Investigators do not know who has held a decision of the Head of Wisconsin

Madison, Wis. – In a report on Wednesday, the investigators came to the conclusion that the leak of a abortion decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin was probably deliberately deliberately, but they could not determine who was responsible.

The June clever of a draft decision showed that the court would issue a case of Planned Parenthood, which should declare access to abortions as a law protected by the constitutional constitution. A week after the leak was reported, the court gave the order to accept the case.

The design of the arrangement, which was not a decision about the case itself, was preserved from online news agencies Wisconsin Watch.

The seven judges of the Supreme Court referred to the leak in a declaration published with the investigation report, “a violation of confidence that the Court had not experienced in its history”. All seven judges sentenced the leak.

The decayed arrangement in June came in one of two abortion cases before the court. The court also heard a second case in which the abortion ban of 1849 was submitted by Attorney General Joh Kaul. A decision in this case is pending.

The Court of Justice must have set an appointment for oral arguments in the case of the planned parenthood, which was the subject of the peered memos.

The investigators questioned 62 people, including all seven judges of the Supreme Court, employees, interns and people with access to the court during a period of two weeks in June from the date on which the design was available until Wisconsin Watch published his article.

Network protocols, including individual web history, shared files, individual folders and e -mails from all employees who have access to the design order have also been checked, the report says.

In addition, printer data was analyzed to see who may have printed out a copy of the design order.

“All available leads have been thoroughly pursued, and no suspects have currently been positively identified,” the report said. It added that there was no evidence that the leak was the result of a violation of the court's computer system.

The report came to the conclusion that the draft of the order on the personal e -mail report about judge Ann Walsh Bradley had been forwarded, one of the four liberal judges of the court who voted for the hearing system of the abortion procedure.

Bradley's law firm told the investigators that the forwarding of important documents to Bradley's personal e -mail account was a standard operating process.

This was the only time before Wisconsin Watch's article was published that the design decision was forwarded to an e -mail outside the state court system, the report says.

Bradley did not return e -mail on Wednesday and asked for the report.

Bradley retired at the end of her term in August. It is replaced by the judge of Dane County Circuit, Susan Crawford, who won the election to the court in April to ensure that the liberals are retained their 4-3 majority.

Missing computer data has hindered the examination, the report says. The protocols that show websites that were visited in the two weeks before the Wisconsin -Watch story about the leaked order were incomplete, the report said. From June 26th and 27th, only protocols were available, not as from June 13th to June 26th, as requested. The article was published on June 26th.

The lack of this website visiting protocols “hindered the ability to examine the circumstances around the leak,” the report says. “The problem underlines the importance of proper data management, retention and checking procedures, especially if such information is of crucial importance for ongoing studies.”

The court hired an independent investigator to examine the leak because the court does not have an independent law enforcement authority. In the report, however, it was not determined who led the investigation.

Three retired police detectives were hired at a price of $ 165,740 to carry out the examination and write the report, a spokesman for the state court system said.

Investigations into the internal functions of the Head of Wisconsin are rare and remedied.

When Bradley accused the then judge David ProSser in 2011 to suffocate her, the Sheriff department of the Dane County headed the investigation. This agency took over the investigation after the head of the Capitol police said at the time he had a conflict. But the Republicans accused the sheriff to have a conflict because he was a democrat who supported Bradley.

In this case, the district prosecutor of Sauk was a special prosecutor and rejected it to raise charges.