The [Wisconsin Judicial] Commission is opposed to the use of any side door or issuance of any dispositive decisions that would avoid such a hearing.But you already knew that Court of Appeals Chief Judge Richard S. Brown* does not need any supplementary order from the Supreme Court to form a panel to hear the case against Justice David Prosser. Just because Prosser's attorney claims that such supplementary order was issued in the past does not mean that it is required in the present instance and especially does not mean that it was required in the past.
If that past practice was wrong, you don't follow it. Yet apparently that is what Justice Prosser wants to do: follow an incorrect past practice.
Make of that what you will. I think it's kind of funny. And sad.
* Who holds an advanced degree in Judicial Process.
P.S. The first sentence of Gimbel's second paragraph makes no sense, or else Brown is an "advised Judge" and Gimbel provided a copy of him.
Which at least wouldn't be as bad as cloning Justice Prosser's odious partner in mutual admiration, "the Honorable" Michael Gableman.