 Cavalier Johnson By Gretchen Schuldt
Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and other elected officials indicated support at a public hearing for two measures designed to crack down on reckless driving. "Reckless driving is a scourge on Milwaukee," Johnson told the Assembly's Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee during a public hearing on the bills. The city has thus far budgeted $30 million in an effort to make its road safer, he said. Reckless driving "is a serious quality-of-life issue," he told the committee. Johnson said the state had to do more to make safer its own highways in the city, which he called "some of the deadliest roads in the state of Wisconsin." The first bill, Assembly Bill 55, would increase the forfeiture for first-offense reckless driving from the current range of $25 to $200 to $50 to $400. The penalty for the second or subsequent offense would jump from the current fine of $40 to $500 to a fine of $100 to $1,000 if the second or subsequent offense is committed within four years. Currently, the increased fine applies only to offenses that occur within one year of the first offense. The additional potential penalty of a year in jail remains unchanged. There would be additional penalty increases as well. The second bill, Assembly Bill 56, would allow communities to adopt ordinances allowing police to immediately impound a vehicle used in a reckless driving offense if the driver owns the vehicle and has not fully paid an earlier forfeiture for a reckless driving conviction. "Habitual offenders previously had no reason to think twice about reckless driving," said State Rep. Bob Donovan (R-Greenfield), the author of the measures. "This legislation will assist in the removal of the instrumental tool in reckless driving – the vehicle." Even two-year-olds understand the concepts behind red lights and green lights, State Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) said. "Unfortunately, in recent years we've suffered a breakdown in these norms with more and more individuals reckless driving without regard for their own lives or anyone else in their path," she said. "Running red lights, stop signs, drag racing on residential streets, driving on sidewalks as well as fleeing police at high rates of speed have become all-too(-)common occurrences and my constituents, my community, and our city are paying for these poorly made decisions with our lives." In 2020, Johnson said, Milwaukee police issued 3,798 reckless driving citations. In 2021, they issued 4,873 reckless driving citations. In 2020, there were 6,081 hit-and-run incidents, she said. In 2021, there were 17,520 hit-and-runs. Adopting the bills won't solve the reckless driving problem, she said, "but it will increase the price of putting our communities in danger. I refuse to let lawlessness take away another innocent life and our cities(') quality of life without me doing my part as an elected official representing to help prevent it from happening." "Milwaukee is not alone," the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association said in testimony. "The WCPA represents over 800 police executives throughout Wisconsin, and we experience this issue throughout the state. Regardless of size of municipality or location – north, south, east, or west – law enforcement, and the communities we protect, are forced to deal with this issue on a regular basis." Registering in support of AB55 were the City of Milwaukee, AAA Wisconsin, the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, the Professional Insurance Agents of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, and the Wisconsin State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police. Those same groups registered in favor of AB56, as did the Wisconsin Professional Police Association. No group registered opposition to either bill.
0 Comments
By Gretchen Schuldt
A bill that would increase penalties for carjacking and make it a crime unto itself won support last week from police and insurance organizations. "We can all agree that a suspect stealing an unoccupied vehicle parked on the side of the road, while wrong, is far less concerning than a suspect pointing a gun at someone commuting to their job and forcing them out of their vehicle to steal it," said Mark Sette, vice president of the Wisconsin State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police. Sette gave testimony during a public hearing on the bill held before the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The Republican-backed bill would increase the penalty for carjacking by 20 years, from 40 years to 60 years. The bill also would create a separate carjacking offense, something Sette said would "assist the public and the criminal justice system in identifying the true scope of the problem, properly classify these offenses as the violent crimes that they are." Howard Handler, senior director for strategy, policy and government affairs for the National Insurance Crime Bureau, said 930,000 vehicles were stolen nationwide in 2021, up 17% from the 2019 figure. "In 2021, Wisconsin experienced a 75 percent increase in stolen vehicles compared to 2019," he said in prepared testimony. "Beyond the loss to an owner and the resulting financial impacts — including in the form of higher insurance premiums for Wisconsin consumers — vehicle thefts often have serious second-order effects on society," he said. Criminal rings are stealing more cars "as an alternative revenue stream as well as to commit other violent crimes." The Milwaukee Police Association also testified in favor of the bill. The Wisconsin Police Chiefs Association and the Fraternal Order of Police registered in favor of the bill. No organization registered in opposition. By Gretchen Schuldt Legislators, especially Republicans, keep embracing harsher criminal penalties by introducing bills to create new crimes or make harsher sentences for existing offenses. Here are some recent efforts. Authors and sponsors of the measures are shown in the table at the bottom of the post. Senate Bill 79/Assembly Bill 84 – Prohibiting some people convicted of felonies from possessing vicious dogs Certain felons would be banned from possessing, controlling, or living with vicious dogs, under this bill. The prohibitions would apply to people convicted of violent felonies, including battery, sexual assault, and drug offenses. Violations would carry different penalties: a simple violation would be punishable by up to a $10,000 fine or and nine months behind bars; a violation that results in a person or animal suffering great bodily harm or death would be punishable by a $10,000 fine and imprisonment for up to 3½ years; and a maximum penalty of six years in prison and a $10,000 fine could be posed if a person suffers great bodily harm or death because the offender knowingly allowed the dog to run loose or failed to take steps to control the dog. The prohibition would be in effect for as long as the person is on supervision or for 10 years after being released from incarceration, or after conviction if the sentence did not include incarceration, or after a verdict of not guilty of a serious felony by reason of mental disease or defect. A humane or law enforcement officer would determine if an animal is vicious based on certain criteria: whether the dog, unprovoked, has attacked a person or pet and caused serious injury or death; without justification has at least twice bitten a person or pet without causing serious injury or death; or has behaved in a manner that a reasonable person would believe posed a significant, imminent threat to a person or pet. Exceptions to the prohibitions could be granted to people for employment purposes and who file a motion in court. Senate Bill 86/Assembly Bill 57 – Requiring a judge's permission to dismiss a case or offer deferred prosecution agreement Prosecutors would have to seek permission from judges to dismiss certain charges against defendants, even if a prosecutor learns the defendant is innocent of the charge or believes the evidence does not support the charge, under a Republican-backed bill. The bill would also prohibit prosecutors from offering deferred prosecution agreements to individuals charged or who could possibly be charged with certain crimes. The Assembly bill won support from two police organizations – the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association and the Wisconsin State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police – and an insurance group at a public hearing before the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The ACLU of Wisconsin registered in opposition. "We support this bill because of the revolving door that Milwaukee has become for criminals, and this has had a detrimental impact not only for Milwaukee but the communities that surround Milwaukee," Milwaukee Police Association Vice President Alexander Ayala told the committee. "Time after time we see someone arrested for a crime or several crimes only to later discover that some if not most charges were dismissed or amended to a lower crimes (sic) by a district attorney." "Now we understand that the workload for a DA is only growing, especially for Milwaukee county DA's, due to their staffing shortages and now it becomes the perfect storm of catch and dismiss," Ayala said. "We believe that the list of crimes set forth here are some of the crimes that have a high impact on quality-of-life issues and they (sic) should be an approval process in place if DA's are going to dismiss or amend charges." The bill would require a prosecutor to seek a judge's OK to dismiss or amend a charge if the existing charge is:
The bill does not indicate where innocence would fit within those two categories. Courts would be required to submit annual reports to the legislature detailing every dismissal or amended charge allowed. The bill also would prohibit prosecutors from offering deferred prosecution agreements to anyone charged with those same crimes or who could be charged with those crimes. "Each time deferred prosecution allows a dangerous person back into our communities it puts our communities and our officers at risk," said Howard Handler, senior director for strategy, policy and government affairs for the National Insurance Crime Bureau, an industry group. "Too often we have seen deferred prosecution agreements that result in serious injury or death. This bill creates accountability in our judicial system by prohibiting deferred prosecution for serious crimes." Senate Bill 87/Assembly Bill 87 – Restitution for OWI deaths A judge could order a drunk driver who kills the parent of minor children to pay the costs of caring for the children until they are 18, under this bill. "When setting restitution payed to a parent or guardian of a victim's child, the court may also consider the financial needs and resources of the child and the surviving parent or guardian, the standard of living that the child is accustomed to, the child's emotional needs and physical and legal custody arrangements, and the reasonable work-related child care expenses of the surviving parent or guardian," the Legislative Reference Bureau said in a summary of the bill. Any restitution award granted under the bill would offset a subsequent award in a civil suit, according to the bill. Senate Bill 96/Assembly Bill 70 – Encouraging riots It would be illegal to urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate a riot, under the bill. The "riot" could involve as few as three people and no damage to property or harm to any individual is required. "Riot" is defined as "a public disturbance that involves an act of violence...that constitutes a clear and present danger of property damage or personal injury or a threat of an act of violence, as part of an assembly of at least three persons having the ability of immediate execution of the threat, if the threatened action constitutes a clear and present danger of property damage or personal injury." Violations would be punishable by up to 3½ years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Committing an act of violence during a riot would be punishable by up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The ACLU of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Conservation Voters registered against the proposal. The Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association registered in favor. "This bill should hold accountable those who want to make a peaceful protest a violent one. Acts of violence while in a protest can incite a riot and those people need to be charged," the Milwaukee Police Association's Ayala said in testimony before the Judiciary Committee. "Riots destroy neighborhoods, hurt innocent people, business and first responders that are trying to do their jobs. "I have now been involved in two separate incidents of protest that turned into riots," he said. "One in 2016 when a gas station was burned down in District 7 along with other business and squad cars. My second one in 2020 when as a detective and (sic) had to put on my riot gear and stand in line to protect our Police Administration Building located downtown. That day the group of several hundred people remained peaceful, but you could feel the tension in the air and at any moment the protest could turn into a riot."  In the race for Hales Corners municipal judge, Ian J. Thomson is challenging incumbent Jennine Sonntag. Election Day is April 4. Thomson, an attorney at Gray & Associates in New Berlin, received his law degree from Marquette University Law School. His resume is here. Sonntag, an attorney and contract administration leader at GE Healthcare in Wauwatosa and Hales Corners municipal judge since 2011, received her law degree from Marquette University Law School. Her resume is here. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application Gov. Evers uses when he is considering judicial appointments. The answers are presented here as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.
In the election for Wisconsin Court of Appeals District 1 judge, Attorney Sara J. Geenen is challenging incumbent Judge William W. Brash III. Brash currently serves as chief judge for the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Geenen is a partner at The Previant Law Firm, SC. Election Day is April 4. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application Gov. Evers uses when he is considering judicial appointments. Geenen responded to the questionnaire, and her answers are presented here as submitted. Brash did not respond to the questionnaire. However, WJI posted portions of Brash's 2015 application for judicial appointment in a recent "Walker's judges" post on Brash. SARA J. GEENEN  Why do you want to become a judge?
I chose a career to help me win “justice” for regular people, for workers, for those often taken advantage of as the result of imbalances in power, for those discriminated against because of who they are or where they are from. “Justice,” however, requires democracy - it requires that the will of the people, of those affected, be heard. Being heard means the right to have one’s vote count, the right to leverage workers’ power to address working conditions, the right to peaceably protest and demand accountability. Over the course of my career, though, “justice,” in its purest sense as the check on power that keeps democracy balanced, has been diluted by the effects of decisions like Citizens United, allowing corporate money to direct election outcomes. This has led to legislation meant to stifle the voice of workers, the Wisconsin gerrymander which intentionally reduces the value of some votes, and the destruction of some of our fundamental rights. Because the judiciary plays a significant role in protecting democracy and our fundamental rights, I decided to run for appellate judge. The corporate interests controlling our government and laws cannot be allowed to maintain control of the judiciary. The people of Wisconsin deserve a truly independent, impartial, transparent judiciary that will give real and fair consideration to the cases and the people before it and affected by its decisions, at all levels, and I can offer that. Name one of the best United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last thirty years and explain why you feel that way. The Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the government should not prohibit two consenting adults from being recognized and safe in their loving relationships, is one of the most important and best opinions in the last 30 years. Specifically, the rationale underlying the decision, that equal protection under the laws extends to rights “so fundamental they must be accorded respect,” is critical to a fair and functioning democracy. The decision in Obergefell follows the logical arc and conclusion of cases like Griswold, Lawrence, Loving, and Roe which recognized that people are entitled to the right of privacy within their personal sphere, “to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person.” Name one of the worst United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last thirty years and explain why you feel that way. Citizens United, via a massive overhaul of the campaign finance system that greatly favors corporations and the wealthy, was the first step in making the political process inaccessible to all. Because money is often a means to amplify one’s voice, it causes some voices to be heard more than others, creating a significant obstacle to those without wealth or power. This was followed by Gill v. Whitford, involving Wisconsin’s 2011 gerrymandered redistricting (and its associated case Rucho), which essentially rubber-stamped a political process that demonstrably stripped away people’s power, their voice, and their ability to affect change by meaningful and equal participation in voting. Too many cases continue the trend of minimizing the participation of some in the process for the benefit of few, of the powerful. On the heels of decisions that minimize political power, courts have begun to approve limitations on access to judicial systems as well. For instance, the Epic Systems case prohibits employees who sign a class action waiver or mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition of their employment – employees who won’t have a job if they don’t sign – from banding together with coworkers to seek relief together (as a class, with counsel) and from seeking redress for matters like sexual harassment or unpaid wages in an appropriate administrative or judicial forum, by, instead, requiring that the dispute be resolved pursuant to an individual arbitration agreement, typically a non-negotiable form agreement drafted by an employer’s lawyers, which tends to favor the employer. The effect is often “justice denied” — employees are less likely to navigate the arbitration process individually and less likely to be successful if they do. In all of these cases, the balance of power and considerations of actual fairness or equitability are ignored. These outcomes reflect – whether intentionally or not – a systematic departure from decades of thoughtful jurisprudence that takes into account the consequences of a dispute and decision. Each of these decisions represents a small piece of an end result that poses a significant threat to the people of Wisconsin and democracy. They undermine political involvement, restrict access to the legislative and judicial process, and seek to undermine individuals’ right to band together to seek change. In short, these decisions combine to cut off access to any kind of justice or redress. Describe your judicial philosophy. I believe that the proper role of a judge is to ensure a fair, thoughtful process that honors and protects parties' rights while maintaining the integrity of the judiciary, and which upholds the law, the constitution, and our rights and freedoms. A fair, thoughtful process requires preparation and an approach that prioritizes transparency, recognizes the barriers to access to the judicial system, ensures that parties are aware of their rights and how the process works, while under substantial time constraints. Describe the two most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer. In re: Wasco, Inc., a case in the bankruptcy court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the employer filed bankruptcy citing its bargaining agreement with a union and its pension obligations, despite stating publicly that it was “sound and profitable,” and I sought to have the case dismissed on behalf of my client, the Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers union, as filed in bad faith. While the bankruptcy judge ruled against my client following a 5-day trial on our motion to dismiss, we were successful on appeal to the district court, which ordered the bankruptcy court’s decision reversed. In re: Appleton Coated, a state court receivership case in Outagamie County, involved a paper mill in the area I grew up in – where several of my relatives, acquaintances from high school, and family friends were employed, and which was undoubtedly an important part of the local economy and overall community – being forced into receivership by its lenders and being shut down. There was a contentious, multi-day trial related to the Motion to Sell the assets and legal issues involving state receivership law and federal labor law, as well as interplay between the two. There were significant efforts by the parties that halted the receiver’s liquidation efforts and resulted in an agreement that saved over half the jobs and gave the paper mill and community new life. After the initial litigation over the sale and operation of the plant, I continued to litigate various matters including disputes related to obtaining workers’ payments on claims for wages they were owed, finally resulting in payments this past fall. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. I practice union and employee-side labor and employment law. I represent employees, individually or as a class, in wage and hour matters and discrimination cases in lawsuits in state and federal courts and administrative proceedings. I’ve also represented individuals in individual employment contract matters in state court. The vast majority of my advocacy work is related to my representation of labor unions. This representation includes drafting proposed legislative or rule changes and internal and public comments to such proposals, enforcing labor agreements, matters related to labor strikes or other disputes, and various other matters before federal and state courts, the National Labor Relations Board, and, occasionally, other agencies. A large part of my practice also includes representing unions and their members in federal bankruptcy court to recover employees’ earned but unpaid wages and benefits when their employer goes bankrupt, and serving on creditors’ committees to help restructure such employers. Have you ever been convicted of a crime, either misdemeanor or felony? If so, explain. When did the incident(s) occur? No. Have you ever been cited for a municipal offense? If so, explain. When did the incident(s) occur? I received a traffic ticket when I was 16, right after I received my driver’s license, due to my involvement in a minor accident. Do you support requiring any justice to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why? What contribution limits would you set? We need a much stronger and clearer recusal rule in Wisconsin. Such a rule should be developed in a transparent, public process. A judge should consider recusal from cases in which a significant donor is a direct or interested party. Whether or not justice can truly be bought with a campaign contribution, the possibility of tainted justice cannot be acceptable. In this divisive time, transparency and confidence that the judiciary is acting justly and in the people’s interest are paramount. What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them? The biggest obstacle is that “justice” is being co-opted by special interests that try to tip the scales or make the system less transparent. Another obstacle is that the legal system was not set up for “justice” but as a means to resolve disputes over possessions and liability for actions. The justice system often considers these disputes in a vacuum, and does not fully consider the law-making or societal context for these disputes. Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding whom to vote for. My opponent was appointed by Scott Walker and has tremendous support from right-wing special interests, including the current and former heads of the Bradley Foundation and many Republican officials. In contrast, I have an independent perspective, built from a career representing ordinary working people. I can be trusted to uphold the law and the constitution without fear or favor, not to advance a right-wing agenda. "Walker's judges" is an effort to present information about former Gov. Scott Walker's appointees to the bench. Since the election of Gov. Tony Evers, WJI has focused on "Evers' judges." However, from time to time WJI posts "Walker's judges" columns for those who still serve on the bench. Judge William W. Brash III presently serves as Chief Judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The information below comes from his 2015 application for the court of appeals seat. Brash was appointed to Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2001 by then-Gov. Scott McCallum. Information for "Walker's judges" and "Evers' judges" is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: William W. Brash III
Appointed to: Wisconsin Court of Appeals-District 1 Appointment date: October 2015 (effective December 2015). Elected April 2017 and now running for a second 6-year term in the April 4, 2023, election. Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – St. Norbert College, DePere, Wisconsin Legal employment: 2001-2015 – Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge 1997-2001 – Milwaukee County reserve municipal judge 1984-1997 – Fox Point municipal judge 1990-2001 – Principal, William W. Brash and Associates, S.C. 1990-1991 – Partner, Hopkins and Brash, S.C. Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. I was actively engaged in the General Practice of Law for over twenty-three (23) years, commencing in November 1978 and ending in December 2001. The character, nature and composition of my practice changed during this period based on the nature of my employment and/or business affiliations, as well as the needs of my clients. This started to become more consistent, however, during approximately the last five (5) years of my private practice career because of my ability to exercise greater discretion in my client composition, while at the same time maintaining consistent employment for myself and my staff. During this same time, I had now established a network of attorneys to whom I could make referrals in those areas that required specialized knowledge and ability, such as personal injury, products or malpractice matters, certain types of criminal matters and appellate work. Upon review of the last two (2) year period immediately preceding my appointment to the Circuit Court, my office opened four hundred sixty (460) new files. These files encompassed eight (8) major areas of the law, specifically:
Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 2, non-jury, dozens; arbitration, 0; administrative bodies, 25. List and describe the two most significant cases in which you were involved: I must start by indicating that each client feels that his or her case is the most significant matter before the court. However, none of these cases was particularly significant or noteworthy in light of the nature of the case or the decision handed down by the Court. Therefore, please see my responses to [other] questions . . . . Describe the nature of cases you have heard during your judicial or quasi-judicial tenure. I am currently assigned to the Felony Division, and I have a General Felony Calendar, which is one of five (5) such courts in Milwaukee County. I began this current rotational assignment on August 1, 2013, after completing four (4) years in two (2) civil assignments. I handle all manner and nature of felony theft, robbery, burglary, felony OWI’s, injury by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle, attempted homicide, substantial battery, Chapter 980 cases (sexually violent individuals), white collar crime, voter fraud, etc. These courts are general catchalls for all felony matters not otherwise assigned to specialty courts. . . . Prior to my current assignment, I served for three (3) years, August 2010 to July 31, 2013, in the Civil/Probate Division, the last two (2) years as the Presiding Judge in that division. These calendars are comprised of roughly fifty percent (50%) large claims civil matters, and fifty percent (50%) probate, estate, guardianship and mental health matters. The Presiding Judge in this division works closely with the Probate Department in addressing certain policy issues, in a department that consists of a Commissioner, two (2) Deputy Registers in Probate, an administrator, and ten (10) other personnel as well as working with staff at the mental Health Complex. . . . Brash then discussed prior assignments to Large Claims Civil, General Felony, Homicide/Sexual Assault, Felony Gun, Domestic Violence, and General Misdemeanor calendars. During the period of May 1997 through November 2001, I served as a Reserve Municipal Judge for Milwaukee County, which was an annual appointment by the Chief Judge of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. In this capacity, I served in both the City of Milwaukee, as well as the surrounding communities, and handled thousands of cases for the various municipalities. I served as the Fox Point Municipal Judge from November 1984 to May 1997. I was initially elected in a special election to serve the balance of my predecessor’s term and thereafter in four (4) successive general elections in April of 1985, 1988, 1991 and 1994. During my tenure as the Fox Point Municipal Judge, I handled in excess of twenty five thousand (25,000) cases. Describe the two most significant cases you have heard as a judicial officer. Kenosha Unified School District, et al. vs Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Inc., et al. Case Number 08CV13726 This case involves five (5) Wisconsin school districts in an alleged two hundred ($200,000,000.00) million dollar securities fraud matter related to investments made by the school districts in synthetic credit derivatives, including collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps. These instruments were sold by Stifel, purchased by the school districts, IE Kenosha, Kimberly Area School District, the School District of Waukesha, the West Allis School District and the Whitefish Bay School District relative other pension benefits, and created and marketed by the Royal Bank of Canada Europe Ltd., RBC Capital Markets Corp. and RBC Capital Markets Holdings (USA) Inc. The plaintiffs are primarily represented by Stephen Kravit and Christopher Krawczyk of Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk and the defendants Stifel are primarily Represented by Brian Cahill of Gass Weber Mullins LLC., while the RBC defendants are primarily represented by Terry Johnson of Peterson Johnson Murray. At Various times through out these proceedings there were as many as twenty (20) attorneys involved in this matter, representing not only the principal actors, but various insurance companies and other third party defendants. This matter was originally filed in September of 2008 and I assumed responsibility for this case in August 2009 and as of my rotation on July 31, 2013, the matter had not concluded. I believe this to be a significant matter because it occurred after there had been a change in the law relative the financing of other pension benefits and based upon the complex nature of those issues presented and the relative roles of the parties involved. Milton J. Christensen et al. vs. Michael J. Sullivan et al. Case Number 1996CV1835 This case involved an action initiated on the behalf of inmates of Milwaukee County, alleging overcrowding in the jail facilities and a lack of proper medical care and attention. A petition for a writ of prohibition was originally filed in March 1996, and thereafter a summons and complaint, with the matter ultimately being certified as a class action. During the pendency of this matter this case was managed by nine (9) different Circuit Court Judges, with a partial resolution having been reached by the parties pursuant to the execution of a consent decree in March 2001. The parties continued to litigate a number of issues relative compliance with the decree, as well as issues relative the authority to take certain actions pursuant to the consent decree, which ultimately culminated in series of hearings in 2012 and 2013 in my court. As a result of these hearings, I ordered the County to execute a contract with Armor Correctional Health Services Inc. to provide medical services to Milwaukee County Inmates. The parties were represented by various counsels during the course of this matter, but most recently by Peter Koneazny of the Legal Aid Society, Laurence Dupris of the American Civil Liberties Union, Kimberly Walker and Mark Grady of Corporation Counsel, Michael Whitcomb on behalf of Sheriff Clarke, Charles Bohl on behalf of certain defendants, Ron Stadler on behalf of Milwaukee County and C. J. Krawczyk on behalf of Roeschen’s Omnicare Pharmacy. I believe that this matter is significant because it established the structure for the resolution of a matter that had been pending in the court system for over seventeen (17) years. This hopefully will have a genuine impact on the community whereby an increase in the efficiency by which medical care is provided to inmates results in a more effective use of taxpayer dollars in this capacity. Previous runs for public office and outcome: Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, elected 2002, 2008, 2014 Village of Fox Point, Wisconsin, trustee, appointed 1998 and elected 1999 and 2001 Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, defeated in election, 1997 Village of Fox Point, Wisconsin, municipal judge, elected 1984-1994 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Justice Prosser Justice Roggensack Hon. Michael Aprahamian Hon. Rebecca Bradley Hon. Christopher Dee David Feiss Hon. Lindsey Grady Hon. Claire Fiorenza Hon. Thomas McAdams Hon. Nelson Phillips Hon. Mark Sanders Hon. Linda Van De Water |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed