotlight/

The special session was called by Gov. Walker and is ongoing. Again, this is not classified information.

(2) No notice of hearing before a committee shall be required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board . . .

Committees and only committees not required to do so under special sessions. The problem for you, however, is that, as I pointed out earlier and perhaps should have been more specific on just a short while ago, the state senate does not act as a committee; it is its own collective governmental entity with common legislative powers- created and specified from the state constitution.

The definition of “governmental body” includes a “state or local agency, board, commission, committee,
council, department or public body corporate and politic created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule or
order[.]” Wis. Stat. § 19.82(1). This definition is broad enough to include virtually any collective governmental
entity, regardless of what it is labeled. It is important to note that a governmental body is defined primarily in
terms of the manner in which it is created, rather than in terms of the type of authority it possesses. Purely
advisory bodies are therefore subject to the law, even though they do not possess final decision making power, as
long as they are created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule, or order.

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dls/OMPR/2010OMCG-PRO/2010_OML_Compliance_Guide.pdf

It would be different if it was a committee, but it's not.

[Aramike]

By that, you mean you'll just ignore my points and the legitimate legal aspects of this case and continue to spout that atrocious rhetoric you call "points". You have posted 8 times in this thread, yet have presented no legal argument for your side and a counterargument against Judge Sumi, whereas I have taken the time and put forth the effort to do so for you in order to explain the legal background behind this case and how there are indeed issues to be had with how this bill was passed, both of which with regards to the OML (proving why it was, moreoever, illegal in the first place with regards to the notice).[/quote]I missed this before. Let me explain clearly why I'm not going to get into a all-out legal tit-for-tat with you.

The main reason is I don't think you really have a grasp on legalese to begin with. You're making these brash claims that all things illegal are crimes. They are not. Speeding, for instance, is not a crime.

In fact, in Wisconsin, 1st Offense Drunk Driving is not a crime (this has been a contentious, ongoing debate).

Another supporting reason is you clearly haven't bothered to get your facts straight. With the 2011 legislative session, both houses voted unanimously to adjourn the regular session and enter into a special one, early.

These are two basic concepts, both of which you've side-stepped through clear ignorance in order to invalidate my points. However, the fact remains that these two concepts are REAL ones, therefore side-stepping them only invalidates that which follows.

Here's a link to an excellent article explaining the latter portion clearly: http://maciverinstitute.com/2011/03/wisconsin-ag-slams-order-promises-appeal/

[Aramike]

Such comments from ignorance are most pitiful. Let me put it to you in this fashion: how does striking in Wisconsin constitute a crime, as you claim? What are the civil punishments or charges, etc. that can be filed against a person?I said it was illegal, not that it was a crime.

Again, you STILL don't know the difference? Kind of pitiful at this juncture. If something is illegal in this sense, then it is prohibited by law. If you violate the law by doing something illegal, you are committing a crime (an act which is punishable for breaking the law).

I need to consult an attorney? YOU need to consult an attorney.Keep pushing that point. It's getting more funny by the moment, because even a first year law student knows the difference between illegal and criminal.

I do DO know what you're trying to say - but unfortunately if you're going to discuss things in legal terms you can't just disappear into common dictionary usage whenever it serves your purpose.Committees and only committees not required to do so under special sessions. The problem for you, however, is that, as I pointed out earlier and perhaps should have been more specific on just a short while ago, the state senate does not act as a committee; it is its own collective governmental entity with common legislative powers- created and specified from the state constitution.You do know that the conference committee meeting is what's being challenged here, right?

The following day's floor session was already scheduled - for two months.

Now you're getting laughable.

[Stealth Hunter]

I thought you said you were going to be patient and wait for the upcoming rulings to do all the talking for you. Yet here you are. Curious, no?

I missed this before. Let me explain clearly why I'm not going to get into a all-out legal tit-for-tat with you.

Oh joy.

Lead on.

The main reason is I don't think you really have a grasp on legalese to begin with.

Then that makes two of us.

You're making these brash claims that all things illegal are crimes.

Hardly brash. By simple definition, if something is illegal, then it is prohibited by law. If you violate the law by doing something illegal, you are committing a crime (an act which is punishable for breaking the law). The only question, and where you're evidently losing the ability to follow along, is whether or not they warrant harsh punishments and a criminal record (precisely what makes misdemeanors and felonies more serious than just getting a civil citation).

They are not. Speeding, for instance, is not a crime.

Speeding constitutes a civil citation, which, can be a criminal offense in the legal sense depending on what state you live in (most civil citations in Nevada, for example, are considered to be misdemeanors- with some exceptions for juveniles; Texas now has illegal parking as a misdemeanor in Austin, too). Speaking in common vernacular, however, it still equates to the definition a crime- albeit not in the least a serious one.

With the 2011 legislative session, both houses voted unanimously to adjourn the regular session and enter into a special one, early.

The special session, however, does not change the fact that the state senate (nor the assembly; I stress the senate as it bears a number of privileges being the upper house of the state legislature) does not act as a committee; it is its own collective governmental entity with common legislative powers- created and specified from the state constitution.. Hence it was pointless to try and cite Rule #93's bit on notices:

(2) No notice of hearing before a committee shall be required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board . . .

Let me spell it out for you one more time: committees and only committees not required to do so under special sessions; the senate itself and its members, however, do not constitute a committee when acting on legislative grounds as they did with the passage of this bill on collective bargaining rights; indeed, the budget affairs of the state. Hence 24 hour notice was required under the OML, but they only gave two hours worth. You can read it for yourself:

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dls/OMPR/2010OMCG-PRO/2010_OML_Compliance_Guide.pdf

These are two basic concepts, both of which you've side-stepped through clear ignorance in order to invalidate my points.

Only one is relevant, however, to the issue of the bill in Wisconsin. Though your reiteration of the fact that this was a special session of the state senate under which this bill was passed and to somehow draw a connection between this and Rule #93 of the senate which applies only to committees has been done both needlessly and senselessly; the former is redundant, the latter blatantly incorrect in light of the above paragraph (which you have, because of your own ignorance, made me in turn repeat for the second time now).

However, the fact remains that these two concepts are REAL ones, therefore side-stepping them only invalidates that which follows.

I don't think it constitutes "side-stepping" when your counterpart addresses the concepts which you bring into the discussion. Side-stepping is more like trying to fallaciously turn attention away from the real issue at hand (in this case, Judge Sumi's ruling on the passage of the bill in question) to something related but nevertheless irrelevant (the legality of striking as a public worker in the state of Wisconsin).

I said it was illegal, not that it was a crime.

But the problem is that it's not illegal to begin with, let alone a crime even in the common vernacular sense (for the former, as well). All that it warrants is, should a public employee officially put themselves on a strike status and either remain out of work for three days or show poor performance of their work.

I do DO know what you're trying to say -

You do DO, do you?

but unfortunately if you're going to discuss things in legal terms you can't just disappear into common dictionary usage whenever it serves your purpose.

That's hardly what's going on insofar as my part here is concerned. I'm merely pointing out what few correlations exist (and indeed where no correlations exist) between common and legal vernacular with regards to the definitions of the terms "illegal" and "criminal".

You do know that the conference committee meeting is what's being challenged here, right?

Yes, under Ozanne's suit. But you did catch the part, as well, where the Open Meetings Law requires all public meetings of governmental bodies (including the senate and assembly) to post notices of their own whenever a meeting is conducted, yes? This winds around to all I was arguing at the beginning of this discussion between us...

The definition of “governmental body” includes a “state or local agency, board, commission, committee,
council, department or public body corporate and politic created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule or
order[.]” Wis. Stat. § 19.82(1). This definition is broad enough to include virtually any collective governmental
entity, regardless of what it is labeled. It is important to note that a governmental body is defined primarily in
terms of the manner in which it is created, rather than in terms of the type of authority it possesses. Purely
advisory bodies are therefore subject to the law, even though they do not possess final decision making power, as
long as they are created by constitution, statute, ordinance, rule, or order.http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dls/OMPR/2010OMCG-PRO/2010_OML_Compliance_Guide.pdf

http://www.wisfoic.org/an-openmeetingslaw.html

The OML applies to the state's legislature governmental bodies, including, again, both the senate and assembly, anytime they have a meeting. They are both required to give 24 hours notice before their meetings. They are not, however, given exemptions as committees are with Rule #93 of the senate, hence why they are accountable as well. That's all my original argument which you responded to was about in the first place... nothing more, or less.

The following day's floor session was already scheduled - for two months.

The floorperiod was scheduled back in January, but the senate's floor session that met on March the 9th to vote on the bill and passed it was not scheduled clear back then (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/SJR-1.pdf). Which, on that note, you do know that this entire particular event happened all within the same day, yes? The CC that's the center of attention from Ozanne's suit was created and met during the day on March 9th first to discuss what penalties and costs should be imposed on the respective Democratic senators, adjourned, met again to look at a retail discount bill, left for lunch, convened again to form the CC, moved along to make final revisions to the bill here in question, and then later that same night entered a legislative session and passed the very same bill by the senate. I think the article made all this pretty clear, but, if not, you can watch the event details here for yourself:

http://www.wiseye.org/Programming/VideoArchive/EventDetail.aspx?evhdid=3880

[Aramike]

So how many times are you going to change your argument? First it was wrong because the senate rule in question applies to committees. Now, when you're informed that it actually was a committee that's in question it's something else.

And I'm pretty sure it was something else before that too.

Clearly you demonstrated that you have no idea about the legality of what's in question because you didn't even know what it was that is in question to begin with. Nor did you know that the legislature is in special session.

In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about, as you've repeatedly demonstrated. So again, like I said, I'll let the next judicial ruling explain it to you.

PS: The "crime" discussion is cracking my attorney friends up. You really should consult a legal professional.