The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Thursday accepted the appeal in Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s challenge to the victims’ rights constitutional amendment.

The Supreme Court’s acceptance of the appeal includes consideration of all issues in the case. The parties will be notified of an oral argument date “in due course,” said the court’s order.

WJI and four individual plaintiffs won the case at the trial-court level. Dane County Circuit Court Judge Frank D. Remington declared that the ballot question used in April 2020 to pass what is known as the Marsy’s Law amendment failed to fully and fairly inform the public of the essential components of the amendment, misstated the contents and impact of the amendment, and improperly encompassed more than one subject. Remington enjoined implementation of the amendment but stayed his injunction pending appeal.

Attorney General Josh Kaul appealed the judgment to District III of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, located in Wausau. Kaul appealed on behalf of himself, the Wisconsin Elections Commission and its chair, and Secretary of State Douglas LaFollette.

The appeal was fully briefed in District III in April 2021 but the appeals court judges asked the Supreme Court to take the case (skipping a court of appeals decision) because WJI’s challenge to the constitutional amendment involves “significant questions” the answers to which “will have a sweeping effect on our criminal justice institutions and those operating within them.”

Thursday’s Supreme Court order allows the parties to submit new briefs or to stand on the briefs already filed. Any new briefing is scheduled to finish by mid-April 2022.

Attorney Dennis Grzezinski, representing the plaintiffs, responded to the certification by saying that the plaintiffs “look forward to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's review of the Dane County Circuit Court's well-reasoned and thorough decision protecting the right of all Wisconsin voters to be presented with adequate ballot questions when they are faced with voting on proposed amendments to the Wisconsin Constitution. Judge Remington properly found that the ballot question regarding the Marsy's Law amendments was legally inadequate — more than one ballot question was needed, and the single question on the ballot misled and misstated how the amendments changed our Constitution.”

After learning of the Supreme Court order WJI President Craig Johnson, also an individual plaintiff in the case, remarked “we've argued since the beginning that voters were not informed of the far-reaching effects this law would have on the justice system. We've now seen the chaos and confusion that has resulted. We look forward to making the case to the Supreme Court that the referendum failed to fully and fairly inform the voters what they were voting on."

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Michael Gableman withdraws election investigation subpoenas issued to Voces de la Frontera.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission members support proposal to combat reckless driving.

The proposed procedure would allow police to tow unregistered vehicles that have also engaged in at least one of four infractions: reckless driving, speeding, fleeing police or racing. It instructs police to tow those cars during a traffic stop or otherwise whenever an officer “comes into contact” with a vehicle involved in a crash investigation.

Courthouse News Service: U.S. Supreme Court justices say one thing but do another.

“In their public statements, the justices are seeking to preserve the integrity of the Court, claiming it is neutral and apolitical, and simply follows the law,” Lawrence Gostin, a professor at Georgetown Law, said in an email. “The justices have also used the shadow docket in ways that diverge from historic practices on the Court. In other words, the justices are saying one thing, but doing something nearly opposite. The justices have been hyper-partisan and cavalierly ignoring settled precedent.” 

Kansas City Star: U.S. Department of Justice sues Missouri over gun laws.

(The law), which Gov. Mike Parson signed last June, declares “invalid” many federal gun regulations that don’t have an equivalent in Missouri law. These include statutes covering weapons registration and tracking, and possession of firearms by some domestic violence offenders.

State and local police are prohibited under the act from helping federal agents enforce any of the “invalid” laws, or from hiring former federal agents who had enforced them. Police departments are subject to $50,000 lawsuits from private citizens who believe their Second Amendment rights were violated.

NPR: Georgetown Law Center institute pushing for limits on federal use of life-without-parole sentences for juveniles.

The Justice Department should reconsider how it punishes juveniles accused of homicide, a coalition of former federal, state and local prosecutors wrote in a letter released on Thursday that urged limiting the use of sentences of life without parole.

The group wants Attorney General Merrick Garland to agree to seek life without parole sentences only in the rarest of cases, where juveniles are "incapable of change." In all other instances, it said, federal prosecutors should ask for no more than 30 years in prison.

The Hill: Democrats calling for President Biden to address unfair and inhumane treatment of Black migrants.

Reuters: Jurors in Sarah Palin defamation case received news notifications that judge would dismiss case.

Madison365: Wisconsin Supreme Court bans indiscriminate shackling of children in court.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Assembly passes proposed constitutional amendment reforming bail.

The Assembly resolution would amend Wisconsin’s constitution to allow court commissioners and judges to consider the seriousness of the charged crime, a person’s prior criminal record and protection of the community when setting an amount of cash bail.

The measure would need to pass the Legislature this year, and again next year, before it would go before voters statewide in order to become part of the state constitution. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers cannot veto the measure. 

The Hill: Ron Johnson now opposing William Pocan's nomination for federal judge.

Johnson and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) previously recommended Pocan as a potential pick to fill the vacancy. Wisconsin uses a nominating commission that recommends four to six names to the senators, who then formally make recommendations to the president.

Vox: How U.S. Senate seats affect Supreme Court confirmations.

The fact that each state gets two senators, regardless of population, has a massive distorting effect on American politics — especially because Republicans are more likely to control low-population states. Thanks to this malapportionment, every voter in red Wyoming has 68 times more impact on the makeup of the Senate than each voter in blue California.

In the current Senate, Democrats and Republicans each control the same number of seats, but Democratic senators represent nearly 42 million more people than their Republican counterparts. Indeed, if the United States chose senators in free and fair elections where every citizen’s vote counts equally, Republicans would not have controlled the Senate since the late 1990s.

Because every federal judge must be confirmed by the Senate, Senate malapportionment is the primary reason why conservative Republicans dominate the Supreme Court — although the Electoral College, which allowed both George W. Bush and Donald Trump to occupy the White House after losing the popular vote, sure didn’t help. If the United States were governed by the principle of one person, one vote, President Barack Obama would have filled the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat in 2016, and none of Trump’s justices would have been confirmed.

CNN: Trump Organization back in as defendant in case against inaugural committee alleging misuse of funds..

WWBT: Virginia Senate passes bill legalizing recreational marijuana.

By Gretchen Schuldt

There was just one primary election in state judicial contests Tuesday, with a winnowing of the field from three candidates to two in the race for the Kewaunee County Circuit Court bench.

Jeffrey Ronald Wisnicky and Kimberly A Hardtke advanced to the April 5 general election, while John Peterson got knocked out of the running. 

There will be, as has become tradition for lower courts, few contested seats in the general election – just 10, including the one in Kewaunee County. There are 39 uncontested judicial races for circuit and appellate courts, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission. 

The nine other competitive races and candidates are listed below. (In Fond du Lac County, the Branch 5 circuit court seat is listed as having two candidates, incumbent Paul G. Czisny and Douglas R. Edelstein, but Czisny has filed a notification of noncandidacy, according to the WEC. WJI is considering that race non-competitive.)

District 2 Court of Appeals – Maria S. Lazar and Lori Kornblum (inc.)

Iowa County Circuit Court – Matt Allen and Rhonda R. Hazen. Incumbent Margaret M. Koehler is not seeking re-election.

Marathon County Circuit Court Branch 2 – Rick Cveykus and William A. Harris. Incumbent Gregory Huber is not seeking re-election.

Oconto County Circuit Court Branch 2 – Ed Burke and Jay Conley (inc.)

Portage County Circuit Court Branch 2 – Louis John Molepske Jr. and Stephen W. Sawyer. Incumbent Robert J. Shannon is not seeking re-election.

Sauk County Circuit Court Branch 1 – Michael Screnock (inc.) and Blake J. Duren.

Vilas County Circuit Court Branch 2 – Meg Colleen O'Marro and Daniel Overbey. The seat is vacant.

​Winnebago Circuit Court Branch 3 – Lisa Krueger and Brian D. Keberlein. Incumbent Barbara Hart Key did not seek re-election.

Winnebago Circuit Court Branch 4 – Mike Gibbs and LaKeisha D. Haase (inc.)

                                                                                    ***

Besides Edelstein in Fond du Lac County, there are 38 judicial candidates waltzing into office without an opponent (barring write-ins). They are listed below.

District 3 Court of Appeals – Thomas M. Hruz (inc.)

District 4 Court of Appeals – Brian Blanchard (inc.)

Adams County Circuit Court Branch 2 – Tania M. Bonnett. The seat is vacant.

Barron County Circuit Court Branch 1 – James C. Babler (inc.)

Crawford County Circuit Court – Lynn Marie Rider (inc.)

Dane County Circuit Court Branch 3 – Diane Schlipper. Incumbent Valerie L. Bailey-Rihn is not seeking re-election.

Dane County Circuit Court Branch 4 – Everett D. Mitchell (inc.)

Dane County Circuit Court Branch 5 – Nicholas J. McNamara (inc.)

Dane County Circuit Court Branch 14 – John D. Hyland (inc.)

Dane County Circuit Court Branch 15 – Stephen Ehlke (inc.)

Eau Claire County Circuit Court Branch 1 – John Francis Manydeeds (inc.)

Eau Claire County Circuit Court Branch 6 – Beverly Wickstrom. The seat is vacant.

Fond du Lac County Circuit Court Branch 2 – Laura Lavey. Incumbent Peter L. Grimm is not seeking re-election.

Fond du Lac County Circuit Court Branch 4 – Tricia L. Walker (inc.)

Lincoln County Circuit Court Branch 1 – Galen Bayne-Allison. Incumbent Jay R. Tlusty is not seeking re-election.

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 5 – Kristela L. Cervera (inc.)

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 14 – Christopher R. Foley (inc.)

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 25 – Nidhi Kashyap. Incumbent Stephanie Rothstein is not seeking re-election.

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 31 – Hannah C. Dugan (inc.)

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 34  – Glenn H. Yamahiro (inc.)

​Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 44 – Gwendolyn G. Connolly (inc.)

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 45 – Jean Marie Kies (inc.)

Monroe County Circuit Court Branch 2 – Mark L. Goodman (inc.)

Outagamie County Circuit Court Branch 4 – Yadira J. Rein (inc.)

Outagamie County Circuit Court Branch 7 – Mark G. Schroeder (inc.)

Pierce County Circuit Court – Elizabeth Rohl (inc.)

Portage County Circuit Court Branch 3 – Trish Baker (inc.)

Racine County Circuit Court Branch 2 – Eugene A. Gasiorkiewicz (inc.)

Racine County Circuit Court Branch 4 – Mark F. Nielsen (inc.)

Racine County Circuit Court Branch 5 – Kristin M. Cafferty (inc.)

Rusk County Circuit Court – Annette Barna. Incumbent Steven P. Anderson is not seeking re-election.

St. Croix County Circuit Court Branch 4 – R. Michael Waterman (inc.)

Sauk County Circuit Court Branch 2 – Wendy J.N. Klicko (inc.)

Vilas County Circuit Court Branch 1 – Martha J. Milanowski (inc.)

Walworth County Circuit Court Branch 2 – Daniel Johnson (inc.)

Walworth County Circuit Court Branch 4 – David M. Reddy (inc.)

Waushura County Circuit Court Branch 2 – Scott C. Blader. The seat is vacant.

Winnebago County Circuit Court Branch 5 – John A. Jorgensen (inc.)

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Felony case continues against former Waukesha alderwoman for allegedly misrepresenting where she lived.

Courthouse News Service: Wisconsin Supreme Court hears open records case about COVID data.

Lawyers for the Wisconsin state government, the state’s largest business lobby and press freedom advocates argued before the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday over whether the state can release records requested by a newspaper showing how many employees at some businesses contracted Covid-19 or had contact with someone who tested positive.

In the summer of 2020, in the earliest wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel made an open records request for data showing how many employees at a given business had tested positive for the coronavirus, responding to large outbreaks at meatpacking plants and other businesses at the time.

The New York Times: U.S. Supreme Court asked to rule on whether 27 years in solitary confinement is cruel and unusual.

Dennis Hope has spent 27 years in solitary confinement in a Texas prison, in a cell that is 9 feet long and 6 feet wide — smaller than a compact parking space. . . .

His only human contact is with the guards who strip-search and handcuff him before taking him to another enclosure to exercise, alone. He has had one personal phone call since 1994, when his mother died in 2013. He suffers from depression and paranoia and fears he is going insane.

Last month, Mr. Hope asked the Supreme Court to consider whether such prolonged isolation can violate the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishments.

Reuters: American Bar Association backs law school and bar exam accommodations for breastfeeding mothers.

Reuters: Judge to dismiss Sarah Palin's defamation case against The New York Times.

Reuters: Prince Andrew settles sex abuse case brought by Virginia Giuffre.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: State Supreme Court permitted ballot boxes for tomorrow's election but now says ban on boxes is OK for April. 

Writing for the dissenters, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley contended Friday's order could give voters and clerks whiplash as the rules on ballot boxes change. 

"Once again, a majority of this court makes it more difficult to vote," she wrote. "With apparent disregard for the confusion it is causing, the majority provides next to no notice to municipal clerks, changing procedures at the eleventh hour and applying different procedures from those that applied to the primary in the very same election cycle."

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Families pay $5 million each year for calls with loved ones at the Milwaukee County Jail.

The Hill: U.S. Supreme Court rejects emergency appeal by New York City teachers seeking to block vaccine mandate.

The Atlantic: How the U.S. Supreme Court is nullifying constitutional rights using its shadow docket.

On Monday, the Court blocked a ruling—written by a panel of three federal judges, two of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump—that found that Alabama had violated the Voting Rights Act when it drew a congressional map with one majority-Black district out of seven rather than two, in a state where Black people make up more than a quarter of the population. Five of the justices disagreed with the lower court’s decision, but only Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained his rationale in an opinion joined by Samuel Alito, arguing that complying with the Fifteenth Amendment would just be too much work.

“Running elections statewide is extraordinarily complicated and difficult. Those elections require enormous advance preparations by state and local officials, and pose significant logistical challenges,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The District Court’s order would require heroic efforts by those state and local authorities in the next few weeks—and even heroic efforts likely would not be enough to avoid chaos and confusion.”

ProPublica: Report shows border patrol failures regarding death of 16-year-old detainee.

The report, obtained by ProPublica through a public records request, concludes that Border Patrol agents did not check on 16-year-old Carlos Hernandez Vasquez, who died of the flu after writhing on the floor of his cell in Weslaco, Texas. The report also found that the case reflected broader problems with care in a detainee system that at the time was overwhelmed with migrants, many of whom were ill. . . .

Agents noted in log books that they regularly checked on the boy after he was moved to another Border Patrol station that housed sick migrants. But video surveillance of his cell showed no sign of it, the report said.

WISC News (AP report): Bureau of Prisons worker pleads guilty to sexual abuse of women at federal women's prison in California.

All HipHop: Tattoo case against Cardi B set for trial in August.

The dispute broke out in 2017 when Kevin Michael Brophy filed his lawsuit, claiming Cardi stole his back tattoo and used it on the cover of her mixtape “Gangsta B#### Music Vol 1.”

According to Brophy, the lewd cover of the mixtape, which features Cardi swigging a 40 ounce of beer while being pleasured by a man in the backseat of an SUV, caused him humiliation and embarrassment.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Federal protection restored for gray wolves.

U.S. News & World Report: Trump voter who claimed election fraud is charged with election fraud.

A supporter of former President Donald Trump who said authorities should root out voter fraud is among five people who were charged Thursday with election fraud by a Republican district attorney who's running for Wisconsin attorney general.

All five voters, including a homeless person, improperly listed a post office box number at a UPS store as their address, rather than a residential address as is required under Wisconsin law, said Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney.

Wisconsin Law Journal (AP report): Seeking professional diversity for the U.S. Supreme Court nominee.

Although three of the current justices have experience as prosecutors, none was a criminal defense attorney. The last justice with serious experience in defense was Thurgood Marshall, a civil rights attorney nominated about 55 years ago. He was the first Black person on the court and retired in 1991.

The New York Times: Congress passes bill to bar forced arbitration in workplace sexual assault and harassment cases.

Congress approved bipartisan legislation on Thursday barring the use of forced arbitration to address sexual assault and harassment claims in the workplace, sending President Biden a measure aimed at ending a secretive practice often used to shield perpetrators from full and public accountability.

The Senate passed the measure by a voice vote, clearing the bill three days after it had been approved overwhelmingly by the House. It could prompt a sea change in the way that businesses handle allegations of sexual abuse, and it was hailed by employment lawyers as one of the most significant changes to labor law in decades. The White House has indicated that Mr. Biden will sign it.

Thompson Reuters Foundation: Rights groups want to rein in use of artificial intelligence to monitor prison calls.

Documents from eight states showed prison and jail authorities were using surveillance software called Verus, which scans for key words and leverages Amazon's voice-to-text transcription service, to monitor prisoners' phone calls.

California-based LEO Technologies, which operates Verus, says it has scanned close to 300 million minutes of calls going in and out of prisons and jails in the United States, describing the tool as a way to fight crime and help keep inmates safe.

But a coalition of civil and digital rights groups said the surveillance sometimes overstepped legal limits by targeting conversations unrelated to the safety and security of detention facilities, or possible criminal activity.

Wisconsin Examiner: Issues regarding proposed legislation to close Lincoln Hills.

Lincoln Hills is on a completely different scale. Although it currently houses 38 male juveniles, the facility was designed with a capacity of 519. It remains one of America’s largest youth prisons, with Wisconsin leading the nation in referring students to law enforcement. According to a 2021 report by the Center for Public Integrity, nine Badger State students out of every 1,000 were referred to police in 2017-18, compared to the national rate of 4.5. As of Feb. 4, 11 girls were in the Copper Lake facility, which is adjacent to the Lincoln Hills facility for boys.

Although most of the juveniles held there are from the Milwaukee area, the facilities themselves are over four hours away from home. Establishing a new Type 1 facility in Milwaukee was part of a plan to move the kids closer to home, while also redesigning their setting to aid in rehabilitation. In 2019, however, plans to open a facility in Milwaukee were met with stiff community pushback and the idea was scrapped. With the creation of a new facility now again on the table, the pressure hasn’t disappeared.

Madison365: Protests following police shooting in Madison.

WIZM (AP report): Wisconsin legislators propose Texas-style abortion ban with private enforcement.

Courthouse News Service: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals hears defamation case stemming from Wausau Daily Herald article.

Marijuana Moment: Federal courts interpreting medical-marijuana protections differently.

Congressional lawmakers just got an update on how different federal courts across the country are interpreting a spending bill rider that has generally shielded state medical marijuana programs from interference by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The provision, first approved as part of large-scale appropriations legislation in 2014 and renewed each year since, stipulates that DOJ funding cannot be used to prevent states and territories from  “implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” But courts have had varying interpretations about the extent to which those protections apply, a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explains.

Roll Call: Bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

Sens. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, introduced the measure at a news conference alongside advocates, including actor Angelina Jolie. Ernst said the bill includes many priorities for her as a domestic violence survivor, such as more resources for rural areas and provisions addressing abuse against women in law enforcement custody.

The case: Daniel J. Hennessy, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.​

Majority opinion: Justice Annette K. Ziegler (30 pages), for a unanimous court.

Concurrence: Justice Rebecca F. Dallet (6 pages), joined by Justices Brian Hagedorn and Jill J. Karofsky.

The Upshot
​
In Wisconsin, a foreign country's law must be proven before a circuit court as a question of fact. We reaffirm this principle and decline the Hennessys' invitation to consider foreign law de novo. Upon a review of the record, the court cannot conclude that the circuit court's interpretation of Mexican law was clearly erroneous. Further, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by choosing to recognize the Mexican judgment in Wisconsin. Thus, the court of appeals is affirmed, and Wells Fargo's judgment against the Hennessys was properly domesticated. 

Background

The Hennessys (Daniel and Jane) took out a loan of $7.5 million owed to Wells Fargo to build a condominium in San Jose del Cabo, Mexico. As part of the transaction, the parties signed three separate agreements. They executed a construction loan agreement, a promissory note, and an addendum to the note. These documents are governed by Wisconsin law and are written in English. In addition, the parties entered into a trust agreement. The trust held the property underlying the transaction as collateral in case of the Hennessys' default. Mexican law governs the trust agreement, which is written in Spanish. 

The agreements are closely interlinked and reference each other. For instance, the loan agreement stated that the security is "granted . . . under the Guaranteed Trust Agreement." The trust agreement, for its part, stated that the Hennessys must "comply with all obligations [they] assumed under the Loan Documents," and, in the case of default, the Hennessys were obligated to "immediately pay any and all amounts [they] owe[] under the Loan Documents." 

The Hennessys defaulted under the agreements, and in May 2012, Wells Fargo initiated a foreclosure action in Mexico....

In March 2014, the Mexican district court issued a judgment in favor of Wells Fargo ("the Mexican judgment"), and both parties appealed the decision. In October 2014, an appellate court, the Third Unitary Court of Mexico ("the Mexican appellate court"), affirmed in part the Mexican district court's decision and awarded a judgment in favor of Wells Fargo. The Mexican appellate court amended the judgment issued by the district court.

The appellate court said the Hennessys owed $7.5 million, plus interest and costs. Wells Fargo subsequently pursued an action in Milwaukee County Circuit Court to allow enforcement of the Mexican court decision.

[T]he circuit court issued a written decision holding that the Mexican judgment was valid and could be enforced against the Hennessys personally. The circuit court reasoned that the Mexican judgment mandated that the Hennessys either pay the amounts owed to Wells Fargo or surrender the property as collateral. Under Mexican law, if the Hennessys failed to pay Wells Fargo, the bank could recover any deficiency remaining after the collateral was sold, and, by seeking a deficiency, Wells Fargo was enforcing the Mexican judgment.  The court later ruled that Wells Fargo was entitled to recognition of the Mexican judgment.

The Hennessys also lost in the Court of Appeals.

The guts

The Hennessys ask this court to alter its current standard for reviewing questions of a foreign country's law. In addition, the Hennessys seek reversal of the circuit court and court of appeals based upon their interpretations of the Mexican judgment and on international comity (the recognition one country gives to another country's laws and judgments.) We will first address the Hennessys' arguments on the proper standard of review.

For centuries, the common law established that, unlike the laws of the domestic jurisdiction, a foreign country's laws must be pleaded and proven as facts....

Even though Wisconsin's standard of review has been long established, the standard has been reaffirmed by this court on numerous occasions, and Wisconsin's statutory notice provisions on foreign law have not been changed, the Hennessys ask that the court resolve issues of foreign countries' laws as questions of law. (A question of law involves the interpretation of principles that might be relevant in other cases; a question of fact requires interpretation of circumstances of the particular case.) Whether we treat this issue solely as a matter of stare decisis, statutory interpretation, or both, we decline to do so.... 

As was true in centuries past, applying a wholly independent standard of review to a foreign country's jurisprudence can create substantial difficulties for courts, and having a question of fact standard can relieve the pressure placed on the judicial system. The standard places the burden on the parties to present what evidence and expert testimony they believe are relevant on the issue of foreign law, and limits appellate review to clearly erroneous interpretations. The process may serve to facilitate efficient and effective resolution of foreign law disputes. These disputes may otherwise consume court resources without consequent development of Wisconsin law.

Nonetheless, the Hennessys cite policy rationales in support of their position. They argue that recrafting issues of a foreign country's laws as questions of law would allow courts to exercise independent judgment, and it would give courts the opportunity to fully analyze the substance of foreign law....

The Hennessys fail to cite a single case where litigants, under the question of fact standard, were inhibited from presenting to the court a full and accurate body of a foreign country's law. Although the Hennessys disagree with the circuit court's findings in this case, there is no indication that the record was incomplete or somehow inadequate....

                                                                                   ***

The Hennessys argue that the circuit court incorrectly interpreted Mexican law to allow recovery against them personally under the Mexican judgment. In addition, the Hennessys claim that the circuit court misapplied the doctrine of comity. Wells Fargo disputes both these assertions. It argues that the circuit court accurately interpreted Mexican law and properly applied its discretion to domesticate the Mexican judgment. We will address the two issues in turn....

[W]e affirm the circuit court's interpretation of Mexican law. The circuit court properly determined that the Mexican judgment allowed Wells Fargo to collect a money judgment from the Hennessys personally and seek any deficiency after foreclosure on the property is complete....

The Hennessys argue that the circuit court should not have domesticated the Mexican judgment because it was insufficiently specific as to the amounts the Hennessys owed. They argue that the judgment does not contain a "sum certain" and leaves open additional calculations of deficiencies, interest, fees, and expenses owed to Wells Fargo. Thus, according to the Hennessys, the Mexican judgment is not final....

Upon a review of the record, this court cannot conclude that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in domesticating the Mexican judgment. The circuit court accurately examined the facts, recognized the applicability of the comity doctrine, "us[ed] a demonstrative rational process" in applying the doctrine, and came to a reasonable conclusion. We affirm the circuit court's judgment in favor of Wells Fargo.  

I join the majority opinion but write separately only because I would focus on Wis. Stat. § 902.02(5), which requires Wisconsin courts to treat foreign countries' laws as questions of fact that must be proven to the circuit court. Therefore, I respectfully concur....

Because Wis. Stat. § 902.02(5) requires foreign countries' laws be treated as questions of fact, any change to that standard must come through legislation....

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Judge is concerned Robin Vos or his aides deleted emails after open-records request.

Dane County Circuit Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn said she wanted a review of the issue because evidence has shown an aide to Vos waited nearly two weeks in one instance to let others in the office know of a records request. In the interim, others could have deleted records, she said. 

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Cavalier Johnson nominates Bree Spencer to the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission.

Wisconsin Law Journal: Bipartisan bill for juvenile prison near Milwaukee.

Vox: Why the Supreme Court's decision in Alabama gerrymandering case is so alarming.

So one upshot of Kavanaugh’s opinion is that the Purcell window — the period that counts as “close to an election” — should extend for more than nine months. That’s such a long period of time when courts cannot hand down “orders affecting elections” that it would be helpful if (Justice Brett) Kavanaugh informed us when, exactly, a judge is allowed to hand down an order impacting a state’s election laws.

The Hill: Federal Bureau of Prisons lifts nationwide lockdown.

Reuters: U.S. to try house arrest for immigrants.

The plan comes as arrests at the U.S.-Mexico border are expected to reach record highs again this year and detention space has been limited by the coronavirus pandemic. Though most migrants caught at the border are being rapidly expelled from the United States under a COVID-related health order, thousands have been allowed into the country to pursue their immigration cases.

"We just don't have the capacity," the DHS official said. "We're not going to detain our way out of the border crisis."