Ziegler Corruption Timeline

Click here for the full time-line as well as the changing excuses (lies) from both Ziegler and Mark Graul.

Jan. 31: The liberal One Wisconsin Now Action group reports that as a Washington County Circuit Court judge, Ziegler was handling a case involving Wal-Mart, in which she owns up to $100,000 in stock.
Feb. 9: Ziegler withdraws from the Wal-Mart case, citing "an appearance of impropriety."
Feb. 15: Jay Bullock reports on his blog, "folkbum's rambles and rants," that Ziegler has presided over cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, where her husband, J.J. Ziegler, is a director
March 1: Ziegler campaign manager Mark Graul tells the Wisconsin State Journal that Ziegler's practice was to notify the parties of conflicts of interest and get their permission to continue overseeing the West Bend Savings cases
March 4: The State Journal reports that contrary to the state Judicial Code of Conduct and Graul's statement, Ziegler did not withdraw from at least four West Bend Savings cases nor notify the parties of her conflict. Ziegler responded that most of the cases were uncontested and some never reached her desk but were handled by a clerk
March 5: Ziegler tells an audience in Spring Green that she uses a "gut check" to determine whether she has a conflict of interest. She said "any judge ruling on those would've ruled the exact same way" and that neither she nor her husband got "one single penny or one single advantage for any decision in any of those cases."
March 6: The State Journal reports that in 46 West Bend Savings cases, Ziegler neither withdrew nor notified the parties of her conflict. The newspaper also reports that Ziegler presided over at least five cases involving United Heathcare, a
company in which she owns at least $50,000 in stock.
March 11: The State Journal reports that Ziegler has presided over 22 cases involving companies in which she owns $50,000 or more in stock without withdrawing or notifying the parties of her potential conflict. The newspaper also reports that in a 2000 opinion, the Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee advised that recusal would be required when a judge owns $20,000 in stock.