PS: I've had that picture for months and no reason to post it. Since I'm going on a road trip, I guess it's apt.
Ald. Michael McGee appeared briefly before a state court commissioner this afternoon on two felony charges: Solicitation to commit a felony/conspiracy and solicitation to commit a felony/substantial battery. Due to the nature of the charges, his initial appearance was then postponed until 2 p.m. tomorrow so that he could appear before a judge instead of a court commissioner.I have no plans tomorrow. Should I go to the court house for the initial appearance?
McGee was dressed in an orange jail jumpsuit and waved to a couple supporters in the courtroom. He did not speak during the brief hearing.
McGee is under investigation on potential public corruption charges, according to sources familiar with the probe, which has been placed under seal. Further details are expected to be announced today during a joint news conference by U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic and Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm.And an interesting update...
It was unclear late Monday where and under what circumstances McGee was arrested, but sources said the arrest was made earlier than planned because investigators suspected the potential for violence
Court documents related to the arrest of Ald. Michael McGee remain under seal and are not expected to be released for several days, Milwaukee Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern said this morning.And how about a leak for good measure...
Lovern would not say why the documents are under seal, but said state law requires that they be sealed and there is a specific process that must occur before they are released.
"We understand the public wants to know, has a right to know and will know, but there is a protocol that we have to follow in accordance with Wisconsin law that says how and when this information will be disseminated to the public," Lovern said.
Ald. Michael McGee is expected to be charged by federal prosecutors with soliciting a bribe, according to a source familiar with the investigation.The news conference is in about 15 minutes. I'm not sure how much information that the DA and USA will give us, especially if the case is under seal. This is going to be an interesting Summer.
The source, who asked not be named because the case remains under seal, said McGee could face additional federal charges as well as state charges of threatening violence. Whether the soliciting charge would come today, or would follow other charges, is unclear, given he's being held on a state charge.
The measure would force strip clubs, adult bookstores, peep shows and other adult entertainment venues to close between midnight and 6 a.m. Those with liquor licenses could stay open until last call, but nudity would be banned after midnight. Partial nudity would be allowed, but dancers would have to conform to the existing state law by wearing at least G-strings and pasties.I'm a little confused by the wording in the article. It says that nudity would be banned after midnight, but partial nudity would be allowed if the dancers conform to existing law that requires G-strings and pasties. So, is total nude dancing allowed (the previously mentioned "nudity"), just before midnight? Or are the G-string/pasties requirements considered "nudity" and always in effect, even before midnight? Or am I just reading this wrong? I have no idea. Whatever.
It also institutes a no-touch rule between patrons and nude or partially nude dancers. It would be a first-degree misdemeanor to touch someone's clothed or unclothed private parts and a fourth-degree misdemeanor to touch other body parts.
Strickland press secretary Keith Dailey said the governor did not find constitutional flaws in the bill, which received wide support in the House and Senate.Ah, the constitutionality question. Does this bill pass muster?
Beer tax proposal rises next weekThanks to Owen for the pointer.
Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, and State Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, announced today they would introduce legislation next week to raise the beer tax for the first time since 1969.
Under their proposal, the tax on a 12-ounce bottle of beer would increase from 2.4 to 3 cents a bottle, generating approximately $40 million a year for alcohol abuse prevention, treatment and enforcement.