Update: Esperanza Unida's payroll problems continue under Miranda's administration

I just want to say that I am truly disappointed in the Capital Times. It is supposed to stand up for the truth and be thorough in its investigations. When the format of the Capital Times was changing, I took Dave Zweifel and John Nichols at their words that the quality of the journalism would not suffer as they changed media.

Why then did they print an editorial that was so shabbily researched? I am referring to the editorial column “Van Hollen should act fast on petition fraud case” (July 25).

But to even begin to get at the truth of this story and the betrayal of the promised web-based, improved journalism, you have to read the response by Attorney David Halbrooks (see below).

Political theater can be entertaining but this whole story with its backbiting and intrigues reads like a bad Mexican soap opera. Quit it—all of you.

As Dave Zweifel stated in his editorial explaining the move to the web edition, “The daily newspaper will no longer be hamstrung by an unyielding deadline that locks us into content that can't be changed until 24 hours later. On the Web, that ‘paper’ can change with the news on a minute's notice.”

Precision in writing and criticism is always important but in an election year when what a notable and respected newspaper prints (in whatever medium) is scrutinized and relied upon to make political decisions, the Capital Times should be even more rigorous.

This editorial needs to be retracted—this is your minute’s notice.

*******************************************

David Halbrooks says:

This is all interesting political theater; however, as the attorney in the matter, the above editorial bears no resemblance to the actual facts. The facts are these:

1) I was retained by the Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee to represent Rep. Colon on Friday, July 11th. I immediately began working on the matter.

2) I retained Bonnie Schwid early on the morning of July 12th, as is my practice in any matters dealing with nomination papers. I confirmed with Bonnie Schwid that she had not been retained by any other party in this matter.

3) It wasn’t until that Saturday morning that I learned that Attorney Maistelman had telephone conversations with Marilyn Figueroa regarding generalities related to nomination paper challenges. In these telephone conversations, Marilyn Figueroa never mentioned a challenge to Rep. Colon’s nomination papers.

4) On Saturday morning, I learned that Attorney Maistelman had sent Marilyn Figueroa the publicly available GAB / Election Board documents. Attorney Maistelman’s emails have been made publicly available and in no way indicate any representation of a potential client.

5) The period for filing the Manriquez complaint ended on Friday evening, July 11th. The Manriquez campaign did not email any information to Bonnie Schwid until Sunday. As such, any effort to produce or create evidence after that time was irrelevant to the GAB as their procedures do not allow for any additional information to be provided after the filing deadline.

6) I was not aware of any involvement by a person named Sylvia Ortiz until the week of the 14th. I do understand that she has made a statement that she did not support anyone in this race, and I have seen an email from her to this effect.

7) The information presented in this editorial and suggested as fact is almost word for word copied from week-old reporting from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s All Politics Blog.

8) Attorney Maistelman never met with anybody from Manriquez’s campaign. I know this because during the entire four-day period he was on vacation on the east coast. When Attorney Maistelman found out on Saturday morning that the challenge in question would be against Rep. Colon, he immediately phoned Marilyn Figueroa and told her that he could be of no assistance to her and she agreed.

9) Manriquez obviously brought her attorney and other staff from Esperanza Unida, a 501(c) 3, who appeared on her behalf at the GAB hearing.

10) After the hearing, I personally listened to Manriquez, in an interview with a reporter, say that her challenge to Rep. Colon was due to Colon’s vote against a $100,000 grant for Esperanza Unida, Manriquez’s organization.

There is no evidence to the contrary regarding any of these statements. The GAB staff made an independent analysis of the challenge and threw out all challenges except for approximately three dozen leaving Rep. Colon with 245 valid signatures. A majority of the challenges were based upon a lack of street direction, type of street, and the abbreviation of the word “Milwaukee”. The challenges were mostly frivolous and quickly discounted by the GAB staff. The effort on Rep. Colon’s part to rebut the challenges was significant, but proving addresses were in the district was hardly a matter requiring access to confidential communications that never existed. Remember the documents we are talking about were Rep. Colon’s nomination papers I already had copies and any member of the public could have had them for the asking.

As for the editorial, the opinion is wrong and naive. There is no possibility that the AG is investigating an issue of conflict of interest regarding a potential client in the practice of law. A single question to any lawyer in the state would have exposed this discrepancy. Or, if the writer of this nonsensical piece would have taken five minutes to review the actual July 16th meeting online he would have learned that Ms. Manriquez’s complaint to the Milwaukee County D.A. was about the nomination papers it had nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict of interest issue. The complaint was made before the hearing, which is why there were Milwaukee police officers in the room clearly in view of my presentation. It was not until the hearing that Ms. Manriquez stated that she had just learned of the supposed conflict. Of course, when she claimed this conflict she did not know the name of the person she was trying to hire nor can there be any possible scenario in which her testimony about her contacts with Ms. Schwartz (Schwid) could be accurate.

I expect this matter will be reviewed and corrected as to the facts and the inaccurate opinion withdrawn.

David Halbrooks