Three Milwaukee Lawyers Deserve – and will take – Public Ridicule … for a Reason.
Kohler, Matestic, Hansher: morally shipwrecked lawyers in a sea of Milwaukee legal system corruption (aided by lawyers S. Glynn and R. Elliott )
If the abuse suffered by now-deceased 12-year-old Jacarie Robinson had been reported earlier, it could well have been concealed by these Milwaukee lawyers. Concealment of evidence took place in a different child abuse case that has been kept quiet for years.
“My sole purpose was to try to restore in him some sense of appreciation of his obligations as a man .… If one could shame a coward one might help him to regain his self-respect.”
The above quote, from a renowned U.S. Army general, is his explanation of why he slapped a soldier. The intent expressed by the quote includes some practical wisdom. Shaming someone who deserves it can lead to reflection and forced correction. Story telling alone – as here – can be effective. Even if it fails to instil a sense of their obligations or regaining self-respect, publicising their wrongdoing, with names, can prevent further harm.
It is in this spirit that I continue telling their story, the story of three lawyers who, among other defects of character, exhibited conduct that fits the definition of cowardice in the line of their legal duties. These three lacked the courage to expose child abuse because it would have exposed a system that had failed, and friends who had influence.
I live in Switzerland; I couldn’t slap anyone if I wanted to. Words will do the job, for it is evident to a reader that guilt manifests in their uncharacteristic shyness, their unusual meekness in the face of public ridicule. These three, accustomed to hierarchical privilege on home turf – with the ability to intimidate, to conceal evidence, to misuse and to abuse the local legal system … well, that simply doesn’t work as well in a foreign jurisdiction.
I once phoned Lawyer Kohler years ago. To his and Hansher’s dismay and anxiety, I had escaped their influence in the Milwaukee legal system by moving to Switzerland. I escaped the lingering results of Kohler’s failure to coerce a plea bargain over 18 months. He and Hansher had demanded that I betray my son. Hansher wanted to avoid a trial involving accusations of child abuse. Kohler’s job was to see that Hansher wasn’t disappointed. Kohler demanded that I falsely state in a plea that I had not witnessed my son being severely abused numerous times. They wanted the circumstances covered up. When I refused, the two rigged a trial. Evidence was concealed, witnesses intimidated. Hansher separated me from my son for 13 years, his revenge for my refusal to yield to the threats.
I had disguised my voice. I started, “This guy in Switzerland, he’s emailing pretty nasty stuff about you; why don’t you stop him?”
In a voice surprisingly drained of the emotion that I thought the issue would raise, Kohler replied, “There’s just nothing I can do.”
Kohler told me what I wanted to know. He was a coward who could commit vile deeds under the cover of his cultivated world, but he wouldn’t show his face where the evidence was against him and he had no power to manipulate the legal system.
Kohler’s lawyer, Robert Elliott, had been falsely claiming that, as a fugitive, no-one knew where I lived. Deliberate, misleading lie. To the contrary, I had advertised my residence, in Interlaken, practically the day after I arrived in Europe. I wasn’t hiding; I intended to expose a rotten Milwaukee legal system and the rotten boys who ran it.
Kohler and Hansher risked being exposed for what Kohler bragged he was good at, coercing clients into plea bargains to avoid the presentation of evidence in open court.
A third legal coward is involved, Prosecutor Fred Matestic. He lacked the courage to carry out his mandate, to see that justice was done, the truth revealed. He knew that Kohler had concealed evidence. Matestic was in on the rigging, partially displayed by what we could call a subconscious reversion to a Freudian-style, indirect exhibition of guilt, right there in court. His was an odd remark, as if he wanted the public to share in the misconduct. He proclaimed, “No other jurisdiction must every review this case.” What he meant was perhaps Illinois, or Minnesota, or somewhere Out West. What he got was Europe.
Prosecutor Fred, of course, demanded the highest level of accountability for crimes committed within his authority. “Fail to punish and the crime gets repeated, “ he preached. That hypocracy is now on display.
Kohler claimed “There is just nothing I can do.” What he forgot to utter was the last part of his thoughts …. “without exposing to the world how we rigged a trial in violation of all that Americans trust, and how we sent a child back to his abuser.” What had worked in Milwaukee would find little footing elsewhere.
All three knew that a child had been severely abused. All three made the decision to conceal that in court, from the public, for self service.
Hansher and Kohler had created a hierarchical environment in the Milwaukee courthouse where the exhibition of character was met by intolerance and intratribal threat, supported by kompromat. (e.g. lawyer Elliott threatened a fellow lawyer, Mark Murphy, for his concurrence that Kohler ran a rigged game with his clients). In their compromising environment they had influence, but they lacked integrity; they had power but possessed no principles; they forced a dishonourable legal verdict, pawned it off as a victory, but all it represented was their vice.
In the concealment of a rigged trial and the abuse of a child, the three were aided by lawyer S. Glynn, who deliberately hid evidence in the appeal to spare Hansher, and by R. Elliott, who spread false information regarding the mental health of this author, supported by falsified reports submitted to the court and known to Hansher – another issue concealed from the public.
( Continue reading about this topic on my blog: www.markinglin.com )