Justice Louis Butler

A Wisconsin attorney is challenging a state Supreme Court decision that he should pay a $90,000 penalty because the deciding vote was cast by a justice who accepted money from the attorney's opponents.

The case that sparked attorney James Donohoo's dispute with the high court was brought against a "gay' activist group called Action Wisconsin, which later called itself Fair Wisconsin. That group had described visiting pastor Grant Storms, who appeared at a conference on homofascism, as having advocated the murders of homosexuals.

Donohoo, on Storms' behalf, brought a defamation action, which a trial court judge, Patricia McMahon, dismissed as frivolous. An appeals level panel reversed the decision, concluding that the jury should have been given the dispute to resolve.

The state Supreme Court, however, stepped in and with the vote of Justice Louis B. Butler Jr., who had accepted campaign contributions from those opposing Donohoo, reinstated the order for him to pay about $90,000 in legal fees incurred because of the case.

(Story continues below)

Now Donohoo has filed paperwork with the court petitioning that Butler be excluded from making decisions in his case because of the more than $1,000 in contributions his opponents gave the judge.

Butler declined to return a WND call requesting comment on the situation. But Donohoo said Butler had reported a $300 donation from Lester Pines, a lawyer for Fair Wisconsin, but failed to report a donation of $125 from Peter Bock and donations of $100 and $1,000 from Ruth Irvings, both board members for the organization.

Donohoo told WND Butler had made a public commitment not to take contributions from parties with cases pending during his re-election campaign, and to report any contributions from attorneys for parties in pending cases.

"Equally disturbing, the Centers Advocate PAC held a hardcore intimate fundraising 'Garden Party' on August 26, 2007. This PAC's sole purpose is to advance the cause of LGBT equality, including same-sex marriage, and they work together for the same goals with Fair Wisconsin (Action Wisconsin). On January 22, 2008, the PAC endorsed Justice Butler, and an additional PAC Internet posting in March of 2008 again endorsed Justice Butler, explaining that Justice Butler had attended the August 26, 2007 'Garden Party,' and had spoken in support of LGBT equality," Donohoo told WND.

"A PAC Internet posting entitled 'Garden Party at Joseph Pabst Home' Sunday, August 26, 2007, reported that this fund raising event raised an unprecedented amount of $21,000 to work towards LBGT equality in Wisconsin," Donohoo said.

The PAC endorsement explained Center Advocates is "Wisconsin's only group dedicated to electing candidates who will work for and defend equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people."

It lists "Justice Louis Butler – Wisconsin Supreme Court" among those being endorsed.

"These candidates have a long history of advancing LGBT equality through legislation or support of current legislation that protects LGBT people," the PAC stated. "Each one has either voted in their positions against the amendment to ban same-gender marriage or have spoken out on behalf of fair and equal treatment of LGBT families in Wisconsin."

Should Butler be disqualified and no other votes changed, the Supreme Court opinion would deadlock 3-3, which would mean the appeals court decision that the case was not frivolous would stand, Donohoo said.

In Wisconsin, judges are not required to withdraw from cases involving people or groups over a campaign contribution. However, the code of conduct for judges requires avoiding even the appearance of impropriety.

"How can I feel it was impartial … when he's got these ties to the opposing party?" Donohoo said.

Another group, Wisconsin Family Action, Inc., also has raised similar issues about Butler's "impartiality."

Butler eventually lost in his April 1 election to Circuit Judge Michael Gableman of Burnett County.

"This pattern of conduct on the part of Justice Butler … including his failure to disclose to Attorney Donohoo the facts illustrating his bias and prejudice in cases involving LGBT issues, even after a judicial complaint was filed against him, constituted a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct," Donohoo wrote.

"It also fatally compromised Justice Butler's ability to participate in Attorney Donohoo's case. In light of the above facts, his participation in Attorney Donohoo's case reeks with the appearance of impropriety and undermines the public's confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," he wrote.

"To pretend that Justice Butler's decision was not influenced by this homosexual issue would be disingenuous," he wrote.

He said the high court needs to answer whether is is "acceptable for a Supreme Court justice to continue to participate in a case where, while campaigning for re-election, the justice accepts serial contributions from a party " in the case.

---

Related special offers:

Get Ann's latest and hottest book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"

"The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"

"The Gay Agenda: It's Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation"

"Betrayed by the Bench"

Previous stories:

California's 'judicial fiat' condemned – by judge

Plan pushes for last step in eliminating marriage

Court asked to protect 1-man, 1-woman marriage

Pro-marriage groups: 'Don't trust courts!'

Gov. Arnold 'terminates' man-and-woman marriage plan

Gov. Arnold says 'marriage' can be terminated

California handing out marriage privileges

'Marriage' to become museum piece

Homosexual marriage minces west to California

Court will decide if California voters were right

Vote or pay us damages, group tells lawmakers

7 more states say no to 'gay marriage'

Same-sex rulings will 'echo' across U.S.

Senate rejects 'gay marriage' ban

California Senate OKs 'gay' marriage

Mayor faces trial for same-sex marriages

60% of polled Americans: No homosexual marriage

It's 'gay' marriage in Massachusetts

Poll: Massachusetts opposes 'gay' marriage

'Gay' marriage ruling's consequences 'dire'

'Gay' marriage ban struck down in Massachusetts

Bush to block 'gay' marriage

Poll suggests backlash on 'gay' issues

Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

Supreme Court hears 'right to sodomy' case

High court to give 'gays' their own 'Roe'?