iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Law Forward stands ready, with Governor Evers and all of Wisconsin’s elected officials and state workers, to defend against politically motivated retaliation and to uphold the rule of law. Our democracy depends on it. /end

040

Threats to silence, intimidate, and even incarcerate perceived political enemies cannot go unanswered, lest they metastasize into unconstitutional actions. This is especially true when those threats emanate from the White House. 8/9

160

Law Forward exists to defend and advance the rule of law on which our democracy depends. We commend Governor Evers for his leadership and his clear, calm commitment. We proudly joined an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie, and we celebrate the court’s order. 7/9

The court reaffirmed longstanding, core American principles, including that the federal constitution protects the right of everyone in our country to consult an attorney and the right of all attorneys to give independent legal advice, free from government interference. 6/9

Hours after Governor Evers stood up for the rule of law, a federal court in Washington, DC did the same, permanently blocking Executive Order 14230, in which President Trump targeted law firm Perkins Coie LLP. 5/9

instructions the Governor sent to Wisconsin state workers about consulting in-house legal counsel if federal immigration officials make demands at state facilities. Governor Evers explained that the rule of law remains paramount even in moments of intimidation, fear, or shows of force. 4/9

Yesterday, two developments cast this fundamental commitment in stark relief. Here in Wisconsin, Governor Tony Evers stood calm and steadfast in response to implicit but undeniable threats from Trump Administration official Tom Homan, who made those threats in response to common-sense 3/9

Wisconsinites live in a nation, and a state, defined by the rule of law. When we have disputes—whether they arise between private interests, between government actors and a private interest, or between two government actors—we resolve them by recourse to law. 2/9

Jeff Mandell @jeffmandell.bsky.social · 30/04/2025

Law Forward reaffirms commitment to rule of law, commends @govevers.wisconsin.gov's response to White House threats In response to two major developments yesterday, @lawfwd.bsky.social President & General Counsel Jeff Mandell issued the following statement: 1/9

171

My latest, with @normeisen.bsky.social, on what's happening in Wisconsin.

1708

Reposted by Jeff Mandell

Ann Jacobs @annjacobsmke.bsky.social · 25/03/2025

A quick Wisconsin review of Trump’s new executive order: tl;dr – This does *not* change anything for our upcoming election for Supreme Court on April 1. Here’s why: 1/7

34028

Jeff Mandell @jeffmandell.bsky.social · 19/03/2025

“An anti-constitutional act is one that rejects … the premise that sovereignty lies with the people, that ours is a government of limited and enumerated powers and that the officers of that government are bound by law.”

nytimes.com

Opinion | Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional

Where all this goes is still up to us.

020

Jeff Mandell @jeffmandell.bsky.social · 16/03/2025

Take seriously what @danshafer.bsky.social says: “The cavalry is not coming. It’s up to us. As the perennial canary in the coal mine of every political issue, of course it’s up to us here in Wisconsin … to save our own democracy.”

open.substack.com

It’s up to us, Wisconsin

While the fight might not be coming from national Democrats, Wisconsin voters have a unique opportunity at this moment to send a message to the Trump-Musk administration.

221043

Jeff Mandell @jeffmandell.bsky.social · 15/03/2025

As is often true, @joshtpm.bsky.social is precisely on point: “We’re in the midst of an authoritarian takeover of the U.S. government. … [I]f we care about this country, everything we do right now has to be guided toward defeating this takeover.”

021

Jeff Mandell @jeffmandell.bsky.social · 14/03/2025

I’m on @pbswisconsin.bsky.social’s “Here and Now” with Frederica Freyberg tonight, discussing this week’s debate in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race.

010

Gableman's attorney is, no later than April 1, to provide OLR with three 2-day periods between now and April 15 on which Gableman is available for deposition. "He needs to appear." No party had any questions, and the Referee said he will be issuing an order in the coming days.

010

The Referee is giving Gableman one more opportunity to appear for deposition. And the Referee will be available to work through any disagreements about the application of the Fifth Amendment to individual questions.

100

[After discussion to surmount some technical difficulties, the Referee continued.] He explains that Fifth Amendment claims must be made on a question-by-question basis and it was improper for Gableman to refuse to appear at all b/c a question might implicate the Fifth Amendment.

100

The Referee says there is no need for OLR to respond, because he is prepared to rule. He begins by noting that OLR's motion papers correctly present the relevant law.

100

He acknowledges that invoking the Fifth Amendment (against self-incrimination) has consequences.

100

Gableman's lawyer notes that and "other clients of my firm are being criminally prosecuted due to the efforts of @lawfwd.bsky.social" (He's referring to Jim Troupis.)

100

Gableman's lawyer concedes that the emails placed on the record by OLR are accurate. He says that he has acted in good faith. He notes that this "is not a run of the mill attorney disciplinary case."

100

Good morning. There's a motion hearing about to start in Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Michael Gableman, No. 2024AP2356-D. This is the disciplinary action arising from the ethics grievance that @lawfwd.bsky.social filed against Gableman in 2023. I'm listening in and will provide a running account.

121

If you care about our democracy, you should be alarmed by the prospect of Brad Schimel being on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. All voters who value an impartial, independent judiciary should vote for @crawfordforwi.bsky.social. 4/4

030

Schimel gestures toward “a string of other cases that the Supreme Court refused to hear before the election that impacted the election that year unquestionably.” That’s simply false; the conservative-dominated WI Supreme Ct expedited election cases to decide them in advance of the 2020 election. 3/4

140

Schimel refuses to say whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court was correct to honor the will of the voters and rebuff Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. That’s shocking and should be disqualifying. 2/4

Jeff Mandell @jeffmandell.bsky.social · 06/03/2025

Brad Schimel says that, if elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, he’ll be a “support network” for Trump. That’s not only gross but also incompatible with a judge’s obligations to hear cases impartially and to uphold the rule of law. 1/4

160

@robyablon.bsky.social hits the nail on the head in @contrariannews.org: "We now find ourselves in a world in which an outspoken foe of judicial independence is the most prominent financial backer of a candidate for a job that demands that very independence."

contrarian.substack.com

A test for judicial independence in Wisconsin

Elon Musk is spending big on the state’s Supreme Court race while expressing contempt for independent courts. That’s a worrisome combination.

073

Hold Supreme Court Justices To High Ethical Standards

And it is a reminder of how desperately we need a true code of ethics where, at a minimum, U.S. Supreme Court Justices are held to the same standards as other judges in our country. If you feel strongly about this, please sign and stand with us: www.lawforward.org/scotus-ethics/. 8/8

lawforward.org

0110

This episode speaks volumes about Trump—indeed, more about Trump and his transactional, profoundly anti-democratic view of government than about anyone else. But it also underscores the tremendous, unprecedented pressures facing our constitutional republic. 7/8

1120

As the President existed the House chamber, he greeted the Justices who were present. To John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States, Trump said: “Thank you again. Thank you again. I won’t forget.” You can watch for yourself: bsky.app/profile/jord... 6/8

191

Then, last night, the shock was amplified. President Trump spoke (and spoke, and spoke) to a joint session of Congress. It was a full-on DC soiree, with the cabinet, military leadership, several Supreme Court Justices, and even Elon Musk in attendance. 5/8

180

The decision was legally meritless, completely outside of the historical, constitutional, and moral frameworks that have guided our nation for almost 250 years. It was shocking, and we should not—cannot—allow that shock to fade. 4/8

1120

Some might say this is old news, even business as usual. But we cannot allow ourselves to become numb to these issues. And then every once in a while something happens that brings the outrage back to the surface. Last summer’s decision granting Trump immunity from prosecution was such a moment. 3/8

1110

Sure, the Justices technically fall within the rules, but they make sure that no one has authority to enforce those rules against them. And, predictably, the consequence of knowing that no one can call them to account is that several of them have consistently ignored ethical standards. 2/8

190

We should expect that those who serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land, would take every possible step to ensure that they are above reproach. Instead, the Justices resist any ethical restrictions at all. 1/8

1248

- that Wisconsin's most conservative court, District II of the Court of Appeals, fully repudiated Brad Schimel's ruling during the homestretch of the campaign.

- that he completely ignored established, binding, unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent to reach his incorrect ruling; or

that Brad Schimel ruled (wrongly) that the Open Meetings law was not violated by the misconduct here;

Jeff Mandell @jeffmandell.bsky.social · 06/02/2025

I have a new op-ed today in the @captimes.com about the Wisconsin Supreme Court election one month away. Democracy hangs in the balance, and I write about a recent judicial decision that illustrates that but has gotten remarkably little attention. It's hard to say what's most surprising:

172

Thank you, @wiaflcio.bsky.social for the invitation to speak at your annual Building Trades Conference this morning about @lawfwd.bsky.social’s work to restore democracy in Wisconsin.

020

Based on the limited exposure I had to him in Wisconsin, it’s hard to think of anyone less suited to the job of general counsel for the federal government’s human resources agency.

030

Since Kloster’s misadventures in Wisconsin, he has worked in Congress (for Matt Gaetz) and now has been appointed to a position of enormous import and influence in the Office of Personnel Management.

And as @ethicking.com notes, Kloster’s name appears 21 times in @lawfwd.bsky.social’s Gableman grievance. bsky.app/profile/ethi...

OLR Files Complaint against Michael Gableman, Taking Action on Our Grievance

Gableman is so ethically challenged that he is currently the subject of a disciplinary complaint before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Kloster and Gableman worked together in OPM during the first Trump Administration. www.lawforward.org/office-of-la...

lawforward.org

Consistent with my ethical obligations as a lawyer, I notified the proper authorities of my concerns about Kloster’s fitness for admission to the Bar. To my knowledge, Kloster has not been admitted to the Wisconsin Bar. (pg. 385: www.lawforward.org/wp-content/u...)

lawforward.org