Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Still no word on Wildly Reckless Recall Fraudster Mark Demet.

The oddest case of recall fraud took place in the Racine area, on petitions to recall Sen. Van Wanggaard. The problem is, no one seems to know why Mark Demet did what he did in the most obvious and reckless way. It would appear to be intentional, as a way to perhaps draw attention to the fraud. It may have been Demet's intention to delegitimize the recall effort.

What else would explain the less than accusatory way the right wing fringe isn’t playing up the story? Check out the laughably described “non-partisan conservative” tabloid Media Trackers story, which by any measure, is not hyperbolic. That would never happen if they truly wanted to exploit this dramatic example of recall fraud:
First to find the fraud was Ken Brown of Citizens for Responsible Government (CRG) of Racine who discovered Mark’s brother Jeff Demet’s name four times on the Wanggaard Recall when Jeff never signed and opposed the recall of the Republican State Senator. As others began to dig, it was quickly revealed that Mark Demet himself had signed the Wanggaard recall multiple times and he had signed other individual’s names without their knowledge.

As of February 28, Mark Demet faced 9 felony counts in Racine for recall fraud. But … Mark Demet’s recall fraud extended beyond Racine to Kenosha where he appears to have signed his father’s name, Homer Demet to the Scott Walker recall using a Kenosha address. The only problem is, Mark Demet’s father Homer Demet has been dead since November 6, 2004. And once again proving that he is not the smartest perpetrator of fraud, Mark Demet signed his own name directly above his deceased father on Walker recall page 071942.
Again, something isn't quite right about this story. No matter which way it goes, or whatever his intention, one thing is for certain; it was really really dumb.


  1. Mental illness perhaps? His mom said he thought it was funny. To me, that sounds like someone who has a mental illness.

  2. That might account for the lack of coverage and positioning by either party.