Friday, April 14, 2006

Race Baiting in the Holloway Case

While there was some progress yesterday in the ethics case against Milwaukee County Board Chairman Lee Holloway, the playing of the race card continues.

In a second development Thursday, the county Ethics Board accepted the resignation of John Fiorenza, a former county circuit court judge, as special prosecutor in the Holloway probe. The Ethics Board acted after a nearly two-hour closed session, and also announced a search for a new prosecutor.

No reason was given by the board for Fiorenza's departure. In an interview, however, Fiorenza said he thought it best that he step aside so the Ethics Board could find "someone else who doesn't carry the baggage" he does. Asked to elaborate, Fiorenza said he'd been labeled a "bigot" by Holloway's lawyer and didn't want that issue "to stand in the way of resolving the case."

Holloway lawyer Jeremy Levinson said he did not use the term bigot but has suggested a different, more vigorous standard was applied to the investigation of Holloway, who is African-American, than to other Ethics Board cases.

Levinson didn't respond directly when asked whether he thought the Holloway prosecution had been tainted by racial bias. He said, however, that "I certainly welcome a different approach in the future."

After the week he's had, I bet he does welcome a different approach. You know, one where Holloway's case is thrown out, derailed, stalled or forgotten.

Holloway's defenders believe Holloway was targeted because he is a black man in a position of power.

On the County Board floor yesterday, several of the Supervisors complained of the good old white boys club and brought up bizarre references to the the Frank Jude beating case. They noted the majority of the ethics board, the hearing examiner and the special prosecutor were white.

Two ironic points here.

One, Holloway is in power because WHITE county board supervisors joined their colleagues of other races to vote for him several years ago. To me, this disproves the assertion that their motivation to let the ethics case proceed is based on a desire to keep a black man from power.

Two, Holloway's attorney? Yeah, a white guy. See, our racial conspiracy runs so deep, we've even infiltrated the defense!

It is a damn shame that the bullying continues and that Fiorenza is out.

As I've written here time and time again, it's never as clear cut with that county board as we think.

I'd expect Holloway's advocates will now move to dismiss the whole case because 'how can he get a fair hearing with a new prosecutor?' It would fit the pattern.

14 Comments:

At 9:48 AM, Anonymous said...

Fraley, so far all we know is that Holloway was right about 2/3ds of the case. He was right, deal with it.

Why did it take a year and 75,000 to find out that most of the case was no good? Shouoldn't your screel be directed at those who decided to bring the 60 lousy charges>

 
At 9:49 AM, Anonymous said...

The only mention of race in the article came from the ethics board lawyer. Who is playing the race card?

 
At 9:57 AM, Dailytakes said...

Most of the case was no good? That predetermines that each charge has the same significance.

He's still under an ethical cloud. 30 very serious charges.

Why did it take a year and cost so much? Ask Holloway. He is the one dragging this out.

 
At 9:59 AM, Anonymous said...

Actually, what the news last week tells us was that Holloway was working to get rid of 60 charges -THAT WERE NO GOOD. Sure, it would have gone afster is he pled guilty to everything, even stuff that should not have been brought.

He defended himself . . . successfully. and you want to beat the guy up for it. you're making no sense.

 
At 10:05 AM, Anonymous said...

Frakey, a challenge. Tell us exactly what moves Holloway made in defending himself that bother you so much. Explain how the remaining charges are more serious than the 60. Well?

 
At 10:26 AM, Anonymous said...

Nice Spin...

Dropping the 60 charges does not indicate that they were "NO GOOD", and it doesn't mean he wasn't GUILTY of them. They were only dismissed based on the age of the incidents.

Doesn't matter if it's 1, 30, 60 or 90 charges...he's still a corupt THUG.

 
At 10:42 AM, Anonymous said...

Two points: the charges were dismissed; Holloway won. No one forced the ethics people to bring them, Holloway defended against them and WON . . . and people like you attack him for it.

But your final line tells the whole story -- you don't care about reality or what happens with the remaining claims -- you've declared the guy guilty already. Even if every charge is dismissed you will howl about what a bad guy he is. That's because you are dishonest; you have no interest in the case, you just want the guy destroyed, whether or not he violated any law.

and, yeah I think your use of the word thug, apparently only because it is offensive, is a real interesting choice of words.

 
At 10:49 AM, Anonymous said...

The internet is a great thing. Blogging allows all sorts of people to share their opinions. Of course it also provides a forum for angry childish types to engage in playground-style name calling.

I have been reading this blog for awhile. I understand that there are some charges left against the guy.

But when I read, looking for exactly what criticism people have -- all I find is mindless name-calling. It really doesn't help an argument, it should be embarassing, and it wastes bandwidth.

 
At 10:50 AM, Anonymous said...

You're right...I really don't care if he's found guilty on these particular charges, because I happen to KNOW he's guilty.

I KNOW he's a THUG and a corupt politician.

So regardless of the outcome, he's guilty. And the saddest part is that YOU know it too, but you want to keep defending the jerk.

Just the kind of role model needed in Milwaukee...keeping supporting THUGs like him and things will never change.

 
At 11:08 AM, Anonymous said...

Nice discussion., He is because I say he is. And, that contributes what exactly. Got any facts or just more name calling?

 
At 11:35 AM, Anonymous said...

uh uh uh uh uh - the's a thug and a weenie, uuh uh yeah that's it.

 
At 11:56 AM, Anonymous said...

You could always do what CRG does -- make up lies to support its jihad. Victor Huyke is a liar. He lies. He writes things that are factually false. He misleads - all to get us cleaner government.

 
At 1:05 PM, Anonymous said...

It ook so long because the ethics people went nuts and changed a bunch of stuff they shouldn't have. the dismissal proves it. are you saying holloway is to blame because he is defending himself?

fact: the ethics people decided to bring 90 charges

fact: 60 had to be dismissed and the ethics people fought tooth and nail all the way.

look at the facts, just because holloway is winning so far doesn't make him a bad guy. and fraley, exactly what are you talking about with the seriousness of the charges?

 
At 1:10 PM, Anonymous said...

I just figured out what's missing. Fraley -- read the news stories; Holloway's lawsuit was trying to cut this thing back 10 months ago -- he wanted to get rid of the 60 a long time ago and the ethics people fought and stalled. They dragged it out when holloway was trying to get where they are today many months ago.

FACTS. No just good but good for you.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home