As we approach the recall election targeting Wisconsin Democratic State Senator Dave Hansen, more and more attention is being focused on his challenger's past. A recent ad from the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee highlights Tea Party member David VanderLeest's colorful history, full of domestic abuse charges, unpaid federal taxes, and slumlord designation given to him by the Green Bay City Council for an apartment building he owns in Green Bay. (More details of his criminal history are detailed in my diary back in May).
Aside from his obvious anger management problems, antisocial personality traits, and significant difficulties with managing finances, it also appears that he is completely and utterly insane. On June 30, WisPolitics.com published a press release in which VanderLeest defended himself against what he saw as unjustified attacks against him in the press and from "crooked public officials." In the press release, he rants (and please excuse the spelling errors - apparently Mr. VanderLeest's computer does not feature spell-check, nor can he spell):
"I am inocent of every criminal case ever brought against me. Every accusation ever brought fourth, happened because my then wife had a drinking problem...These cases were intensified at the hand of currupt officials, who viewed me as a political threat...These officials do not care who they hurt in the process...Hurting David VanderLeest and his seven year old son James, are just ways of getting currupt official the means they desire."As if that stream-of-unconsciousness wasn't entertaining enough, VanderLeest also gave an example of the "fight" he has waged against what he sees as corrupt officials. He specifically mentions a complaint he filed in federal court in which he "sued public officials for curruption and abuse of power, as an attempt to protect the hard working taxpayers, of NE WI. (see federal court case number 07-c-318)."
For kicks, I just had to see what on earth he was talking about. Fortunately, Politiscoop had already started looking into the matter. In April of 2007, VanderLeest filed a "Petition for the Wirt of Mandamus" (again, no joke - he misspelled "writ" on a federal filing) demanding a criminal investigation into a wedding that took place in Green Bay at the St. Vincent Hospital in 1997 - ten years earlier. Although I do not believe that VanderLeest understands what a writ of mandamus is, he was apparently so upset over a wedding that took place a decade earlier that he took it upon himself to file this complaint in federal court, all without the help of an attorney. Incidentally, I could not determine what, if any, connection Mr. VanderLeest had to any of the eight defendants he names.
The complaint reads like a romance novel written by a teenager who has just started to learn english as his second language. Here are some highlights:
"Tom Hinz, and Ursula Skarvan a retired registered nurse, are now husband and wife,... Remember, it was stated that the secret wedding was a beautiful and heart-touching moment; ... The wedding takes place in a hospital bed, after a serious stroke, leaving Phillip Bocher, mentally and physically impaired, ... Ho! What a wonderful marriage?! ...Though Tom was not yet, married to Ursula Bertrand, at the time of this secret wedding, showing Tom, had opportunity and motive to help his bride to be, have a marriage to a RICH man's Money, as being married to the daughter of the Bride, is like hitting the JACK-POT$$$$$$ ..."It just goes on and on like that. Although Mr. Vanderleest is not lucid enough to explain this in the filing, it appears that in 1997, a man who had recently had a stroke (and VanderLeest refers to him alternately as "Phillip Bocher" and "Philip Bocher" throughout the filing) got married to a woman named Ursula and that made Mr. VanderLeest very, very unhappy. Why this particular marriage made Mr. VanderLeest so incredibly unhappy is not clear.
What is clear, however, is that the Federal Court felt his complaint was bizarre, unintelligible, and without merit or sense. In the briefest order I have ever seen coming from a court, the one paragraph response stated pretty much what I felt about VanderLeest's "Petition for the Wirt":
Fifty-nine named individuals, designating themselves as "The People of Green Bay, Wisconsin" have filed a petition for a writ of Mandamus demanding that a criminal investigation be conducted into the events surrounding the "secret wedding" of Philip Bocher and Ursula Skarvan which apparently occurred more than ten years ago. The petition and the brief filed in support of it are hardly intelligible. Based upon the fact that the petition fails to state any claim cognizable under federal law, the court, on its own motion, orders the matter dismissed. So ordered this 5th day of April 2007. Signed Judge William C. Griesbach.Incredibly, VanderLeest still wasn't finished. Three days later he actually filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" in which he accused the Judge of never having even bothered to read his original petition. He noted that since the fifty-nine college students who signed his original petition agreed with his claims of criminal activity, they demanded and deserved justice. He goes on to blather incoherently about due process, and even cites completely irrelevant case law as if those citations somehow made his bizarre fixation reasonable or justifiable.
David VanderLeest is one of the most concerning candidates for public office we have seen in Wisconsin. Aside from his criminal history, the likely fabricated "break-in" attempt at his own "Recall Dave Hansen" headquarters, and his manipulative use of his son's name for political gain and to sling mud at his political opponents, this entire court debacle shows that he does not think rationally. This man in dangerous and has no place in our legislature. It is shameful that the Republican Party of Wisconsin is supporting this kind of candidate. I did not think they could stoop much lower after they fielded "fake" Democrats in the recall primaries. I was wrong.