|
"Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: December 2011 (Defeated in April 2012 election by Assistant State Public Defender Ellen Berz; after his defeat, Allen quit his judge's post early) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin Law School Undergrad – University of Wisconsin-Platteville (Criminal Justice and Psychology major) High School – NA Recent Employment: May 1996 - present – Assistant City Attorney, Madison, WI Memberships: The State Bar of Wisconsin Dane County Bar Association Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Reports both having criminal court experience and that his criminal court experience totals 0%. Also says he took two jury and three non-jury trials to judgment and that he conducted “several criminal trials and two personal injury trials.” Litigated “hundreds of municipal ordinance violations.” Significant experience in administrative, labor, and open records law. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 2; non-jury, 3; arbitration, 15; administrative bodies, 60  Allen  From Roger Allen's application Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application:
1. Boy Scouts of America 2. American Legion 3. Reserve Officer's Association 4. West Point Parent's Association 5. St. Dennis Catholic Church 6. Youth soccer coach 7. Moot court trial judge 8. Advisor to Operation Hometown Gratitude (sends care packages to deployed military members and Peace Corps volunteers) 9. Host parent for foreign exchange students. Pro bono work: In private practice, participated in the State Bar's pro bono program primarily drafting wills for indigent persons and providing legal advice to non-profit organizations. Currently registered with the American Bar Association's Home Front, a pro bono program that provides legal advice and representation to military members and their families. Quotes: Why I Want to Be a Judge - I want to become a judge because I derive a great deal of personal satisfaction from serving the public good. As Theodore Roosevelt observed, "This country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in." I have also found that the greater the challenge, the greater the responsibility, the greater the satisfaction I derive from the endeavor....I possess an abiding commitment to defending the rights of both individual members of society and those of society itself. This is undoubtably the core function of the judiciary–balancing and enforcing the rights of the parties before them.… Judicial philosophy - Today, our courts are facing a crisis of public confidence brought on not so much by recent events, but rather, from a slow erosion of the court’s respect for the limits of judicial authority in a government founded up on the separation of powers. The public trust can only be restored by the investiture of judges whose past professional lives demonstrate an unwavering dedication to the rule of law uninfluenced by personal philosophies or party affiliations. My professional background establishes that I meet this standard. Best or worst United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in the last 30 years - Interest of Jerrell C.J. The Supreme Court announced a new rule of evidence: police interviews of juvenile defendants would be inadmissible unless they had been electronically recorded. The decision is unremarkable for the rule that it created. Indeed, the Wisconsin legislature subsequently codified the rule into law. What is remarkable and equally as troubling, is that in creating this rule the Court jettisoned decades of jurisprudence concerning the admissibility of statements and confessions, exceeded its authority by invading the prerogative of the legislature and assumed the worst of law enforcement officers all across the state.  Kawski "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Name: Clayton P. Kawski Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 15, 2016 Education: Law School – Northern Illinois University of Law Undergrad – University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh High School – Stevens Point Area Senior High School Recent Employment: June 2010 - present - Wisconsin Department of Justice September 2008 - June 2010 Michael Best & Friedrich Memberships: The State Bar of Wisconsin Young Lawyers Division Board (July 2013 - present) Professionalism Committee (July 2009 - June 2013) Challenges Facing New Lawyers Implementation Committee (2015) Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Extensive civil trial and appellate litigation experience. “My practice at DOJ has involved representing the State of Wisconsin, the Office of the Governor, the State agencies and numerous state actors in some of the most contentious and high-profile cases of the last five years.” Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Approximately 35 non-jury cases. Number of cases litigated on appeal: More than 35 Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application: None Pro bono work in last five years: None Quotes: Why I Want to Be a Judge - The work of a circuit court judge is extremely important to citizens, businesses, and the State of Wisconsin. My experience handling high-profile, complex litigation like the voter photo identification cases, challenges to Wisconsin's campaign finance laws, and numerous trial-level and appellate matters involving administrative law makes me uniquely qualified for this appointment. ... Judicial philosophy - The job of judging is not always simple and straightforward. It involves real people, real emotions, real dollars, and real liberty at stake. A judge cannot forget that. A judge must have basic humility, but that humility must be tempered and forged by the rule of law....Without an abiding respect for the law, as it is written, a judge becomes nothing more than a king in a black robe. The challenge of judging is to exercise sound judgment while applying the law itself, not personal preferences. Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision – District of Columbia v Heller (Second Amendment) I will always remember reading the decision in chambers when it came down on June 26, 2008. It is an important landmark in constitutional law that should find a special place in the minds of gun-owning Wisconsinites. "It is an important landmark in constitutional law that should find a special place in the minds of gun-owning Wisconsinites." Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision -- King v Burwell (upholding Obamacare)
Statutory words should not be ignored, avoided, or glazed over by a judge or court. This decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, arguably ignored the plain meaning of the words of the law at issue and engaged in a tortured statutory analysis in the name of finding Congress’ “true” intentions....What Justice Diane Sykes accomplished for conservative, principled statutory interpretation in Kalal, Chief Justice Roberts seems to have taken a step in the exact opposite direction in King v. Burwell. Marijuana possession cases would be decriminalized so that first and second offenders would face forfeitures for violating ordinances instead of possible jail or prison time, under a recommendation from the State Public Defender's office. The change would save the office money, since Indigent defendants who face forfeiture penalties -- and not incarceration -- are not entitled to court-appointed attorneys. The office also is recommending the state eliminate the charge of felony bail jumping and give pay raises to private bar lawyers appointed to represent indigent defendants. Demoting possession of marijuana from its criminal status could save the State Public Defender (SPD) almost $500,000 per year, according to an issue paper the submitted last week with the agency's budget request. Currently, simple possession is a misdemeanor for the first offense under state law, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. It is a felony for the second and subsequent offenses, punishable by up to three and a half years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The public defender is recommending that prosecutors charge the first two offenses as forfeitures and the third offense as a misdemeanor.  Marijuana in Wisconsin Some municipalities, such as Milwaukee, already have marijuana-possession ordinances on the books. Findings of guilt for those offenses do not result in criminal records. Many marijuana possession cases originally charged as crimes already end up as forfeitures, rather than criminal convictions, through routine plea negotiations, the public defender’s office said. In fiscal year 2016, which ended June 30, “the SPD represented clients in almost 8,442 related to possession of drugs,” the SPD said. “If these cases would not have qualified for representation due to the suggested reclassification to ordinances, then the SPD would have saved $455,312.” The office also is recommending the state do away with the felony bail-jumping charge, which is issued when someone already charged with a felony violates terms of his or her bond. Under the public defender’s recommendation, bail jumping would become a misdemeanor, whether or not the underlying charge is a felony. Misdemeanor bail jumping can bring a maximum of 9 months in jail and a $10,000 fine; felony bail jumping carries maximum penalties of six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. If the 8,147 felony bail jumping cases the public defender's office handled in FY16 were charged as misdemeanors, the office could have saved about $770,000, the agency said in budget documents. The calculation is based on the difference in the cost difference between an average felony and average misdemeanor case. In recommending a private bar pay increase, the public defender’s office said the existing $40 per hour rate has been in place since 1995, when it was reduced from $50 per hour. (Travel time is $25 per hour.) Forty bucks an hour now is “now unreasonably below market rate,” the SPD said. A 2013 Wisconsin State Bar study found that the median hourly rate for a criminal law private practicioner is $145. The office is recommending private lawyers be paid $45 to $60 per hour, depending on the case. The raise would cost a total of $7.6 million in FY19, when it would take effect. The SPD "is experiencing difficulty in making appointments to the private bar, especially in sexual assault cases, which has consequences for the justice system," the office said in another issue paper. "Many offices serving counties outside of Milwaukee and Dane must routinely appoint attorneys from other counties, increasing travel time and mileage expenses. The buying power of $40 in 1995 is the equivalent of $25.20 in 2014, the paper said. There are about 1,200 lawyer on the list to take appointments, but in 2015, 13% did not accept a single case and 31% took fewer than 26, the SPD said. Still reeling by accusations of abuse and cover-up at its juvenile institutions, the Department of Corrections now is proposing to sharply curtail public input into the creation of new prison industries. It's all about making money faster, DOC says in its 2017-19 budget proposal. "If the Department is more quickly able to establish a new industry, it may be able to realize the profits of the industry sooner," DOC said in its budget proposal. DOC must now hold a public hearing before it launches a new industry. Under the department's proposal, DOC would simply submit plans for new industries to the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee. The committee could, within 15 working days, call a meeting to consider the matter. If the committee does not notify the department that a meeting is necessary, the department could go ahead and implement the industry without public input. David Liners, state director of WISDOM, which is deeply involved in state prison reform issues, criticized DOC's effort to curtail public involvement. "The biggest problems with the Department of Corrections stem from a lack of transparency and external accountability," Liners said. "Whether the concern is solitary confinement, procedures that affect parole-eligible prisoners, revocation policy, or prison industries, the Legislature needs to call for greater accountability. This measure seems to be an unexplained, unjustified move in an exactly the opposite direction," he said. "Changes to procedure for the Department need to include increased oversight by people outside of the department itself," he said.  Prison industries remain controversial, with some critics alleging they exploit incarcerated people while others say the industries unfairly compete with the private sector.
In Wisconsin, according to a 2015 Legislative Fiscal Bureau paper, the Department of Corrections' corporate arm, Badger State Industries, runs businesses in textiles, including laundry and upholstery; imaging, including sign shops and printing; fabricating, including furniture and license plant manufacture; and a distribution center. In 2013-14, according to LFG, the Badger State prison industries paid an average hourly inmate wage of 94 cents per hour, and ranged from 79 cents to $1.41 per hour. DOC proposed in the spring adding an inmate canteen industry at Taycheedah Correctional Institution. That business would pay inmates 95 cents an hour, LFB said in a June report. Prisons that operated their own canteens paid an average of 11 cents an hour. With his Supreme Court effort to keep two training videos secret, Attorney General Brad Schimel is waging a very broad, very dangerous attack on public access to law enforcement records. It’s all about the precedent. "If the Attorney General's office prevails, it could upend Wisconsin's open records law as we know it," said attorney Anthony Cotton, president of the Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Two lower courts, ruling in a lawsuit brought by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, already have told Schimel to release the training videos. Major players in the case, meanwhile -- including Schimel and a majority of the Supreme Court -- are huge beneficiaries of Republican campaign money.  Brad Schimel: $67,277 from Republican organizations Schimel appealed to the State Supreme Court, arguing that release of the videos could disclose super-secret law enforcement techniques most people already have seen on TV and -- and here is the scary part part -- "retraumatize" victims of crimes discussed in one of the videos. Those crimes were committed by Anthony Stancl, a New Berlin Eisenhower High School student who used Facebook to fool and coerce other students into sex acts with him. Doesn’t matter that the crimes were committed before 2009; were very, very widely publicized at the time; were prosecuted by then-Waukesha County DA Schimel; or that Schimel discussed the case publicly many, many times on TV and in newspapers.  Rebecca Bradley: $75,926 (since December!) from Republican organizations  Patience Roggensack: $53,709 from Republican organizations Now Schimel, through Solicitor General Misha Tseytlin, is pushing an argument that cops and other law enforcement can withhold information if they believe it might upset victims years later. “This Court should give appropriate deference to the Department of Justice’s unique role and experience protecting the victims of crime, and reaffirm the importance of minimizing further suffering by crime victims,” Tseytlin argued in a brief. There is no identifying victim information contained in the training video, but viewers might be able to figure out who the victims were, Chief Justice Patience Roggensack said during oral arguments. Tsyetlin, in his brief, argued that “The videos should not be disclosed because of the public interest in protecting victims from being traumatized once again, after they thought their nightmare had ended." Crime victims, he argued, are "highly concerned about public distribution of the details of the crimes, even after the case has closed.”  Michael Gableman: $31,340 from Republican organizations. Think about it. Under the Schimel / Tseytlin reasoning, law enforcement could withhold anything that law enforcement -- not the victims themselves, but law enforcement -- says might disturb victims. Said defense attorney Cotton: "Under Schimel's analysis, anytime the police claim that release of reports will impact or harm a 'victim' the refusal to disclose will be justified. Defense lawyers are naturally concerned that this could curtail our ability to conduct meaningful investigations and therefore properly represent our clients." The potential for mischief is huge. Think the media and public would continue to have access to tapes of 911 calls? That's more or less what Justice Ann Walsh Bradley asked during oral arguments last week. "Ultimately, the interpretation of the open records law in a particular case is for this court on de novo review," Tseytlin said, not answering Bradley's question. And consider the other possibilities. Maybe there is an investigation into a grievously botched / corrupted criminal case in which a developmentally disabled teenager was tricked and coerced into making a confession. (That wouldn’t happen in Wisconsin, would it?) Would secrecy prevail in the name of "protecting the victim"? Or what happens if someone charged with a crime and then turns around and shouts that she is the true victim and that law enforcement acted criminally? Is everything then suppressed? Some of the justices seemed sympathetic to Tseytlin’s argument that records should be withheld if there is a possibility that a victim of a crime, even a highly publicized one, might be upset years later. ”The harm comes each time that it is publicized, wouldn’t you agree with that?” Justice Daniel Kelly asked. And even if a case already had been publicly disclosed, Roggensack said, “That doesn’t mean that we don’t care for those victims today to keep them from having their identities disclosed yet again.”  Annette Ziegler: $1,000 from Republican organizations It is no minor consideration that the plaintiff seeking the records is the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.
Republicans have spent a lot of money on the court and on Schimel. The AG, who does not want the videos released, is a Republican who has raked in $67,277 from various local, state and national Republican-affiliated organizations, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. (These groups included here have the word "Republican" in their names.) Various state and local branches of the Republican Party donated a total of $179,575 to four of the allegedly non-partisan justices hearing the case, according to figures from the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Rebecca Bradley received $75,926; Michael Gableman, got $31,340; Annette Ziegler got $1,000; and Roggensack, $53,709. Kelly, who just assumed the bench, has not yet filed a campaign finance report; Walsh Bradley and Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson did not receive contributions from parties. State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, a financial beneficiary of the gun lobby, participated in Friday's case, Wisconsin Carry Inc. v. City of Madison. Wisconsin Carry, a pro-gun organization, seeks to overturn a Madison transit commission's rule that prohibits guns on buses. A Dane County Circuit judge and a Court of Appeals panel found that the state's concealed carry pre-emption law applied only to resolutions and ordinances adopted by the common council, not to a rule implemented by an agency. Gableman is indebted to the gun lobby, He took $1,500 from the Wisconsin Concealed Carry Movement political action committee and $1,000 from the NRA Political Victory Fund before his last election.  Gableman: Took $2,500 from gun lobby The Supreme Court justices decided, on a 4-3 vote in 2009, that accepting lots of money from someone with an interest in the outcome of a case doesn't mean the accepting justice is biased in that case. Attorney General Brad Schimel, who filed a brief favoring bus gun-toters, accepted $1,000 from the NRA Victory Fund in 2014. Schimel was under no legal obligation to file the brief.  Schimel: took $1,000 from gun lobby  De Vries "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Name: Martin J. De Vries Appointed to: Dodge County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 1, 2016 Education: Law School – Valparaiso University School of Law (a Tier 4 law school) Undergrad – Dordt College* High School – Central Wisconsin Christian High School** Recent Employment: 1999 - present - Sager & Colwin, SC Memberships: The State Bar of Wisconsin Fond du Lac County Bar Association Defense Research Institute Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Primarily civil litigation, which includes some administrative proceedings. Limited criminal litigation. Primarily represents municipalities, school districts, and their employees in civil litigation. Other areas of practice include insurance defense and real estate. Significant experience defending health care providers in medical malpractice cases. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Approximately 30-40. Number of cases litigated on appeal: At least 20. Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application: Served on church council and on the boards of Central Wisconsin Christian School and Faith Christian School. Elected Town of Fox Lake municipal judge in 2015. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge - As I progressed through my legal career, I did not consider becoming a judge until about 5 years ago. I have always enjoyed my litigation practice and have been very busy. However, as I got older and litigation seemed to involve fewer trials, I began to consider a judgeship. I realized that I have substantial experience and enjoy the courtroom. Throughout my 25 years as a lawyer, I have tried many cases to a jury and the court. A primary focus of my practice is representing law enforcement in Federal Court. Consequently, I have analyzed and litigated many Constitutional claims, including Fourth Amendment issues in law enforcement activities. I have also litigated a fair amount of medical malpractice cases. Medical malpractice is complex and intensive litigation. Thus, I believe my experience to this point in my career has equipped me to be a Circuit Court judge. After concluding that I had the experience to handle a judge position, I considered why I would actually want to be a judge. I grew up outside the village of Randolph in Dodge County. After living in California for a number of years, my wife and I moved back to this area in 1999 in order to raise our family here. I have a sense of concern and care for not only my community, but for the entire county. It is my desire to serve in the judiciary and instill my sense of respect and dignity to the court, which I believe is a tradition in Dodge County worthy of continuing. In 2015 I successfully ran for Municipal Judge for the Town of Fox Lake. Although the judicial experience at the town court is limited, I have come to understand some of the issues and challenges facing our courts. The abuse of drugs in our communities has become a serious issue. As a Circuit Court judge, I would be committed to working with other agencies and organizations to address this matter. Additionally, I believe that if I were to be a judge in the community where I was raised, this would honor my parents for the hard work and dedication they provided to our family. II would be honored and privileged to serve as a Circuit Court judge. "If it has not already started, I believe Obergefell, as promoted by some sections of the media and other organizations, will be used against religious freedoms and tax exemptions for religious organizations." -- Dodge County Circuit Judge Martin J. De Vries Judicial philosophy - In general terms, I favor a philosophy of judicial restraint. Our laws were created by the legislature and the courts are to follow these laws in an impartial manner. Our Constitution provides that the judiciary should apply the law with deference to the legislature. I would also strictly follow and respect the Constitution. In more specific terms, my philosophy would be to impartially apply the law after giving full consideration to both sides. An unbiased an impartial attitude is crucial for a Circuit Court judge. As a trial attorney, I appreciate and understand the difficulties a judge faces. I would be committed to efficient and timely resolution to all matters. I also would value the judicial role in evidentiary decision making. There is no substitute for jury trial experience in preparing a judge to make evidentiary decisions. In summary, I believe a Circuit Court judge has been provided with the law. Using his or her experience and knowledge, a judge should work within the confines of existing law and treat all parties equally.
Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision – Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Burwell was a case that pitted the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) against Hobby Lobby and its owners, the Green family. At issue were regulations enacted by HHS to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Specifically, some of these regulations mandated coverage for numerous types of contraceptives. Although Hobby Lobby did not object to providing coverage for most of these contraceptives, there were four types of contraceptives which can or might cause death to a developing fetus if there were conception. The Greens, as Christians, believed that mandated coverage for abortion-inducing drugs violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Department of Health and Human Services took the position that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protected only religious organizations, not for-profit businesses. The Supreme Court held that Hobby Lobby and its owners were not required to provide this coverage or pay severe fines. Importantly, for-profit corporations were considered “persons” protected under the RFRA. Thus, Hobby Lobby and other corporations are capable of engaging in an exercise of religion protected by the RFRA. The objectionable HHS mandates substantially burdened the exercise of religion protected by the RFRA. This ruling is important to all people of religious faith. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that it was not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the corporation or its owners were mistaken our unreasonable. Without discussing whether the Burwell opinion went far enough or the potential responses by those opposed to this decision, I do believe that Burwell is an encouragement and provides some assurance to businesses and their owners who are concerned about the government mandating religiously objectionable actions that could put them out of business. A particularly encouraging portion of this opinion is the majority’s refusal to substitute their religious beliefs for that of Hobby Lobby’s owners. The Court appeared to simply compare the Green family’s stated religious objections to the HHS regulations and analyzed them under the RFRA. Not only does Burwell provide some level of protection to businesses owned by religious persons, it is an example of judicial restraint which is sadly lacking in many of today’s courts. Although Burwell might have a limited direct effect on Circuit Court cases in Dodge County, the question was directed at Supreme Court opinions which are crucial to our nation and this case reflects my judicial philosophy. Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision – Obergefell v. Hodges Simply put, in Obergefell the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment requires all states to license marriages and recognize marriages between people of the same sex. The opinion is long on personal viewpoints of the majority and lacking in any legitimate Constitutional analysis. The majority opinion, which is actually quite brief, is dominated by Justice Kennedy’s personal opinions. Justice Kennedy reviews his interpretation of marriage and how cultural and political developments have evolved to the point where same sex couples have suffered enough and the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment must now require all states to recognize same sex marriages. Justice Scalia’s strongly worded dissent is clear and to the point. Justice Scalia explains that the majority created liberties that the Constitution does not provide. He categorizes the decision as “an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.” In his own way, Justice Scalia describes how the Court substituted its own beliefs for that of the people, something no court should have the right to do. The Obergefell decision runs contrary to the principles set forth by the framers of our Constitution. This is a dangerous precedent. The people’s freedom to govern themselves has been removed by this opinion. The decision does not respect or analyze the liberty of the people, but rather focuses on the majority’s personal view on the “principles and traditions” of marriage. Obergefell also has ominous implications for religious liberty. If it has not already started, I believe Obergefell, as promoted by some sections of the media and other organizations, will be used against religious freedoms and tax exemptions for religious organizations. One can also envision courts in the future going beyond using this case against religious freedom and using this case as a vehicle to mandate a court’s personal agenda. One need not be opposed to same sex marriage in order to appreciate the degree to which Obergefell has extended the concept of judicial supremacy in areas where the judicial branch should not be. I believe this case has the potential to divide our country. The people of each state have been denied the right to govern themselves by the personal beliefs of five justices, who may well have been driven to their conclusions by the media and various special interest groups. This is contrary to my philosophy of judicial restraint. *From the college's website: "Associated with the Christian Reformed Church, Dordt College was founded in 1955 and welcomes all students who are interested in a biblical, Christ-centered education." **From the school's website: "...where Christ is central! Our school is a very special place where faith and learning combine to prepare students for life. CWC offers you a dynamic learning atmosphere where caring Christian teachers connect each and every subject in a perspective that helps see today's world through God's eyes. When you come to Central Wisconsin Christian, you become a part of our family - an interconnected group of Christian families who want their kids to grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ. Our academic program is one that will challenge each and every student to achieve the potential God has placed in them, while the individual attention we give to God's kids highlights the essence of the body of Christ." |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed