Union Law in Wisconsin Blocked by Judge

[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?

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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

Then that makes two of us.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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).

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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/...ance_Guide.pdf

Originally Posted by Aramike

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).

Originally Posted by Aramike

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).

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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

You do DO, do you?

Originally Posted by Aramike

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".

Originally Posted by Aramike

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/...ance_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.

Originally Posted by Aramike

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/Vi...px?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.