A lot will be on the line when the Wisconsin Badgers and Nebraska Cornhuskers face off this weekend. These Big Ten rivals are quite familiar with one another and there’s always more than bragging rights on the line whenever they face off.

This Saturday will be no different, as both sides are 5-5 on the year and they’re hoping to reach bowl eligibility as soon as possible. Wisconsin doesn’t want to ruin its 22-year streak of appearing in a bowl game.

Leading up to kickoff, Dylan Raiola has provided the Wisconsin defense with plenty of motivation, as he essentially guaranteed a win in Week 13 for the home team. In order to try and make that happen, Raiola revealed that he has reached out to Dillon Gabriel to get advice on how to attack the Wisconsin defense. This is yet more bulletin-board material for Luke Fickell’s playmakers:

Gabriel got a first-hand look at how impressive Mike Tressel’s unit can be, as the Badgers’ defense gave him all sorts of issues on the night. Wisconsin laid out the blueprint on how to slow the high-octane Oregon offense. Tressel’s game plan was a main reason the final score was 16-13.

However, because of the poor display for Wisconsin’s offense, it was Oregon who came out on top. Offensive coordinator Phil Longo was also fired by Fickell, which speaks volumes to how awful the Wisconsin O has been for the Badgers in 2024.

It’s why Wisconsin has lost five games this season, which is not what anyone was expecting. Yes, we knew the team would take a step back after Tyler Van Dike went down with his torn ACL, but it has felt like a lost campaign this fall.

With that said, things can be saved a bit if Wisconsin can close out the year with wins over Nebraska and Minnesota. Raiola wants to prevent that from happening, though, and he wants to send a statement against his Big Ten rival. The Wisconsin defense has surely seen what he’s been saying this week and they’re going to want to make him pay for that.

MADISON, Wis. (WMTV) – With the holiday season right around the corner, it’s time to start putting together a gift list. Look no further than the Something Special from Wisconsin program.

The 77th Alice in Dairyland, Halei Heinzel, joined WMTV’s Gabriella Rusk and featured a handful of products. Something Special from Wisconsin products have 50% of their ingredients, products or processing are done or completed right in Wisconsin.

These products are great for a night in or a little something to give to a friend. Some of the products include candles, oils and lotions, sweet and salty treats, unique sweets and many more.

Click here to snag any of the gifts featured or to view the rest of the products or look for the red and yellow Something Special from Wisconsin logo in stores.

Click here to download the WMTV15 News app or our WMTV15 First Alert weather app.

Copyright 2024 WMTV. All rights reserved.

The Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a disciplinary complaint against former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman on Tuesday. In 10 counts, the complaint alleges Gableman violated numerous provisions of the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys during and after his much-maligned investigation of the 2020 election. 

Among the allegations, Gableman is accused of failing to “provide competent representation” and to “abstain from all offensive personality” and of violating attorney-client privilege. 

The OLR investigation into Gableman was initiated after a grievance was filed by voting rights focused firm Law Forward. In a statement, Law Forward president Jeff Mandell said the organization would continue to hold people accountable for undermining faith in the state’s election system. 

“Gableman misused taxpayer funds, promoted baseless conspiracy theories, and engaged in improper intimidation tactics; his efforts undermined the integrity of our electoral system,” Mandell said. “Law Forward is committed to ensuring accountability for those who undermine the public’s trust in our elections, and we will continue to pursue legal action to hold others who impugn elections responsible for their actions, ensuring that they face consequences for any misconduct that threatens the freedom to vote. Our work is far from finished, and we are dedicated to securing a future where elections remain fair, transparent, and free from interference.” 

The first two counts against Gableman involve statements and actions he took after filing subpoenas against the mayors and city clerks of the cities of Green Bay and Madison. The complaint alleges that Gableman mischaracterized discussions he had with the lawyers for both cities, communicated with Green Bay’s city attorney when the city had obtained outside counsel in the matter, lied to Green Bay city officials about the work of his investigation and mischaracterized those actions when he filed a petition with a Waukesha County Circuit Court attempting to have the mayors of both cities arrested for not complying with his subpoenas. 

The third count alleges that Gableman made false statements in his testimony to the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections when he accused officials at the Wisconsin Elections Commission, as well as the mayors of Green Bay and Madison, of “hiring high-priced lawyers” to conduct an “organized cover-up.”

Gableman – Complaint

“Gableman did not characterize his assertions as opinions,” the complaint states. “He presented them as objective, proven facts. His assertions were public accusations of improper, possibly unlawful activity by Mayors Rhodes-Conway and Genrich. Gableman had no tangible, verifiable, objective, persuasive evidence to support his assertions. Gableman’s accusations caused serious reputational damage to the public officials involved. He publicly sought to jail the mayors of Madison and Green Bay, despite all they and their attorneys had done to comply with Gableman’s subpoenas.” 

The fourth through seventh counts against Gableman involve actions and statements he made during open records litigation involving his investigation by the public interest organization American Oversight. 

Those counts allege that Gableman’s statements while on the witness stand, in open court during a recess and to the news media after a hearing about his investigation’s failure to provide records constituted demeaning statements about a judge and opposing counsel and displayed a “lack of competence” in following the state’s open records and records retention laws by destroying records and failing to comply with American Oversight’s records requests. 

Count eight alleges that Gableman used his contract with the Wisconsin Assembly and Speaker Robin Vos to pursue his own interests, including by stating multiple times he had to “pressure” Vos into continuing the investigation that dragged on for months after it was supposed to end. 

The complaint states that Gableman was paid a total of $117,395.95 during the investigation and the Assembly paid $2,344,808.94 for the investigation, including $1,816,932.26 for hiring outside counsel in multiple instances of  litigation initiated during the review. 

“Before signing the contract, Gableman did not tell Vos that he did not agree with the objectives Vos had outlined, the time frame for submitting the final report, or the compensation to be paid to him,” the complaint states. “Gableman also did not tell Vos that he intended to enlist public support to pressure Vos to change the objectives of the investigation, increase the budget, or expand the time frame.” 

The ninth count in the complaint alleges that by supporting a failed effort to recall Vos, and making various public statements at rallies and in the media about his discussions with Vos and Vos’ staff, Gableman violated his duty of confidentiality with his client, the Assembly. 

The final count alleges that Gableman lied in an affidavit to the OLR submitted during its investigation into his conduct. Gableman stated in the affidavit that at no time during his investigation was he “engaged in the practice of law.” However the complaint includes excerpts from a number of the agreements he signed with the Assembly that served as contracts for “legal services,” lists the instances during the investigation in which he gave legal advice to the Assembly and the times he made court filings as an attorney during the investigation. 

The complaint states that he made “multiple demonstrably false statements” in the affidavit in which he was attempting to show he had not violated the state code of conduct, itself a violation of the code. 

OLR complaints are heard by the state Supreme Court. The office said it doesn’t comment on pending litigation.