FF&f3J

FRIEBERT,
ATTORNEYS

FINERTY

& ST. JOHN,

S.

C.
Wisconsin 53202
ROBERT JOHN THOMAS

AT LAW

Two Plaza East - Suite 1250 • 330 East Kilbourn Ave .• Milwaukee, Phone 414-271-0130' Fax 414-272-8191 • www.ffsj.com

H.

FRIERERT

D. FINERTY
W.
STJOHN B.

WILLIAM

GVlS

December 20, 2011

S. TODD TED A.

FARRIS

WARPTNSKI A. ALLEN

SHANNON JEREMY LAWRENCE BRIAN CHIUSTOPHER

VIA MESSENGER The Honorable J. Mac Davis Clerk of Courts Waukesha County Courthouse 515 West Moreland Blvd. - Room 120 Waukesha, WI53188 Re:

P. LEVINSON J.

GWSMAN

C. RANDALL

M.

MEULER

M. ANDREW

SKWTERAWSKI

JOSEPH

M.

PELTZ

Friends of Scott Walker and Stephan Thompson v. Wisconsin Government Accountability Board and Members of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, et al. Waukesha County Circuit Court Case No. 2011-CV-4195

Dear Judge Davis: Enclosed for filing, please find an original and one copy of the following: 1. Motion to Intervene 2. Brief of Support of Motion to Intervene 3. Affidavit of Joseph M. Peltz 4. Answer and Affirmative Defenses 5. Proposed Intervening Defendants' Motion to Shorten Discovery Deadlines The affidavit of Julie Wells will be filed in the immediate future. Please have your clerk file the originals and return the file-stamped copies to the awaiting messenger. Should you have any questions, please have your clerk call me. Very truly yours, ST. JOHN, S.c.

Jeremy P. Levi
jpl@ffsj.com

on

JPLlier Enclosures cc: Joseph Louis Olson, Esq. (w/encls.) - Via E-mail & U.S. Mail Steven M. Biskupic, Esq. (w/encls.) - Via E-mail & U.S. Mail Adam E. Witkov, Esq. (w/encls.) - Via E-mail & U.S. Mail Maria Lazar, Esq. (w/encls.) - Via E-mail & U.S. Mail

STATE OF WISCONSIN FRIENDS OF SCOTT WALKER and STEPHAN THOMPSON Plaintiffs,

CIRCUIT COURT

WAUKESHA COUNTY

Case No.: 2011-CV-4195

Case Code: 30701 v. WISCONSIN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, and Members of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, each and only in his official capacity: MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID DEININGER, GERLAD NICHOL, THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARLAND, and TIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, in his official capacity as director and general counsel for the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, Defendants.

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The Committee to Recall Walker, The Committee to Recall Kleefisch, Julie Wells, The Committee to Recall Wanggaard, Randolph Brandt, The Committee to Recall Moulton, John Kidd, The Committee to Recall Senator Pam Galloway, Nancy Stencil, and Rita Pachal

("proposed intervening defendants"), by their Attorney Jeremy P. Levinson, hereby submit the following as their answer and affirmative defenses in the above captioned matter.

Like many other states, Wisconsin's statutes provide a process for guarding the integrity of election petitions, including recall petitions. The procedure, used in Wisconsin and elsewhere for many decades, begins with a review of petitions offered for filing in which facially defective petition pages and signatures are struck. The process also permits interested parties to review the petitions and to subject them to whatever scrutiny a party wishes to bring to bear. Historically, the subject of a recall effort and his or her political allies establish their own review process and challenge any petition pages or signatures shown to be invalid by that process. The plaintiff, the Friends of Scott Walker ("FOSW"), has many millions of dollars and has access to many millions more. It has known for many months that a recall effort was to be undertaken and was aware when the recall effort formally launched on November 15, 2011. FOSW could have used some of its resources to prepare for reviewing and scrutinizing petitions offered for filing and challenging those it deemed invalid. decided to spend its money on other things. FOSW's complaints suggest that it

And now it wants the taxpayers to pay for a

reinvented system to somehow compensate for FOSW's strategic decision. Plaintiffs Accountability attack Board's an age-old statutory process that involves the Government

("GAB") independent review and that requires those who offer the This successful

petitions to demonstrate substantial compliance with statutory requirements.

showing creates a presumption of validity because those requirements are designed to protect against fraud and abuse. Once petitioners have demonstrated substantial compliance, a of

challenger is entitled to submit information in an attempt to overcome the presumption validity.

As in many administrative mechanisms, and as is universal in election petition related

matters, this adversarial process gives the stakeholders the opportunity to test the petitions to the degree they see fit.

2

This is the "burden" plaintiffs claim to have had imposed on them.

In doing so, they

attack a very long-established process that is universally understood as safeguarding the process. Plaintiffs' complaints about their roles in this process misstate the law and reflect FOSW's

strategic decisions and its attempt to disrupt and malign a functional process and intimidate those who oversee it. Finally, plaintiffs' demands that the Court issue an order prohibiting the GAB from "publicly stating" certain things states no basis for relief and constitutes no claim

whatsoever; it merely seeks to disrupt the GAB's operations and distract the electorate. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff FOSW is a Wisconsin corporation authorized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin to conduct political activity in every County of the State of Wisconsin. FOSW is the campaign committee of Governor Walker. ANSWER: On information and belief, paragraph 1 is admitted.

2. Plaintiff Thompson is a Wisconsin citizen, resident of Waukesha County. He is a qualified elector, as that term is used in the Wisconsin Constitution and laws, including Wis. Stat. § 9.10. ANSWER: Paragraph 2 is denied for lack of information on which to base a response.

3. GAB is an agency of the State of Wisconsin with its principal office located at 212 East Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin. GAB is the agency responsible for the administration of Wis. Stat. chs. 5 to 12, including those affecting recalls. GAB operates in every County of the State of Wisconsin. ANSWER: Paragraph 3 is admitted.

4. Michael Brennan, resident of Marshfield, Wisconsin; David Deininger, resident of Monroe, Wisconsin; Gerald Nichol, resident of Madison, Wisconsin; Thomas Cane, resident of Wausau, Wisconsin; Thomas Barland, resident of Eau Claire, Wisconsin; and, Gordon Myse, resident of Appleton, Wisconsin, each personally and individually but only in his official capacity, are all members of GAB. Kevin Kennedy, resident of Dane County, Wisconsin, in his official capacity, is the Director and General Counsel for the GAB. ANSWER: Paragraph 4 is admitted insofar as it alleges the membership of the GAB and Allegations as to the residence of each are

the identity of its Director and General Counsel.

3

denied for lack of information on which to base a response. only legal conclusion to which no response is necessary.

The balance of paragraph 4 alleges

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction 227.40(1),801.05(1) and (2). ANSWER: over this matter pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 9.10,

Paragraph 5 is denied with respect to Wis. Stat. § 9.10, which provides no

basis for circuit court jurisdiction prior to a final determination of sufficiency or insufficiency of a recall petition, other than a request for an extension of time periods for review of petitions. The remainder of paragraph 5 is admitted.

6.

Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 801.50(3)( a).

ANSWER: Paragraph 6 is admitted. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Scott K. Walker is the Governor of the State of Wisconsin. He was elected on November 2, 2010, and took office on January 4, 2011. He also is a qualified elector as that term is used under Wisconsin law. ANSWER: The first sentence of paragraph 7 is admitted. The second sentence is

admitted, on information and belief. 8. On or about November 4, 2011, GAB notified FOSW that a committee, Close Friends to Recall Walker, was authorized to begin circulating petitions to recall Governor Walker. GAB has the statutory duty to serve as the filing officer in the event Close Friends to Recall Walker offers a recall petition for filing. ANSWER: Paragraph 8 is denied for lack of information on which to base a response. 9. On or about November 15,2011, GAB notified FOSW that a second committee, Committee to Recall Walker, was authorized to begin circulating petitions to recall Governor Walker. GAB has the statutory duty to serve as the filing officer in the event Committee to Recall Walker offers a recall petition for filing. ANSWER: Paragraph 9 is denied for lack of information on which to base a response.

4

10. In both instances, GAB announced that 540,208 signatures of qualified electors would be necessary for a recall election to be ordered against Governor Walker. ANSWER: Paragraph 10 is admitted. 11. During the week of November 14, 2011, the official spokesperson of GAB made public statements regarding the recall petitions currently being circulated, including in part, "There is no prohibition on signing more than once." ANSWER: Paragraph 11 is denied for lack of information on which to base a response.

Further, the GAB's statements, taken in their entirety, speak for themselves. 12. On November 17, 2011, counsel for FOSW asked GAB to clarify whether an otherwise qualified elector could sign multiple recall sheets "with the intent or hope that his or her name will be counted more than once." ANSWER: Paragraph 12 is denied for lack of information on which to base a response. 13. On November 18, 2011, staff counsel for GAB responded "that there specific prohibition on a person signing a recall petition more than once."
IS

no

ANSWER: Paragraph 13 is denied for lack of information on which to base a response. 14. The full response of GAB was as follows:

Section 9.10(2)(i), Stats. and our administrative rules (Sections GAB 2.07(3)(b) and 2.11) provide that, if a challenger establishes that a person signed a recall petition more than once, the second and subsequent signatures may not be counted as valid. The statutes do not specifically prohibit the act of signing a recall or nomination paper more than one time, regardless of whether the signer has an intent to try to have multiple signatures counted. While Sections 8.10(2)(c) and 8.15(5)(a), Wis. Stats., do prescribe a nomination paper form that includes the language that the signer affirms he or she has "not signed the nomination paper of any other candidate for the same office at this election," no a[n]alogous language is found in Sec. 9.10, Wis. Stats., with respect to recall petitions. We do not recommend that people sign separate recall petition pages multiple times, unless the signer has a reasonable basis to conclude that the first signature will not be counted because of a lack of confidence in the reliability of the circulator. While it is not our role to give advice about the tactics used by either side (provided they are legal), it would seem that signing multiple times carries a risk of harming a recall effort by artificially inflating the number of signatures a recall committee believes it has collected. It was our experience that the committees involved in this year's Senate recalls attempted to check for and eliminate duplicate signatures before filing the petition. The G.A.B. will conduct a facial review of the petition and while its primary focus will not include checking for duplicate signatures, any duplicates that are detected will be

5

rejected. Of course, duplicate incumbent.

signatures

may also be challenged

by the targeted

During its review of recall petitions this year, the Board considered arguments that the conduct of a circulator may be so fraudulent that all signatures collected by a circulator should be rejected, even if some signatures were collected correctly. At that tim[e], [you partner] from your office argued that the Board did not have authority to strike whole petition pages, even in the instance of fraud. The Board ultimately did not address the issue of striking all petition pages offered by a particular circulator because the Board determined that the challengers had not met the clear and convincing burden proving fraud occurred in the first instance. In the context of your questions, if an individual circulator submitted petition pages with multiple signatures of the same person, the Board could consider an argument that this constituted some evidence of fraud supporting the rejection of all signatures submitted by that circulator, but any such challenge must be accompanied by evidence meeting the clear and convincing burden. The Board would then base its decision on the specific facts and applicable law. In addition, if the Board determines that specific facts demonstrate that there might be a criminal intent that warrants attention of law enforcement, the Board may refer cases to the appropriate district attorney. To directly answer your questions, Mr. Magney was quoted correctly and the G.A.B. 's interpretation of the law is that there is no specific prohibition on an individual signing a recall petition more than once, for whatever reason. We do not take a position as to whether that is a good or bad practice in specific cases, particularly in light of media reports that some individuals may attempt to collect signatures and then refuse to forward them to the appropriate committee. Our staff's facial review of recall petitions typically does not include a review for duplicate signatures, but that does not prevent the Board from considering whether any specific actions should be incorporated into the review process if the Board receives credible information that individuals are deliberately signing petitions more than once in the hopes of having duplicate signatures counted as valid. Certainly, an officeholder may challenge duplicate signatures and the Board has routinely upheld such challenges. In addition, to minimize the number of rejected signatures it is in the interest of the recall committees to detect and remove duplicate signatures before a petition is submitted for review. Mr. Magney also did discuss with the reporter that challenges may be made to duplicate signatures, although that was left out of the news report. As you can appreciate, our staff constantly responds to inquiries from the public, political committees and the media, and we strive to provide a consistent, clear, and even-handed message based on the law and G.A.B. rules, to not only encourage compliance with the election laws but also to protect the integrity of, and enhance confidence in, the process. We regularly issue reminders to voters, local election officials and candidates on timely topics, which are reported as media outlets see fit. It may be that this topic deserves to be included as part of future news releases or public messages regarding recall activity, which would provide another opportunity to expand on the comment which you quoted. That is a decision for the agency's management to make in the context of other priorities

6

and information that needs to be distributed, and therefore I am copying Director Kennedy and Mr. Magney on this email so that they are aware of the concern you have raised. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns. ANSWER: Paragraph 14 is denied for lack of information on which to base a response.

Further, the GAB's statements, taken in their entirety, speak for themselves. 15. GAB's position is erroneous as a matter of law and violates the Wisconsin and United States Constitution, as well as Wisconsin statutes. ANSWER: required. 16. A recall election may only be scheduled if a certain number of individuals, otherwise qualified electors choose to sign a recall petition. Wis. Con. Art. XIII, § 12; Wis. Stat. § 9.10. ANSWER: The statutes, interpretive case law, and the Constitution of Wisconsin speak Paragraph 15 contains solely legal conclusion to which no response
IS

for themselves and paragraph 16 alleges only legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 17. Article XIII, Section 12 of the Wisconsin Constitution sets the parameters of recalls in the State of Wisconsin. That Article is "self-executing and mandatory. Laws may be enacted to facilitate its operation but no law shall be enacted to hamper, restrict or impair the right of recall." Wis. Con. Art. XIII, Sec. 12(7). ANSWER: The statutes, interpretive case law, and the Constitution of Wisconsin speak

for themselves and paragraph 17 alleges only legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. 18. GAB's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 9.10, specifically that it does not prohibit an individual from signing a recall petition multiple times with the intent and hope that his signature be counted twice, is an impermissible and unconstitutional interpretation because it turns section 9.1 into a "law [which] hamper[ s], restrict[ s] and impair[ s]" the constitutional rights of recall of those who choose not to sign a petition.

°

ANSWER:

Paragraph 18 alleges only legal conclusion to which no response is required.

Further, paragraph 18 is unfair and misleading in its description of the GAB's interpretation of the relevant law. 19. Moreover, the decision of one otherwise qualified elector to sign or not sign a recall petition can have no more weight than the decision of another otherwise qualified elector.

7

ANSWER: Paragraph 19 alleges only legal conclusions to which no response is required. 20. An elector who knowingly signs multiple recall petitions with the intent to have his or her name counted more than once, and GAB's public acquiescence of such a situation, violates the Equal Protection rights of those otherwise qualified electors who choose not to sign a recall petition. ANSWER: Paragraph 20 alleges only legal conclusions to which no response is

required. Further, insofar as paragraph 20 states that the GAB would "acquiesce[]" counting the same elector's name more than once in the same recall effort is a misstatement of the GAB's procedures, interpretations of law, and statements regarding the same. 21. Mr. Thompson has chosen not to sign a recall petition. GAB's position allows other, equally-situated qualified electors to have their decisions count more than the individual decision of Mr. Thompson and the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of other Wisconsin electors who have chosen not to sign. ANSWER: To the extent that paragraph 21 contains factual allegations, they are denied The balance of paragraph 21 alleges only

for lack of information on which to base a response. legal conclusions to which no response is required.

22. Moreover, an elector who signs a recall petition makes an implicit statement that he or she is otherwise qualified to sign a recall petition and have his or her signature counted once. A person who signs more than one recall petition with the intent to have his or her signature counted more than once is, at a minimum, in violation of Wis. Stat. § 12.05, and if that person falsifies their personal information in order to facilitate their double signing, is in violation of Wis. Stat. § 12.13(3)(a). ANSWER: To the extent that paragraph 22 alleges that an elector's signature on a recall petition should only be counted once, it is admitted. The balance of paragraph 22 contains legal conclusion to which no response is required. 23. GAB has publicly stated that it will not strike obviously fictitious names such as Mickey Mouse or signatures without a legible street address. A person who signs a recall petitions using a fictitious name or address, is diluting Mr. Thompson's individual influence and rendering his purposeful decision not to sign a recall petition meaningless. Moreover, a person who signs with a fictitious name or fictitious address commits election fraud in violation of Wis.

8

Stat. § 12.l3(3)(a) ("Prohibited Acts. No person may: (a) Falsify any information in respect to ... petition for an election, including a recall petition or petition for a referendum ...."). ANSWER: The GAB's "public[] state[ments]" speak for themselves and must be

considered as a whole.

To the extent that paragraph 23 alleges that the GAB intends to count

obviously fictitious or otherwise improper signatures on recall petitions, it is denied as a misstatement of the GAB's procedures and interpretations of relevant law. The balance of

paragraph 23 alleges only legal conclusions to which no response is necessary. 24. GAB's statement that FOSW may seek to challenge the counting of multiple signatures does not cure the constitutional and other legal defect. ANSWER: The existence of a supposed "constitutional and other legal defect" as

described herein is denied. FOSW's rights to review and challenge recall petitions offered for filing against Scot Walker are the same as those enjoyed by the targets of recall petitions (and challengers to nomination papers). For many decades, previous recall targets and challengers to nominations papers have participated in this process by reviewing petitions and submitting

challenges where the facts supported striking signatures. 25. A government agency may not place unequal burdens on respective electors. Under GAB's position, an elector signing multiple petitions with the intent that the signatures be counted more than once faces no deterrent or penalty. In order to be counted equally with that person, Mr. Thompson would have to undertake the burden (without the assistance of the GAB) of identifying and challenging the multiple submissions of signatures by the elector. However, Mr. Thompson, like all other electors, is not expressly authorized by Wis. Stat. § 9.10 to participate in the petition verification process or to challenge GAB's determination. Accordingly, Mr. Thompson is left with no mechanism by which he can protect his rights. ANSWER: In large part or its entirety, paragraph 25 alleges only legal conclusions to

which no response is required. Further, the procedures used to test the integrity and sufficiency of recall petitions have been used for many decades and provide a number of mechanisms for guarding the rights of interested persons. Mr. Thompson enjoys the right to access and review

9

petitions offered for filing and to participate and assist in a challenge to petitions if a basis for one exists. 26. While FOSW can participate in the statutory petition verification process, under current GAB rules, FOSW will have only 10 days to examine, compare and then challenge more than 540,000 signatures - more than 50,000 signatures a day. ANSWER: The GAB rules referenced correctly reflect the procedure and time line set

forth by statute. It is affirmatively alleged that FOSW has millions of dollars and access to many millions more. As other campaign committees have done, FOSW was and is free to use a

portion of these vast resources to establish a process for reviewing and testing recall petitions and signatures and mounting any challenge for which it found support. On information and

belief, FOSW has decided to refrain from a meaningful effort to do its part in the process, preferring to spend its money on other things. Any implied allegation that FOSW is incapable of or would be overly burdened by meaningful participation denied. 27. Under these circumstances, it will be a practical impossibility for FOSW and/or Thompson to review, identify and challenge multiple signatures. ANSWER: Paragraph 27 is denied as false. in the petition review process
IS

DECLARATORY RELIEF 28. The averments of the foregoing Paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein with the same force and effect as if set forth in full below. ANSWER: Please see responses to the foregoing allegations.

COUNT I

29. A genuine dispute, ripe for adjudication, exists between the Plaintiffs and GAB that must be resolved as soon as possible. ANSWER: Paragraph 29 is denied.

30. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that electors signing a recall petition more than once with the intent that his or her signature be counted more

10

than once, and GAB's acquiescence in such behavior, violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution, and Wisconsin law. ANSWER: Paragraph 30 is denied.

31. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that GAB's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 9.10 violates Article XIII, Section 12(7) of the Wisconsin Constitution because it turns section 9.10 into a law which impairs, restricts and hampers the Constitutional right of recall of those who chose not to sign a recall petition. ANSWER: Paragraph 31 is denied. COUNT II INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 32. The averments of the foregoing Paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein with the same force and effect as if set forth in full below. ANSWER: Please see responses to the foregoing allegations.

33. Temporary and permanent injunctive relief is needed to protect against irreparable injury to Plaintiffs. ANSWER: Paragraph 33 is denied.

34. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs are entitled to temporary and permanent injunctions prohibiting GAB from violating the Equal Protection rights and the rights of recall under the Wisconsin Constitution of Plaintiffs by (a) publicly stating that electors may legally sign more than one recall petition with the intent that his or her signature be counted more than once; (b) publicly stating that GAB will not strike signatures containing fictitious names and/or illegible addresses; (c) placing the burden on FOSW to identify and challenge multiple signatures by a single elector, which are identifiable by a facial review of the petition; and (d) placing the burden on FOSW to identify and challenge patently fictitious names and illegible addresses. ANSWER: Paragraph 33 is denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1) 2) The complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. The "injuries" of which plaintiffs complain are premised on (i) misstatements procedure for petition review and (ii) plaintiffs' asserted refusal to

regarding the GAB's

participate in the petition review and challenge process in a meaningful way despite FOSW's

11

possession of millions of dollars. FOSW is not entitled to have the taxpayers pay to compensate for FOSW's strategic decision to spend its vast resources on things other than playing its

customary and statutory role in the petition review process. 3) There is no basis in law for demanding a court order forbidding an administrative

agency to "say" certain things. 4) administrative Because FOSW and Thompson have long been aware of the statutory and provisions governing petition review, but nonetheless waited until over a half

million signatures were gathered on petitions demanding a recall election for Scott Walker, the complaint is barred by laches. 5) 6) The complaint is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. This lawsuit is merely one of a number of court proceedings started by Scott

Walker's allies in an attempt to create unnecessary uncertainty, disruption, and expense, and to intimidate administrative decision-makers in connection with the ongoing recall efforts. This

abuse of the court system is improper and unfair to the courts, the other stakeholders, and the public. WHEREFORE, GAB's favor: A. B. case; and C. Providing for any other relief the Court deems fair and just. Dismissing the complaint on the merits; Requiring plaintiffs to pay other parties' fees and expenses in connection with this proposed intervening defendants request judgment in their and the

12

Dated this _~_ rl of December, 2011. day

"7~d(--

, S.C.
y . ev 0 State Bar No .. 102 Joseph M. Peltz State Bar No. 1061442

Attorneys for The Committee to Recall Walker, The
Committee to Recall Kleefisch, Julie Wells, The Committee to Recall Wanggaard, Randolph Brandt, The Committee to Rec a_llMoulton, John Kidd, The Committee to Recall Senatot Pam Galloway. Nancy Stencil, and Rita Pachal

P.O. ADDRESS: 330 East Kilbourn Avenue Two Plaza East, Suite 1250

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Phone: (414) 271-0130

13

STATE OF WISCONSIN FRIENDS OF SCOTT WALKER and STEPHAN THOMPSON Plaintiffs,

CIRCUIT COURT

WAUKESHA COUNTY

Case No.: 2011-CV-4195

Case Code: 30701 v. WISCONSIN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, and Members of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, each and only in his official capacity: MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID DEININGER, GERLAD NICHOL, THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARLAND, and TIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, in his official capacity as director and general counsel for the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, Defendants ..

MOTION TO INTERVENE BY THE COMMITTEE TO RECALL WALKER, THE COMMITTEE TO RECALL KLEEFISCH, JULIE WELLS, THE COMMITTEE TO RECALL WANGGAARD, RANDOLPH BRANDT, THE COMMITTEE TO RECALL MOULTON, JOHN KIDD, THE COMMITTEE TO RECALL SENATOR PAM GALLOWAY, NANCY STENCIL, AND RITA PACHAL

Pursuant to § 803.09, Wis. Stats., The Committee to Recall Walker, The Committee to Recall Kleefisch, Julie Wells, The Committee to Recall Wanggaard, Randolph Brandt, The Committee to Recall Moulton, John Kidd, The Committee to Recall Senator Pam Galloway, Nancy Stencil, and Rita Pachal ("proposed intervening defendants"), by their Attorney Jeremy P.

Levinson, hereby move the Court for an order permitting them to intervene in the abovecaptioned matter. This motion is supported by proposed intervening defendants' brief, the

Affidavit of Joseph M. Peltz both filed herewith, and the Affidavit of Julie Wells, which will be filed in the immediate future. Proposed intervening defendants' answer and affirmative defenses are also submitted herewith. Dated this 'lettay
_j...A-

of December, 2011.

By: remy P. Levinson State Bar No. 1026359 Joseph M. Peltz State Bar No. 1061442 Attorneys for The Committee to Recall Walker, The Committee to Recall Kleefisch, Julie Wells, The Committee to Recall Wanggaard, Randolph Brandt, The Committee to Recall Moulton, John Kidd, The Committee to Recall Senator Pam Galloway, Nancy Stencil, and Rita Pachal

P.O. ADDRESS: 330 East Kilbourn Avenue Two Plaza East, Suite 1250 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Phone: (414) 271-0130

2

STATE OF WISCONSIN FRIENDS OF SCOTT WALKER and STEPHAN THOMPSON Plaintiffs,

CIRCUIT COURT

WAUKESHA COUNTY

Case No.: 2011-CV-4195

Case Code: 30701 v. WISCONSIN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, and Members of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, each and only in his official capacity: MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID DEININGER, GERLAD NICHOL, THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARLAND, and TIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, in his official capacity as director and general counsel for the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, Defendants.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE BY THE COMMITTEE TO RECALL WALKER, THE COMMITTEE TO RECALL KLEEFISCH, JULIE WELLS, COMMITTEE TO RECALL WANGGAARD, RANDOLPH BRANDT, THE COMMITTEE TO RECALL MOULTON, JOHN KIDD, THE COMMITTEE TO RECALL SENATOR PAM GALLOWAY, NANCY STENCIL, AND RITA PACHAL

Pursuant to § 809.13, Wis. Stats., The Committee to Recall Walker, The Committee to Recall Kleefisch, Julie Wells, The Committee to Recall Wanggaard, Randolph Brandt, The Committee to Recall Moulton, John Kidd, The Committee to Recall Senator Pam Galloway,

Nancy Stencil, and Rita Pachal ("proposed intervening defendants"), by their counsel Jeremy. P. Levinson, submit this brief in support of their motion to intervene. Proposed intervening defendants are committees and affiliated Wisconsin residents that have duly registered with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board ("the GAB") to

circulate recall petitions in an effort to bring The Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and three Republican State Senators before their constituents in recall elections pursuant to Art. XIII, § 12 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Since November 15, 2011, the proposed intervening defendants

have been collecting, and are continuing to collect, the signatures required to trigger recall elections. The process of planning, organizing, and preparing for such efforts has been

underway far longer.

These profound and constitutionally protected activities involve detailed

planning, substantial resources, and the massive volunteer efforts of thousands of Wisconsin residents. Plaintiffs, Friends of Scott Walker ("FOSW") and Stephan Thompson, ask the Court to issue an order prohibiting the GAB from "publicly stating" certain things. Moreover, plaintiffs demand that the Court directly intervene in the long-standing and well established administrative process for reviewing recall petitions offered for filing. Specifically, plaintiffs ask the Court to change the established procedure to give Scott Walker (and by extension other officials subject to recall petitions) an unprecedented advantage. Scott Walker wants to be relieved of the

responsibility that all officials bear in connection with recall petitions offered for filing against them. This crass request conflicts with effectively universal and long established law holding that those who offer petitions for filing must first show substantial compliance with certain statutory requirements. A successful showing creates a presumption of validity. If there is any

2

basis for overcoming this presumption, it falls to a challenger to bring it forth. Plaintiffs' claim that, despite this procedure's long history, this is an unconstitutional burden. They do not appear to advocate a reasonable, alternative process. They simply want it tilted in Scott Walker's favor. Proposed intervening defendants are the committees and individuals who will be offering for filing recall petitions against the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and three Republican Senators. The Committee to Recall Walker and Julie Wells will be FOSW's opposing parties in the administrative proceedings anticipated to take place before the GAB beginning in less than a month. The Committee to Recall Kleefisch and Ms. Wells will be adverse to the Lieutenant

Governor and her campaign committee and the balance of the Proposed Intervening Defendants will face three State Senate Republicans and their committees in the same forum at the same time. Because the complaint seeks to manipulate the rules of a proceeding to which proposed intervening defendants will be parties, they are entitled to intervene as of right. Alternatively, they should be granted permissive intervention. DISCUSSION I. INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT IS WARRANTED.

Section 803.09(1), Wis. Stats., (made applicable to this proceeding by § 809.84, Wis. Stats.), provides, in relevant part, as follows: [U]pon timely motion anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action when the movant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the movant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect that interest, unless the movant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

3

As set forth in Helgeland v. Wisconsin Municipalities, 2008 WI 9, 307 Wis. 2d 1, 745 N. W.2d 1, the party moving to intervene in an action must satisfy four requirements to satisfy the statutory standard: (1) (2) The motion to intervene is timely; The movant claims an interest sufficiently related to the subject of the action; The disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect that interest; and The existing parties movant's interests. do not adequately represent the

(3)

(4)

Id. at 20-21, ~ 38. The four criteria are analyzed together, and a strong showing with respect to one requirement will "contribute to the movant's ability to meet other requirements as well." Id. at 21-22, ~ 39. The Court will "evaluate the motion to intervene practically, not technically, with an eye toward 'disposing of lawsuits by involving as many apparently concerned persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process.'" Wolffv. Town of Jamestown, 229 Wis. 2d 738,

742-43, 601 N.W.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1999) (quoting State ex rei. BUder v. Township of Delavan, 112 Wis. 2d 539,548-49,334 A. N.W.2d 252 (1983)).

Proposed Intervenors' Motion is Timely. Proposed intervening

The complaint in this matter was filed on December 15, 2011. defendants' motion promptly followed.

B.

Proposed Intervening Defendants' Interests are Directly and InextricablY
Tied to the Subject of the Petition.

As the Supreme Court has instructed, the "interests" requirement is not subject to any precise test, but is viewed through a "pragmatic" circumstances lens focusing on the specific facts and

of the case at issue, and attempts to "strike a balance between allowing the

4

original parties to a lawsuit to conduct and conclude their own lawsuit and allowing persons to join a lawsuit in the interests of the speedy and economical resolution of controversies without rendering the lawsuit fruitlessly complex or unending." 44. Helgeland, 307 Wis. 2d at 24-25, ~~ 43-

The interest claimed must be more than "remotely related to the subject of the action,"

however, and the movant should demonstrate an interest "of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct operation of the judgment." ~ 45 (citation omitted). Here, the analysis is straightforward. used during the anticipated The complaint seeks to alter the procedures to be to which proposed Id. at 25,

recall petition review process, proceedings

intervening defendants will be parties. By definition, proposed intervening defendants have no less of an interest in this matter than does FOSW. Efficiency, fairness, concepts of due process, and the benefit of the Court having the fullest array of perspectives represented support intervention. This is especially true because

Art. XIII, § 12 of the Wisconsin Constitution establishes proposed intervening defendants recall efforts constitutionally protected conduct. And finally, on a concrete level, the complaint seeks to render the proposed intervening defendants' (and many others') profound efforts and

resources a complete nullity.

In each of these ways, proposed intervening defendants' interests

are such that they should be permitted to intervene and be heard.
C.

The Disposition of tile Complaint Will Necessarily Extinguish Intervening Defendants' Ability to Protect Their Interests.

Proposed

The complaint seeks this Court's intervention in administrative hearings likely to begin in mid-January, 2012. If the Court accepts plaintiffs' invitation to alter the established procedures for these proceedings, proposed intervening defendants will have no means of effectively This is especially true given that the

protecting their own interests in the established process.

5

fast-moving mechanics of the recall process are well underway, with a deadline of January 17, 2012 for offering to file recall petitions with the GAB. D.

The Existing _PattIes Do. Not Adequatelv Re-p-resentProposed Intervening Defendants' Interests.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court noted this factor "should be treated as minimal," but not "so minimal as to write the requirement completely out of the rule." Helgeland, 307 Wis. 2d at 44, ,-r 85 (citations omitted). "If a movant's interest is identical to that of one of the parties, or if the party is charged by law with representing the movant's interest, a compelling showing should be required to demonstrate that the representation is not adequate." Id. at 44, ,-r 86. No current party to this matter has an interest "identical" intervening defendants. By definition, plaintiffs' to that of the proposed

interests are directly adverse to those of

proposed intervening defendants.

And the interests of the members and Director and General

Counsel of the GAB are fundamentally different from those of proposed intervening defendants. The GAB's interest is in overseeing, regulating, and administering elections and election-related matters such as the recall process. While it presumably has an interest in doing so correctly, it

has no interest in how the law it administers is shaped or changed or the substantive content thereof. While the complaint attacks an understanding of points of law as discerned and

articulated by the GAB, its staff, and its General Counsel, if past practice holds, its members and Director will be represented in this proceeding by the Wisconsin Department of Justice. And,

recent history shows that under such circumstances, the GAB may ultimately decline to defend its actions or its previously articulated understanding of points oflaw. Network, Inc., et al. v. Myse et al., S. Ct. Case No. 2010AP1937-0A See Wisconsin Prosperity (the GAB, represented by

6

the Wisconsin Department of Justice, declining to defend the lawfulness of an administrative rule it had recently promulgated). It is manifest that no party can or will represent the interests of proposed intervening defendants. as of right. II. IF INTERVENTION AS OF RIGHT IS DENIED. PROPOSED INTERVENING DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PERMISSIVELY INTERVENE. Section 803.09(2), Wis. Stats., provides in relevant part: [U]pon timely motion anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action when a movant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common ... [and] [i]n exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. This provision has been interpreted to require a showing that the proposed intervener has the type of claim or defense that could be litigated independently. See, e.g., Helgeland, 296 In sum, proposed intervening defendants amply satisfy each factor for intervention

Wis. 2d at 920-21, ~~ 41-42. As the court of appeals therein recognized, "the primary purpose of the rule is to allow persons to become parties in order to litigate their claims or defenses on the merits." Id. at 921, ~ 42. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing and the record in this matter, intervention should be granted and proposed intervening defendants' be deemed filed. answer and affirmative defenses, submitted herewith, should

7

Dated this t(;fday

~

of Decem bet! 2011.
1

S,C,

By: JeremyP. Levu State Bar No. 10263:59 Joseph M, Peltz State Bar No. 106J 442 Attorneys for The Committee to Recall Walker, The Committee to Recall Kleefisch, Julie Wells The Committee to Recall Wanggaard, Randolph Brandt, The Committee to Recall Moulton, John Kidd, The Committee to Recall Senator Pam Galloway, Nancy Stencil, and Rita Pachal

P.O. ADDRESS: 330 East Kilbourn Avenue Two PI aza East, Suite 1250 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53'2D2 Phone: (414) 271-0130

8'

STATE OF WISCONSIN FRIENDS OF SCOTT WALKER and STEPHAN THOMPSON Plaintiffs,

CIRCUIT COURT

WAUKESHA COUNTY

Case No.: 2011-CV-4195

Case Code: 30701 v. WISCONSIN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, and Members of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, each and only in his official capacity: MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID DEININGER, GERLAD NICHOL, THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARLAND, and TIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, in his official capacity as director and general counsel for the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH M. PELTZ

STATE OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE COUNTY

) )SS )

Joseph M. Peltz, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states as follows: 1. I am one of the attorneys representing the proposed intervening defendants in the

above-captioned action.

2.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of the Affidavit of

Randolph Brandt that was-previously filed in Case No. 2011-AP:..00.267-0A. 3:. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate 'copy of the Affidavit of John

Kidd thai was previously filed in Case No. 2011-AP-00267-0A. 4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of the Affidavit of Nancy

Stencil that was previously filedin Case No. 2011-AP-00267-0A. 5. Attached hereto as Bxhibit 4 is a true and accurate copy of the Affidavit of Rita in Case No. 2011-AP-00267-0A.

Pachal that was previouslyfiled

Joseph M. Peltz Subscribed and Sworn to before me this day of December, 2011.

Notary Public, State of Wisconsin My Commission expires:

_

.2

AFFIDAVIT

FILED
DEC 0 1 2011
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Of WISCONSIN

STA TE OF WISCONSIN RACINE COUNTY

) ) SS )

Randolph Brandt, 3429 North Main Street, Racine, Wisconsin 53402, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states as follows:

1.

I am an adult resident of the state of Wisconsin and a qualified elector.

2. I am the Petitioner and Treasurer of the Committee to Recall Wanggaard (hereinafter ''the Committee"), which initiated recall efforts against Van Wanggaard, currently the State Senator from Wisconsin's 21 st Senate District.
On November 15, 2011, on behalf of the Committee, I filed a Statement of Intent to Circulate Recall Petition and Campaign Registration Statement (GAB-I) with the Government Accountability Board, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3.

4. Prior to initiating the recall process, the Committee engaged in planning, organizing, and preparing for these efforts.
On November 15, 2011, the Committee and its volunteers began the process of gathering signatures to recall Senator Wanggaard throughout the 21st Senate District, and have been continuously engaged in these efforts. 5.

Dated this~/day

of

/lAV{1J-t.

k

?

2011.

-------------------------------6-~A~~~~~~' ~~~~~-------Randolph Brandt SUQscribed and ,7worn to before me this ;(_~ day of NOv. . 2011. ~~

No,tary PU~lj~; State of Wisconsin JI_ My COITUTIlSSlOn 'l~ 0 - cJ.OI, :<

EXHIBIT

I\

NDV-14-2011

16:20

From:MAIL N SHIP

To: 16082558919

CAMPAIGN REGISTRATION STATEMENT
STATE OF WlSCONSIN
GAB-I..
JlO~OI'l'ICEUSF.ONLY

I

IF A CANOlDA TE DOES NO'f VILE THISSTATJ;M~m: BY l'HI;! Q.E:h:PLlNE.fOR FII1N:G NOMINATIONP4pERS, THE CANl)lDATE'S NAMH WILL NOT BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT. I N01'IC"& ANY CRANGil OF_nRMA nON O~ 'n!IS REillSmA nON SrA_IiNT MUSTBEFILl;{) IV

I IT"r'

IS 'lHiS AN AMBNDMEN1?

q Yes

Ii NQ
omoo

I. CANDIDATEAND CANDIDATE COMMrrn:£'INI10IlMATION' . Party Afflli10litm NumC r,r c.ndidate
K.Q;id=

,

Sought (inc/Udedigrlcl

1
'. ~

10VAY5..

l1UO'Itcr)

,
A.ddfm (1UdIibi:r 3Ild .m;m:) l'rirn$ry Dall)

CIo4hJnlCTc~pOOneNumIxr(cCidc:na:}
...

Cily.~~dZipC<xle
.... CJri;1r;Qm:

1!loocirio ~,

<;:andIdAtcTcl~ol'"

f.lLmb«(r~)

. CampaIgn CoouJlil:lm) NlnDo (if My)

o

PmonaI'~J1IIlgn~jilee,

OS~'rl<3~
iIJlII Zil> Cod!:

Cniuf~&nuil

r
~II:S$

I

Campaign COO11llit«e NidlC3:1 (if ~iffm:m

tlI4n nl»ve)

- Numbet,

SlIu=t. City.

~

Committ~ I!inaIl

T~opbol\C,M\UllboTardiffiWnL

thilu IllJiJ'1i:ll

I

2. POLmCAL
(P~r
~Ilml of

~cOOt.y by POJili.~1
CWnmittce ~.

COMM'IT .... E INFORMATION &
Adioo. COl1l~iUI:e3,~liticoI PJU1y ~ Potltbl

GtoxIp3. etc.)

Commitl;ee to Recall VVanggaard
, Mdrr::Js- N~,
,id~~I1~

ro Box 2569 Madison.
s.pellSO!"iDli-~01I.NItIIlOMd AciOnym (ifBily)
'tyJ>e ()fqimiRlt_

City. SIIllDand Zip Code

1

WI 53703

·C~Qnljil

-"

A~

~A~

.
.

'I I
I
!
I
I

0
NOl>fosidcnt

'

..

A.

0

a,
C.

0
0

0 0

Spcciall~ ~t

COIlJIIlitta:(P.I\C) C.'ummilfl:(l Puny Commim:e C=lIlee
by

IlJCOIl)OIlItc:d luboc OrelInWrtion - Atmt;I, Inlonnl1tiQll Rcqaircd
NntiQl1lll

&.II.(l,5QXn), SIIIII.

a

f'IIIil~

L<>gisllltivc
f'oliljrol

CwnDlien Coounitkc··
.

o Stn'"

DDJunJ:r

o Othe.-

I\ltmch S1Dtcmenr

R.eIlJirpd W s, llJ15(3 xo).

Sblt;.

I

O.
E.

0 8

GTwp (Rer~um)

I;;] Suppprt
Name of Kc:ftn;l'ldum

0 D

Oppwc
Oppose

~I

Coitd'rtillr:¢ ~atorWM1gga$rd
N~Qf6ffio;aS~

to RI;QtIJ

B

Suwolt R«iall

ReGalI

- AlUI<:h StPtentent Roquiral
F. [J Indepcndem. Co)1'Jllllitl:>e

b)' 3.9.1 O(2}(d)

II
1

c.

AI$<,),

COITqllde Q.mh of Independent Expc:ndiblrl)$,. Ferm GA~ lnd.:tx:ndont E\c.penQi~.
Fonn CiA R-(i

0

looJV i(Iu3I · .... Iso. Compll;tC Oath of

GAS-l (R~

12J2Q09)

nus FO~M

IS PRFSCRIBED BY; WISCONSIN GOVERNMHNT ACCOUNTABIUTY OOARD 2.12 F~:ItwnMin~n AVdluc,;l1i ~Ioor. P.O. So'x:79B4. Mudi:xm. WI 5371J7·79S4
608-:266-1!O05 bllp'Jf(1!h.wi.goy Emlril~ fPh@wLguv

NUV-14-2011

16:21

From:MRIL N S~IP

To: 16082558919

J. COMMlTIEE
~sNfIlnc

TREASURER

(6trr.pllign

~

corrupofidencc

is mailed to U'Ls udd=s..) telephone NUlldleJ (R:liHfDQC)

Randolph Brandt 3429 N, Main
Cil;y. StJ~ I\ddtl:s;s (IlIJITtJCr IIllIl ~~

262..£81-9361

sr
A~U1':~Jm
membell'.ore
~_Id"tt..,

NKI Zip'Code

NA

Telephone: "'"mbel (tmplf,)}'mcl)l}

Racine. WI 53402
4. fRlNeIPAL
A!)!l.(lb,~difiODllllmi~ if~. loolC3(o Wbii:h 1>ff"..ccrn.orCQ!!II'j~ ~tmll.;{"). 'fhhptDvlriQn 0111)' npplJos.1Q in6?~ o.nd ICieIIII\!!n~

1

TTcasill'e{ElttiliIAJ~

b~ndt.rand91ph®grnail.com

O'f.f.1cnn5 p.I.7CP~:E
." .__ .

costOl)i~NS·
.,

NAME

MAll,JNG ADDRESS
.

aulborizal tQ fiJI ~ ~Incy s.8.~5. S1IIt1.

OF nOOKS ANi> A!¢Cou~rs
Pho>e:l1 -

in l1(IIlIinalion due UI d<IIII (If calid1:ld!c by In

, Email Addre~

POSITION

Randolph Brandt

.3429 N Main St, Racine,. WI

53402

bran~t.randolph@. ~6.2.,.s~ 1-'9' petitione gmaiLcom . '301 r

~0IIi\1

Summit Credit Union
Addm!Is (nuI")bcIt and It=t)

Nlirri~f(AlIllClIlIlll o(:anyl!dditiDtW savi~"ell~i]1i; 1l"!OJlCY'ri:mkct. c;lc.j

a"ccouRtsWtd drpoGit.boI!4.

JOOiti u, l:ypCaod

I'Ulnbcr.

I.e..

City, Suileaild Zlti"COdB

PO Box 8046

Madison, WI 53708
CERTIFICATION

TRI!;ASU~
I, ~

ad..t,4 ~
Signature

~~dr.~
__
_

(priQt full ntUDc}.ccrtifY the infurmution irdlfu statemcntfs
)·.Treosutc:r

true, ocJrroot Sla complete.

.. ~,~~~

Dal8

..dIiv;L~

Aall

CANDIOATE
I. _~
Si_gnMlin'l

~_..._...__~~

(prin.t
________

fuU name) certify tho mrOml1111011
., Candidate

in this statcltl~nt-js ttu~•.::Qrf!i:Cl.a d completc, t lUIdthnl thi$ is the only oornmil~ lWillQr~tQ'.M:I:.on. ~ bebaif.

. DIItr:: + + + EXEMPTION

FROM FlUNG CAMPAU;~ ANANC~' REPORTS §11·.05{2r); W~.Stat~.

+ 1- -f

VOll may be eligible for lID cxemptloo from filing ~p_ajgn til')otlCC reports, Coruluk Bookkeeping Manual'to determine if the regisb'M.t qwdifics for exemption.

me Campaign

Finance J.Il$I.nll,lpn and .. t

lUI ~·am6U:nt

o ·this regfstnnt

year.

fro.m"'single

cbnltiDiltlon$., makodisbur:gcmenm or l~ III" Qbtigations in contribllticm or ~\lm)JIa:fi.ve conU:!biJ!io.i:i§~ -mort: than. $'100 sQU.rce \:luring rhecalendw yf!fM, except OQntributtoll!> by tleandldatc 10 hi s or her ~tSn or $1}Ot'lOo kss ill It calendar oflTlClrfl.thah

lseJi,&i6fe fur- aqrlpi~Or:r;'This regtsiro.n.twill not~t'

-S:r.ooo.lna cal"i'ldar yesrOl'lIccept

1Ul'y.

o

This registront is no longer eligible to claitn exemption,

THE INFORMATlON ON THlS FORM IS REQUIRF.J) BY §§9.1 0(2){ d), 11.05, 11.06(7), WIS. ST ATS. F AlLURBi'O PROVIDE THe INfORMATION MAY SUBJECI' YOU TO THE PENAr.TIES OF §§8J0(2), 11.60, 11.61, 11.66, WIS. STA1..S.

Nov.14.2011

18:22

PAGE. 2/ 2

STATE OF WISCONSlN
(Nllmo ofc;ounty)

(NttiM ofMunicipalhy)

STATEMENT os INTENT TO CIRCULATE RECALl I PE'rlTION
TImUNDF..RSIGNEDRBCAU~:PbTI110N£R,J.~..,Jbl(/h.
(1'1'1111 NamIJ)

~'1Jt

STATES HlSlIlliR INTHN1"lU CIRCULATE, PUJ(SUANTTO S.9.JO OJ! um W~SCONSIN
STATIJ11)HS~ A :PhTI110N TO RECALL.

fo'1 &l_c.t 1!fJL([.?C1.---d ,- .rE~"_.~;I(:.r'h., I'tfCOl/ed), . /)/J·t(!~·~_;t./ .., ... _. tn . t;J. onJ t{fh.~ htrld 6y, officIal
(Jlwilt:qk , 1M. MillS

_ r.~"q~.

<:..c~:c-

/e_ .~ l:L/:7!_",:t'<- #

S:<:' LL__l~.:i0,f~"..~
-~--.--....;.

C1 j _s.:_t

'-:if. _
..~____,

_ ...
'-_

---..-.. -...

..

-- _ .. -

.. _' ....

",,_

... ..

_ _ -.-,,-..-

_-.._'------- -~--.--------,-.....,..-..

_
___

---....~--~- -_. - .~-------..-

-

.. ~-,~

....

--- -.-----.........-----..--_~.....

_-_• ,

.-----~--- .•. '--.- .__ ---._-- ... ~ ---- .• L_-' ..... ' ._

-....,~

_'.'

....-.

• ..,._........,;

w_. .__ .,.~ ._ '.

,.... -:.....__ ~ .._

(ThI!; $/lJlen1Ll1'8/wulcl H nppentld to Ille C,mrpalllll KtlC~'I1If(m Stille""," (GAB-I) jlff.ilIPlllr 1I14/11lnr olf1",,)

f}~t~d thlll!J(,{dayaf
(NoUlry Nor ReqfJlred)

.&.

t/~~.-1

?c_

! •. .~ -

;1.011

"

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF WISCONSIN CHIPPEWA COUNTY

) ss
)

)

. John Kidd, 10034 152nd Street, Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin 54729, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states as follows: I am an adult resident of the state of Wisconsin and a qualified elector.

I am the Petitioner and Treasurer of the Committee to Recall Moulton (hereinafter "the
Committee"), which initiated recall efforts against Terry Moulton, currently the State Senator from Wisconsin's 23rd Senate District. On November Circulate Go~enunent 15, 2011, on behalf of the Committee, I filed a Statement of Intent to Petition and Campaign Registration Statement (GAB-I) with the

Recall

Accountability Board, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Prior to initiating the recall process, the Committee engaged in planning, organizing, preparing for these efforts.

and

the Committee and its volunteers began the process of gathering signatures to recall Senator Moulton throughout the 23rd Senate District, and have been continuously engaged ill these efforts.
On November 15,2011, Dated this ~ay of

file!

lie

I'h

b t'v20 11.

J

_

-stct:Q

f~

~~,

~1~~

I

EXHIBIT

z,

._- - ... - -_,_.,-----

CAMPAIGN REGISTRATION STATEMENT
STATE OF WlSCONSIN . GAB-I
i .

I'O~ OFFIce u~e o~n.:'(

IF A.CANDIDA TE D06S NOT FILE 'nilS 81'1\ TEMBNT BY TIlE DEADLINE FOR flUNG NOMINA nON PA.PP.RS; iHECANDIDAT~'S NAME WILL NOT BE PlJ.CfD ON THE 8ALLOT. NOTICE:ANY CHANGE OFlNFORMATJON 00 THIS R~i:iI$TRArIQN.STAl'E~E!'Ir M~st BE I'lI,.BO.Wl'I"fIlN 10DAYS, IS TmS AN AMRNJ;)MEN'r7

0

Yd

I!i

NQ: .

L C~~I;)JQ{'lreANJl'cAifD(DA.~ OMMln:Ii';E,~r:iI?P~MATlON C

Z.

POLITICAL CQI\tMl1TU INFORMATION
(FQI ~ ONLY ~ PoIitiWActicm COIlI!D1lmC!, oli~ P

f'M!y Cmnmlne~ ... Poli~I.<?toops.

dC.l ..

NAmo~eoo..i!i.:iUo;c,

PO 8oJ\ 2569 Madison, WI 53703

CQmmi(te~t~R~~lI MdultQO. "il4=:';J'tu~Ili.bH·;f~-gtlt~~~liIld:!.iiJ~ ..

'l)'po.,,( Q ituliIIti'<i';·

....0 '
8.

0

o

o

Spai:i41 1,*~~lI!.jUO'<'(PAC) Rdi<lcrrt<:omoll~ 1~l...abt;W·OtPnlzo.iian· I'oJi~a1PIIIty CQIIllI)itloc

.

.

0

Nont<:5.i!!ontO>m~

A1iodI'rnfonnili0ti ~1nId

by

:o-v;QSQxw. ~

.

c. 0
E. !I
I".

o NII1i,onul

0 S~ [J eo..n~ , aQi:lj~r,..._--,-" .,..,.-=.".....,..-..,_,.._..~''-.,_. .. -'-_..._ ~1al~~IsnCtlliillli!lllO-Aliach~I!\D:l!!l~:t'iS.J1.O:i(illQHIIl~',· , ,

o 0W06>:
R!'ClIII COItIIl'Ilt!cc • Albch ~cnt Son~ Moullal

'Nmnc of ortIo::t Subp<:l

iO l"tc.c.11

JiI

Support,R~n

CJ ~

RmIli

Roqufrnd by ~ Q, rO(2)(d)

0
[J

0..

IIId~CommitltQ"J\l:so.CmnI'~oatbor~~ntf.>(ptndinl~ FormOA1J.6 Ind!Yi~1Il ,tJ~,Co~ (lillh nflill'lq;'""jO'iti-5,lcpdtdltutt:f. FormCh[lo6

0""'3·1 (A«:v, 1:z/2oo'il) TtfJS FORM IS PltEsc~rBED BY:

\VJSiroNSi~'OOYeitNMi~'i' ACCOI.lt<rAmF,.!l'YOOAAD . 2i:rf#l'w~iJiPJon:AYI'I\U..e. r:o; J3i,i:i'W.i,¥!i1;UtII. Wi5l70H91>4
60&-l~ ~~.

rFloor, I'}Ib@)WI.tcV

£/L d

6L69~~ « 20S292l~LlL

3 COMMITrEE TREASURER
Tnn_',7>llIIIIc

.

(GllmlJlljpl

OlW\Q<l COl'lQpo"dcn~;"

moi104 W \his tlddrt:!s 1

. Tck:jJhontNIlf!IIl«(""'~l\to»

John

Kidd.

71 &.723.-9059

~(n~mKIll~

10034 152nd St
City. SQl,CWI!lZip.Cocll:,

NA

Td cpbl)n~ Num1x'f (OIi1pk.ynullll

Chippewa Falls, WI 54729

1,~EnmilMd~ jk~Qd_1@char~er.net
..
.
-.·Eriiliil~
"

4.. PRJN.CI~L QI:'FIGERS o,",.eo'M.M)'M'EE',tNl),O"r'H'ER c~STdDIAJ~S oi';' S:OO.KS AND ACCOU-NTS AtlrII!II a<¥)11o(ul1.w~a-:;f-.-sDIY. 'iH.I~ .. hl.:lr1rr~ a~a>~:fIIP1I~ NC.!I\I!h~ 1~-1II1 ~ a: In1IIm'Ii.. 1ion ~11010 do:lrh CGnilid6!t:by an or ~rial;(~). 't1Ii: l'f!O"mon only "1'#1"" 10[nd~tI\I~d·IOQI. n\ll1p,lltbon i:o.o1lidi.!A~8.:1S. Sbl\ . .. .

NAME

MAl LING ADDRESS

I'hi;iiirifl

POSITION.

John Kidd

.
.- .,~. -

'100$4·152nd St, Chippewa Falls, WI 54729

lkidd_1@charter. net

715-723-9

059

r

petitione

.

.'

...

.-

",

AIIcfillMtiillmbOt.1Iiul sIiCct) •

Ci')'.StotilWZijlCOOD·

PO eox8046 'Ff<EAStJRER.

Ma~i$)nrWI 53708
C~RTIF1CATION

• J_ (J

bJ1
~~~~.

... .~ri"

fu,"_

I""fy", "'"........
., ~''''

~'f,..!-.'~'

~~'"..m,r. ... _II ,-J!Lj20Jj
'hi;

,_..,r "":

"!'~~

I, ...,... Signnttlrc __

-... ~_---""_'_'

-<Prlnt fu.!lRIlIllC:)CIIrtifY lbc in1Qrmatioll inthi&~ is trcil!!, .co~Md compl~ lIIId mat this ~ !be OIIly COOlPliUco IIIJlhorizcd to lICt on my bcb:df.
._.;...~~......_ __ ... Candid:uc

++

+

eXEMP110fll FROM RLING CAMPAlaN

fINANCE REPORTS

§11.05~r)iV'on!l. SlatS.

+ ..-+' i

Yew 1'lI!\Y 110 cligible for an cXanption from filing ~pai8n aookk.~ping Manual lo dctl:rmlno ifth., rcsistrant qullljf~

(inatlcc rep~. CQn.wlt!lie ¢prop'lIi!>!! Fln~.I~trJlotion.Md· for exemption~ .

ftom a $ingtc year.

an aggregate amou~ofmore lhan $l.OOO in a'CiUcndatyc::tll" or~luiy:c<inbibutio·n·Q1"¢Uniuluri""
SOW'Cc

0' ThiS n;gislrtll'lt

is ellsible for cxcm~Q!I. Thi:! ~

will

nat-a.lUpt

cOI1:tdbu.tJOM, i'1I~.<!!~~tt:~r

c1uringlhC calcndlW'ycar, except ccmtril,lImons by 11CllI\didlita to his or bl2' CMlpmgn of $1 ,QOOcr I~ss IIIACalcnd:u-

contii'butrop:S ofmo(1: than $100

i~

.Qbli¢.l~in

o This registrllnt

is no Ion8l:t di,giblclO claIin. eXCm~tiOil.

001"

TH~ INFORMATION ON THIS FORM rs REQUIRED ~y §§9.10(2X~). 11.05. ,-t.06(7), WIS. STAn. FA(WRE TO PROViDe THI! rNFDRMA irON MAY SUSJECf YOU To THE PeNAt;TIES OF §§!!.30(2). 11.60, t 1.61,11.66, WIS. STA TS.

£/2 d

UMO:j.UMOa

S/APJO~

BO:£L ?L-LL-LL02

t

1

l

STAn

OFWJ.SCONSJN

e:h 1Pt1ovGl.
(N1lnIO of COUllI)')

'I<PvJ.>1

Ef IirtCf k ell 'hJ

(Nama IIfMunle!~t\y)

STATEMENT OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE RECALL PETITION THE UNOER.SIGNED RBCAIJ...PETl110NER,
S'fATSS 'HfSmERlN'lE'n'TO

)th...,

~J ~

CIRCULATE, PURSUANT TO S.9.10 OFTIIE WISCONSIN

1
1

I

,

'Dated thisl£dl1YoC (NoIWYNOIR~~

fk'c,vp.._..,belt" .2.!Z.1j

..

I
f./f. d

6L69~~ « 20~292L5LLL

UMO~UMOa S/APJO~

I
t

'.

·

.

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF WISCONSIN MARATHON COUNTY

) ) SS )

Nancy Stencil, 119 Sunrise Drive, Wausau, Wisconsin oath, deposes and states as follows: 1.

54401, being first duly sworn on

I am an adult resident of the state of Wisconsin and a qualified elector.

2. 1 am the Petitioner for the Committee to Recall Galloway (hereinafter "the Committee"), which initiated recall efforts against Pam Galloway, currently the State Senator from Wisconsin's 29th Senate District. 3. to Circulate Exhibit A. On November Recall Petition 15,2011, on behalf of the Committee, I filed a Statement of Intent with the Government Accountability Board, attached hereto as

4. Prior to initiating the r~~l1'process, organizing, and preparing for these efforts.

'the .Committee

engaged

in planning,

5. On November 15, 20fl;:the Committee and its volunteers began the process of gathering signatures to recall Senator Galloway throughout fhe 29th Senate District, and have been continuously engaged in these efforts. .
.,< .' .

Dated this p( "t day of

;</cJ tI£H 6(R,

2011.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of!J/Olienl/x(, 2011.

I3

EXHIBIT

11/14/2011

16:10 FAX 715 849 8987

DIGICOPY

141 002

CAMPAIGN REGISTRATION STATEMENT
.... - ~ .

stATE OF WISCONSIN GAB-l

fOR OFFlCE USE ONLY

-

IF A CANDIDATE OOE~ NOTFlLE THIS STA TEMENX BY nIB DEADLINE FOR. FILING.NOMlNATIONPAPERS, 1liE CANDIDA TE'S NA.ME WJl..L NOT DB I'LACED'ON THE BALLOT.

NOTlCE:

.ANY CHANGE Of' lNFORMA nON ON TIIIS REGISTRATION STATEMENT MUST BEF.I.LED WlTIllN to DAYS.

IS T.HISAN AMENDMENT?
Name

0

Yes Offia: Sought
{indodc m.trl~ IIl'bimicb riUmbc;'}

1. CANDIDA l'E AN)) CANDIDATE COMMITTEE INFORMATION
ofCaudiP'*
'hny AffLliatio!1

Re5ld=Addresii (number aud stra:t)
,

. P-";~0aIe

Clmdidatc idcpbonc

NI1IIll>cr(~dCllee)

.. , .

~. . ..
Cpdc

City, ~mJ.dZip

Eleaioli Date
Cl\ed(One:

Csmlidaic TclcplHwc NumbI:!' (emp1oymBllt) Candidam Email Address-

C~gn

QlllTmi_ Nama,(if;my)

o~

Cnmpaign CommitJ=

DSu~rtC~

a.mp.ngn CoTm11Uci! Address
TclcpboncNmnbcr

(if t:fdfuent thllll nbove) ~NIlIliber, SIftod. City.

StIlt.. and Zip Code

Col'linliur.t: Emall Addl'e$S

[Il'diffi:mntthan

aIxIv6)

2. POLtrrCAL
(FlU" me ONLY

COMMITTEE OO"'ORMATION
'by Pl;>rIliClll Action Comtnit1ees.l"olirkal ~
~fll:eS,

polilicaJ Groups, cb:.,)

NameotComiml1= ~ Pl!.D;J(
AdlJ~~Number.

/I?

Street.

~~-av-

Citi'. Stnteaildzq,

~(i..

"'"

eoae

(Jd....llD
,

u.J6J.I

T

SU.,u.l'-/SAE

O/ZlvL-

;; J/J.L./UYJj'/-

T~e'NIt£lllicl"

vI

S¥-¥Ol

715'- SJ?/- 7f?8
Name 1III.dCWDpfeteAddn=

Spo11:lQring O~~o.il·

/\I
, Acrony<i1 (if 1111),)

J.,q

I o;;;k;;;/~~Ier.re:

f-

/V/&

TypenfCa~ A.

0

Sp<Xiaf 1ntaat Committllt; (PAC)

0

B. 0 C. 0 D. 0 E.

0

RcsidenL Cummithot:

0.

N<inrcsjdMt~

~

LsOOr OrgImi2lltion - Auach IIlfOnnaCion Required by s.Il.tl5(3)(n}. S1.IlIli.

o NaliOlllLl
Political

Poliliwl·f'an.y-cummi!tcc

DSIIlJ:c

o CoulJly

o

Othe(

Legislatl'lt:- Campaign COlllIIIittee-·, Atu,,:h Eilalc:mcll! RequimI by s.11.05(3)(CJ}, StaI3.
(JIQIIP

(Refm:ndum)

fl
0

R=all CommJtn:c

Se.Vl.

f6.

Dsupp<rt
Nwut: ofRlilln:wium

o
o

f
Oppose 0PJlO!1C R=lII

Nnme ofOffica- 5u~ect 1o.R£:cal
Qath ofIndotpenelenL

~m

GCt,a(2~a¥
Expt:nditwx:s, FDmI CAl3-6 GAB-6

til

SupportRccs11

F. 0
G.
GAB-l

- AU3Ch Statement Required by s..9.10(2Xd) lndcp=dmt Committee - AlSO, (101l)p~ Indivlduo..l-Also, Complete OC1h of .fudcpcnd::ot BxpcndibJn:.<i.Form
BY;

{Rev. 11I2Il09)

THIS FORM IS PRESCRIBED

WISCONSIN aOvaNMEm.- ACCOUNfABILITY BOARD 212 East Wa!lhitl8,tari Avcmm, 310 Floor, 1'.0. Box 7984, M-msou. WI 53701·1984 G08-1~OOS htqd1Sab·wl,gw Email: gab@wi.gov

11/14/201.1

16: 11 FAX 715 849 8987

DIGICOP).'

!4I OOJ

3. COMMITTEE
~cr'SNllme

Tlffi.ASURER

(Cmnpaigll finance Mrn:spondcnco

is mailed 10 this addrc$'l_) 'l'clql1ton .. NmnbI:r (l'CSidC!l~

AddrCill (nwnbm- and $tn:r;t.) City, Slut« and Zip Code

;-4- q~ho--- "l3(D VY\~o {e_ 11t~ ( ~tJoud l • WOJ...o.....Sa...u....., WI 5~t.fo 6
NAME mA.lLlNO-ADPReSS

'"lIS -1075
TClep:.anelbel:
,

~ ~1;J._'t

,j\f'y.:l
,

(emp!oYIlli'llI)

I r~wer

-0~~o._c.h....._\

F=UlA<k1t~~

~MA"

•(

a_ ,

-

4. PRINCll'AL OFFICERS OF CO.MMITl'EE'

A1U1.clt,~{ldjtiOll1lllli.1.iugU ,,~, ~y.!bi~ <iliicil?! ~ C<I~ua; ';'ctt~.~ Il$tc:lD:kM- "J:bj,;~ I,IPly app~IJ:l'U:\dc:poldcnbIJd lOC3lllQnpatti$4l1 e:IQdi~

ANn oTiIER CUSTODIANS OF BOOKS AND ACCOUNTS
a1lll!QlP~ to fill,~-~cy 11.3;35; St=. ill norruJl~OJI ~e to ~ of candidil.U: by 1m POSITION Email Addreas

~Q{\t)

Stev'\l~\

tl~

L)x)l\c17eI
\l\r~

'Or

\l\J~~ ~0 , 5. DEPOSfrORY rNFORMATION
NaincotFiDancisl

St1 0 ~\

f)~j{\(\\
C hJJ.lk:r'
,,

_vi..e+

e

l'hooe#

1'1<,) ~

~\-

{J{~+·I.Y€lv

\f~a3

&-Vo..n~~ ~Jrf
//0

rMtituiion

-

{)_n{~tl
Cit,y. S1nU>-WldZfp Code

J\ddress (number IlIId ~Irl:et)

S'~+h lsi 11 ve ,

\}..Ja.u..s"-..u... ,

W L St./ 4 o C

CERTIFICATION
TREASURER.

J.J2-,;k ~c..k~/
Siguamte~

.

(print full name) certify the infmmation

in this statement

is true,

correct and complete."

,

jJ~
DlIlI'E)

.

Treasurer

11//5/;( ~~'~,~.Ir-~'l~~--~~----~~~--

CANDIDATE
I,~~
Signature

-,-,-~-", (print full .. ",,-,-," "

certify the information in tlUs statement is true, correct and complete, and tbal1his is the only committee authorized lO act on my behal£
-.,J

Candidate

+ + + EXEMPTION FROM FILING CAIIIIPAlGN FINANCE REPORTS

§11.05(2r},

Wis.

stats.

+++

You may be eligible for an ettemption from filing ~pliign finance t'ep9fis_ Consuk the Campaign Flnaace Instructioz, andBookkl!eping Manual to det:erx:rtme iftlle:registran'tquhlIDes fur exeoooption.· '
This registrnnt is.eligible fOT exemption, This registl'ant will not accept oontributions, make disbursements or incur obligations in an aggre~te amount of more than $1,000 ,ill a calendar year or acceptanJ contribution or cilro.u.liIiNCOOntrihl.\tiODS of:lIID:rethan $100 from a single source during me, talendnl"Yoar, except oonrribuhOnS by a candidate. to his or 'her camp;IigD on 1,000 or less in a calendar

o

year.

o

'I1Us registrant is

DO

longer eligible to claim exemption,
'~

Signatureof Candidateor T~

Dare

THE INFORMA nON ON THlS FORM IS REQUIRED BY §§9.10(2){d). 1L05, 11-06(7), WIS. STATS- FA lLURE TO PROVIDE THE INFORMAHONMAYSUBJECT YOU TO TIIE PENALTIES OF §§830(2), 11.60, 11.61, 11.66, WIS. STATS.

11/14/2011 16:11 FAX 715 849 8987

DIGICOPY

IilI004

STATE OF WISCONSlN

STATEMENT OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE REGALL,PlTIl'lON '1m UNfjERs!GNBD 'RECALL PETITIDNER, IJ!;rNC:t.! .',,'
'(iMnI~)'

/1,57

e.oCl ~
>

STATESHIS/HERlNTENTTOCIRCULATE,PURSUANTTO STA TIJ'I1JES, A PEUrlON TO RECAL~

S.9_IOOF TIlE WISCONSIN

$N.4/G)~

&_,.....,.

~vt,.,"w~'7

..

'

~ =-._ a-=

..

---....----,--O-"'-.--'--'-'-:.....,T---

-------=-----

.'
Dated thls

/5lbyof @Vl!.q6M,~/I

(Notary Nor RequiretI)

t
t

I
r

1.1!J.4IZUll

lU:ll

tAl\. 715

6411 1111117

VHilCUPY

ImUIJ5

(Name ofCollJlly)

(N!llUf: of MuniciplllJty)

STATEMENT OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE RECALL PETITION
THE UNDER£l<:Ji'ffiD RECAIL PB.TITIONER,
STATES BlSIHER.INTENTTO ClRCULA1E,

--K ~k '"7=.

tl_,_;-? :.:;e...=:=-h~GL.=->..\ (Print Nom/!)

_

PURSUANT TO S.9.10 OflHB

WISCONSIN

STATUTUES) A FETITION TO R.ECAL4 .

.

'3 e~ k rytk'r)6 CQ" jl~ (kq 1\6, ~EJ
(Jrrd1ctdtr~
f1Q11M

rQ. and oJIiCt1 hddby. ike qQh:lDfooing nciilJed).

,.~_

I

-------- --~.--.~.. (This stalemrml 'Rould ~ appI!llde41'b tJl(! Campaign RegisDYrtiol1 Stat~ ((JAll-I)ftle.d }fIuh n'BjirlRg ojJicuJ

Datedthisbdayof (Notary Net Required)

Nov.eV'{J

hey;~

I

'.,

I

I

I

._

AFI<'IDA VIT

STATEOFWISCONSLN MARATHON COUNTY

) ) SS )

Rita Pachal, 1310 Maple Hill Road, Wausau, Wisconsin 54403, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states as follows:

1.

I am an adult resident of the state of Wisconsin and a qualified elector.

2. I am the Treasurer of the Committee to Recall Galloway (hereinafter "the Committee"), which initiated recall efforts against Pam Galloway, currently the State Senator from Wisconsin's 29th Senate District. 3. On November Registration Statement hereto as Exhibit A. 15, 2011, on behalf of the Committee, I filed a Campaign (GAB-I) with the Government Accountability Board, attached

4. Prior to initiating the recaU process, organizing, and preparing for these efforts.

the Committee

engaged

in planning,

5. On November 15, 2011, the Committee and its volunteers began the process of gathering signatures to recall Senator Galloway throughout the 29th Senate District, and have been continuously engaged in these efforts. Dated this 0(

! day

of

7't tlt"!lf1.k t=;20 11.
~~~ a Pachal ..

SU9d.9ribed . ~?"a~yof

k"t ~h,v,

sworn to before me this 2011.
-c

~ ate of Wisconsin My Commission~r'rt¢..$ ~,. A '3 <""/3

Notary Public,

I

EXHIBIT

'4

11/14/2011

16:10 FAX 715 849 8987

DIGICOPY

I4J 002

CAMPAIGN REGISTRATION

STATEMENT
FOR OFfICE USE ONLY

..- ~ .
NOT1CE:

STATE OF WISCONSIN GAB-l

IF A CANDIDATE DOE~ NOT FILE rms STA1'EMENl'BY TImDEADLLNE FORflLlNG.NOMlNAnoNPAPF;R.S, THE CANDIDA rn'S NAME WTLL NOT BE P'LAClID-DN ras BALLOT. ANY CHM-lGE OF lNFORMA TION ON TIllS REGISTRATION STATEMENT MUST BE FILED WlnIIN
to DAYS.

IS THlSAN AMENDMENT? 1. CANDIDA'l':E AND CANDIDATE
Name ..rCsod¥':1;c Res!(!.!:oOOAddrtSi· (1I1DJlbcr and ~tiv:t)

0

Yes Offia: Sought
Cundi
(incindc diEitrict Dr"bimicb iiiini~

COl\tMITTEE

INFORMATION

.!"my Afftlialion

PtiM;l()' Dale

oo!c I c1cpb,,,,c Ni.uriba: (wPdaioo)

Cily. smq,"I!IId.zip Cpdo

.... ~

E1caioi1. Date

Cslltlid..lr; Th1cphllnc Nnmt><:r (limjiIoymeat)
Candida!&~1 A~

ClIIIlflWSIlQJmmillU Namc·(ifllllY}

Cl\edtOne:

o~

Ctlmpaign

Crumnit1cc

tJSu~rt~

Ounpaign CotmliUCc Address (ifcfdlmnr1ltrutlll!bvc)

~NU(Jlbft-. Sfrtd. C.iJ,y.SWtc undZip Code

Ctlrrinlilll:1; Em:III Address

Thlcpbonc

Nmnbcl" rrt·diffurontthan ~)

2. POLITICAL Nameotcominit1=
~ N1Imbet.

COMMITTEE

INli'ORMATION

(For use ONL V "by PolitiClil A~oll

CIlmmitlees. PolilIl:al

Part.r ~tb:es,

PoIi&a! Groups, etc.,)

~""O ( _~~ p(!.Q;...l
Acldf~ T~OIle~.mbet

/Ifl SU.V..uS.e..
.

Street. CiIy. Slnte and Zip Code.

'\=>cP-.vv--, (l,,_, ill WdJ./
£)fbVL-

f

t)Oh'017

LL.

vI

S"/¥o/
Cca.nmiu~PmniI A.d!.lmm

7/~- SF/- 7f'?8
• N::uil¢ llnd OlJIwIeto:Ad.:.b1::si

I

/l Sknei /@rJ.kLrhr. re: F-

Sp';)11wring O~t1Qb

h'J.4

Acronym (if AD),)
TypeIlfCa~
A.

,N/&
O;Immittec (PAC)

0

Spcclullnlcrcat

0
B. 0
C_

0

ResidenI. Cummillcc InaxpanI1al LabQr Organj~on

0-

Nonrcsjdo!:.u,~

- AItlICh llIfunna(ion

Required by s.ll.05(3Xn). StaIs.
Othet s.1l_05(3XCl), Stan.

n

o NariOJUIl

P&Jilirul·Party -coo.mittec

OSmIc

o CQulIty

o

Lt@:islMlveCamp:lgnCOIIlD1it1.ee"··A1iII<:hfibla:!ncntR.c:quin;dby
I'Qlltical Gmvp (Rekrmdwn)

D. 0
E. ~

R=>llCo~"

F. 0
G

Nnme ofOffica- A.tt:soch Stammenl RequlN<l by s.9.10(2Xd)
Indcpcodmt

>e.v1. f6 W1 z:t

Nwue. ofRcf,crd:idum

GciLLa Y_J.

Sul?jret.1o fux:ul .

at

o

Suppat Ra:a11

o

Oppose Op~RccaJI

(iI Support

o

n

Cornmntcc - A1ao, CQll)pl~ Oath ofIndqx:;odeut

Bxpendltures, Form GAB-6

Indlvldulll-

Also, Complete Olilh of IndCl':C'ldcuLEXpauMU"I:Cs. Form GAB~ BY; WISCONSIN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BDARD 212 Emt Was1ring.tml Avenue, 301Floor, P.o- Box 7984, M.1diSOD, WI 53707-1984 G08-2~OOS hw,J/Sab·wl,gov Email: gab@wi.gov

GAB-l (Rev_ 12121109) THIS FORM lS PRESCRIBED

11/14/2011

16:11 FAX 715 849 8987

DIGICOPY

141003

3. COMMlTTEE TR:EASURER
Trr:3surct'$

(Cumporlgn finance oorrcspoJJdc.nal is mailed

18 this

>kl~.)

~~kq~hQ-\.
A~

Name

1'clcplumc Nmnbcr (residence)

7tc:, -tc.7S - ~1;;_;{
Tcl.erMnerjum'ret
·~o~

(mRJIba IIIId 5but)

City, StulcI1lldZ",QxIc

13/D

VY\o.._ if.) {e_, J.J ~ l t

,

. N';q

(emplO}'l3iOJI)

W c;u...'-..$~

WI. 51-t./o :5
y.:1¥~
MAn:..rNCfAPPru'S,S

I
Email Address

r~U:rer F.mni1.Addro!;~ -ri4-Cl-~o..c.h.""--t
~~ to ~

~

M'\.'

"I • Q.

4. PRINCmAL OFF1CERS'OFCOMM:rrTEE
NAME

AWl.ch·.I1ddit.ioo.uJii::,iing if nCCCSSllly, ~~I!> . offi<;i:rjtqroommlua: m~ :!lItt.aUII!#.e,d!Q filt ..·vpnr;y in nomin¢on as tt:ri&M. ~~ _(I7,IIy allpl~4!'iJ;Ldi::pall:IMliuld It\C:'Ill1Q~!Wl CIIOO1~ ,s:'8'~3j. I<lU. S

AND O.T.8ER: CUSTODXAN'SOF BOOKS AND ACCOUNTS
of CMdid~u: by
lID

~a.{\t)

S-te", l~\

\l~ l~(\~7t. 'Or
\f\J~\J ~0
_

{ \/'01.

SV\Li~\ ch~vk(' _lI\..Q+

rt r,\--eif\(~\

e

I'booe#

POSITION

~~83
Ijp~and "unlllet, i.e.,

~\-

ll~ -

r{t~,(Ye/

5. DEPOSrrORY lNFoRMATlON
Na.i:nc of Fiom:JciaI,la'ttilDiinn

ta-Vt:l.vt~e G.eJ H Un (~yt
//o_ Soc.,t,.+h_

_

Ac!XJunlNutnber

(AUno::h li$t veMy Ad!Ii!io~ acC9Uid:s and dqIo~i1 boiu:a,..ln"'lffon, nuub:t, cse.)

Address (.Dumba' find street)

CERTIFICATION
TREASURER

.
in this statement is true, correct and compleee ..

J.~;k ~c..kCLI
Signature ~ d

,

)?~

(print full name) certify the infimnation

.

Treasurer

Datc~

IIliS/;(
I

.

CANDIDATE
I,_~_-'-Signaturc

~ __
~

-=----'----"-"-'-'

(print fun Dame) certify the information in this st<tt~ment is true, correct and complete. and that 1h.is is the only committee authorized to act on my behaff,
,J

Candidate

+ + + EXEMPTION FROM FlUNG CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS

§11.05(2Q, Wis. stats.

+++

You may be eligible for anexemption from filing ~p¢gn finanoe reports, Consult the Campaig.o Finance Instruction.and Bookkeeping Manual to deten:ii.iri~ ifthe.regi~ qua-lines for eXelrnption. . __
This registrant is eligible for exemption, This registrant will not accept contdbutlons, make disbtU'SCmem:sor incur obligations in an aggregate amount of more than $1,000 in a calendar year or accept any contribinlon or cumulative contributions of more than $100 from a single source during the calendar-year, except oontributions by a candidate to hi~ or her campaign ofSl,OOO or less in a calendar

o

year.

o nus

registrant

is DO

longer eligible to claim exemption.

Signature Of Cilndl(fare

0. Treasurer

THE lNFORMA nON ON THlS FORM IS REQUIRED BY §§9.10(2Xd), 1 L05, 11.06(7), WIS. S1ATS. FAILURE TO PROVID£ THE INFORMATrONMAY SUBJECT vou ro TIIE PENALTIES OF §§8.30(2), 11.60, 11.61, 11.66, WIS. STATS,

11/14/2011

16:11 FAX 715 849 8987

DIGICOPY

141004

STATE OF WISCONSJN

STATEMENT OF INTENT TO CIRCUlATE
'11-& UNOERsION.BD RECALL PETITIONER.

run:::ALL_:r.ET1~.iON
(~;11f Name)

IJIrt-If.i<ct /1· 5..7 tpq;__'

STATES HIS/HER INTENT TO CIRCULATE, PURSUANT TO S.9.IO OF ras WISroNSIN

STATU1'UES, A Pin1rlO:N TO RECALL,

$IVA70K&~~bkd~fi<7
.

(Ilitficirut"~1KURe q{. cr¥i_ ~t!-hcltPfiy.

1/1e 'C?Jjk1'n/ btiirrt:r-erql/~:'

.

.'

,,.._---

......

.".---". __ ",.,_~........,....,.,,_" -....:1-----"""""'-----

Datedthis I~dayof (Normy Not Required)

;(PV/tit-(6U,_s::2:2_/1

~. 7~~
.,

~

-

.

....~

."

.

I
t

I
I..
I'·

f

1.1.114/;::Ull

HS:11

r'll

715

ts4l:1 tsl:lts1

J)1GICUl'Y

~UU5

1
STATE OF WISCONSJN

fY\o... 'revfuoo _

1
(Name [J{MuniGipalft)')

(Name of County)

STATEMENT OF lNTENT TO cmCVLATE RECALL PETITION
THE UNJ)ER£ltJ~D RECAlL pE11nONBR._~.
STATES mSIHEIUN'JENTTO
.

1
.,

~

k?C\...ce..,.""-o.-. \ NalN~J
(Print

i

ClRCULATE, PURSUANT TO S.9.10 Of1EE

WISCONSIN

~ATUTUES, APE'ITIlON TO RECALL. '

Se -'f\It:-k&-r tkC?6\'06 . CTndh:rJe q[.and
ntmM

,
ojJict hdd by. r/wt o..(ficililbeing reCdltld).

~.1

L9 w O--I..j

I
\

,'..__.....__

I

Dated

thisDdaYOrAiai{Wl

bex-; do [ ,

(Normy Not Retpdred)

J

:r

STATE OF WISCONSIN FRIENDS OF SCOTT WALKER and STEPHAN THOMPSON Plaintiffs,

CIRCUIT COURT

WAUKESHA COUNTY

Case No.: 2011-CV-4195

Case Code: 30701

v.
WISCONSIN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, and Members of the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, each and only in his official capacity: MICHAEL BRENNAN, DAVID DEININGER, GERLAD NICHOL, THOMAS CANE, THOMAS BARLAND, and TIMOTHY VOCKE, and KEVIN KENNEDY, in his official capacity as director and general counsel for the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, Defendants.

PROPOSED INTERVENING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SHORTEN DISCOVERY DEADLINES

The Committee to Recall Walker, The Committee to Recall Kleefisch, Julie Wells, The Committee to Recall Wanggaard, Randolph Brandt, The Committee to Recall Moulton, John Kidd, The Committee to Recall Senator Pam Galloway, Nancy Stencil, and Rita Pachal

("proposed intervening defendants" or "movants"), by their Attorney Jeremy P. Levinson, hereby move the Court, pursuant to §§ 804.08(1)(b) (interrogatories), 804.09(2)(b)1 (document

1

requests), and 804. l1(l)(b)

(requests for admission), Wis. Stats., for an order requiring plaintiffs document requests, and requests to admit within one week after

to respond to interrogatories,

service of discovery requests on them. If intervention is granted, these movants will promptly serve plaintiffs with discovery requests. At that point, movants would also issue deposition notices or subpoenas, as

appropriate, to complete the meaningful but restrained discovery necessary to meaningfully participate in the temporary injunction hearing presently scheduled for December 29,2011. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs' complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that would fundamentally statutory procedures for reviewing recall petitions. allege that actions by defendants As a justification Government

alter the well-established for these claims,

plaintiffs

Wisconsin

Accountability Board ("the GAB" or "the Board") "has caused, is causing, and will continue to cause irreparable harm" to plaintiffs. (CompI. at p. 2.) Plaintiffs are very specific in alleging

that "it will be a practical impossibility for FOSW and/or Thompson to review, identify, and challenge multiple signatures." (CompI. at ~ 27). They contend that FOSW has enormous resources,

Movants dispute these allegations.

some of which could be deployed so that it and/or its allies could engage in an effective review and, as appropriate, challenge process. The complaint implies that FOSW made a strategic That is, there is nothing wrong with the process

decision to expend its vast funds in other ways.

plaintiffs' attack and that process has not and will not cause plaintiffs their claimed injuries or any other. FOSW's decision not to engage in its own petition review and challenge process, or to devote sufficient resources to it, is solely the cause of that which plaintiffs complain.

2

These fact disputes are at the heart of plaintiffs' case, and at the center of the motion scheduled to be heard on December 29, 2011. In order for that hearing to be meaningful, to

ensure that the Court has the fullest presentation, and to permit proposed intervening defendants to play an effective role in this litigation (if intervention is granted), expedited discovery is necessary. Sections 804.08(1)(b) (interrogatories), 804.09(2)(b)1 (document requests), and

804.11(1)(b) (requests for admission) all specifically authorize the Court to shorten the standard deadlines for responding to these discovery requests. CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, and based on the record, movants respectfully request that, if they are permitted to intervene, the Court grant an Order providing for the service on plaintiffs of interrogatories, document requests, and requests to admit promptly after intervention is granted and requiring plaintiffs to respond to these discovery requests within one week of being served with them. Dated this

zo" day of December,

2011.

FRIEBERT, FINERTY & ST. JOHN, S.C.

By:

Joseph M. Peltz State Bar No. 1061442

Attorneys for The Committee to Recall Walker, The Committee to Recall Kleefisch, Julie Wells, The Committee to Recall Wanggaard, Randolph Brandt, The Committee to Recall Moulton, John Kidd, The Committee to Recall Senator Pam Galloway, Nancy Stencil, and Rita Pachal

3

P.O. ADDRESS: 330 East Kilbourn Avenue Two Plaza East, Suite 1250 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Phone: (414) 271-0130

4

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful