|
"Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information 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: Anderson M. Gansner
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: May 25, 2023 (term ends July 31, 2024) Education: Law School – Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois Undergraduate – Pomona College, Claremont, California High School – Madison West High, Madison, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: November 2013-present – Associate federal defender, Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin October 2010-October 2013 – Associate, Gass Turek LLC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Colorado State Bar (currently inactive) Illinois State Bar (currently inactive) General character of practice: I serve as an associate federal defender, representing indigent people in federal criminal cases. My organization does not have divisions, so I handle all types of cases at all levels. I defend clients in many drug, gun, and robbery cases, but also work on child pornography, human trafficking, arson, criminal immigration, postal theft, and mail, wire, and bank fraud cases. To give a few examples, I defended a businessman who lied to his bank about the collateral for a loan, a brain-damaged young woman who robbed several taxi drivers and faced a 31-year mandatory minimum prison sentence, and a married father of two who shined a laser pointer at an FBI surveillance plane. Substantively, I build relationships with my clients and their families, analyze discovery, investigate cases, research case law and my clients' backgrounds, study relevant current events and social science, negotiate with prosecutors, litigate pretrial motions, argue at sentencing and detention hearings, try cases, write appellate briefs and sentencing memos, assist clients in revocation proceedings, and seek post-sentencing relief. Describe typical clients: My typical clients are young, low-income men of color from urban Milwaukee. Most do not have a high school education and struggle with substance abuse, mental illness, developmental disorders, or trauma history. I have developed expertise in firearms and fraud cases, sentencing advocacy, and post-sentencing litigation. In 2019, I began helping clients convicted of crack cocaine offenses in the 1990s and 2000s and medically vulnerable clients seek early release from prison. Number of cases tried to verdict: 5 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: United States v. Randy Johnson, Case No. 14-cr-25 (E.D. Wis. 2014; Randa, J.). Along with my colleague Juval Scott, I defended Randy Johnson from February 2014 until October 2018. … Mr. Johnson had been sitting in an SUV with four family members and friends outside a liquor store. The SUV was running with its lights on, and the driver, Mr. Johnson's older sister, had just gone inside the store. But she had stopped the SUV a few feet too close to the nearest crosswalk, a loading zone under state law. Four police officers in two cars drove by, saw the SUV for a few seconds, then blocked it in with their squad cars. All four officers ran to the car, opened its doors, shined flashlights in the occupants' faces, and ordered them to put their hands in the air. The officers claimed they did all this to investigate a possible parking infraction. After officers found a gun on the floor of the SUV, Mr. Johnson was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. We moved to suppress, alleging that the police didn't watch the SUV long enough to reasonably suspect that it was illegally parked instead of properly loading or unloading. In addition, we argued that a parking violation is too trivial an offense to justify such a forceful seizure. We lost in the district court and again on appeal, but the Seventh Circuit granted rehearing en banc, which it hardly ever does. At the en banc argument, we thought we had enough votes to prevail. But after Judge Posner retired, the Seventh Circuit ruled against us, again. We filed for certiorari in the Supreme Court, but the petition was ultimately denied. I filed the pretrial motions, examined the officers at a pretrial hearing, represented Mr. Johnson at sentencing, wrote his appellate briefs and the petition for rehearing en banc, argued his case on appeal, and worked on his cert. petition. As far as its significance, we have all stopped in loading zones. No one should be forcefully seized by multiple officers simply for doing that. The stop also occurred in Milwaukee's 53206 neighborhood. Everyone in the car was Black; none of the police officers were. Thus the dissenting Seventh Circuit judges noted that police would never act this way in a wealthier, Whiter area. The case received some media attention, with commentators calling it a case of "parking while black." Although I remain disappointed in the result, I haven't seen a case since where officers conducted similar stops for parking infractions. I hope that the case helped discourage that behavior. United States v. Trulunda Stenson, Case No. 16-cr-48 (E.D. Wis.; Pepper, J.). I represented Ms. Stenson from March 2016 to November 2017. … The government claimed my client had filed false tax returns: some for paying clients and others using stolen personal information. Trial lasted a week. We showed that other people had used Ms. Stenson's home to file and prepare false tax returns, and that no one had seen her prepare or submit the majority of the charged returns. Yet the jury found Ms. Stenson guilty on all counts. At her two-hour sentencing, the government asked for 54 months in prison, we asked for 25, and the court imposed 30, just six over the 24-month minimum. I was lead counsel at trial and sentencing. Ms. Stenson has since been released from prison. The case is significant because of the length of the trial, the complexity of the trial and sentencing issues, the impact the case had on me (showing how imperfect our legal system can be), and the impact it had on my client. United States v. Dexter Anderson, Case No. 03-cr-261 (E.D. Wis.; Griesbach, J.). I represented Mr. Anderson from March to June of 2019. … Mr. Anderson was convicted of running a crack cocaine conspiracy in 2003 and 2004. By the time I met him, he had been in custody for 15 years. [Details redacted] I came in to help him with requesting a reduced sentence under the First Step Act: a December 2018 criminal justice reform bill. One of the Act's provisions allows for some defendants who were convicted of crack offenses to return to court and ask for lower sentences. Mr. Anderson had a long history as a pro se litigant, felt that his original case had gone poorly, and didn't trust me at first. At a hearing in Green Bay, where over a dozen of his family members drove up from Milwaukee, the court reduced his sentence from 25 years to time served, cutting several years off of his sentence. A few days later, his sisters threw him a birthday party at the Benihana in downtown Milwaukee. . . . This case was significant because of the impact it had on Mr. Anderson and his family and because it was the first contested First Step Act resentencing hearing in my district. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: While in private practice, I represented pro bono a single mother sued by the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (DCF). DCF claimed that my client had received excess childcare benefits—money that had gone directly to her children's daycare providers—and was demanding that she pay back tens of thousands of dollars, more than twice her annual income, even though the overpayment was not my client’s fault. Rather, DCF had misclassified her job. I met with my client several times, filed motions to dismiss DCF’s case, and represented her at a hearing before an administrative law judge where I presented her and several other witnesses. The ALJ ruled against us, we appealed, and the state dropped the case, due to a legal issue that I had raised in one of our motions to dismiss. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). While in civil practice, I participated in several mediations, with each one ultimately leading to a settlement. These included a contractual dispute between a health insurer and a subcontractor, and the negotiated buyout of a local small business. I have also worked on several commercial arbitration cases—in commercial construction disputes and a financial services matter—taking depositions, reviewing discovery, and drafting pleadings. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Volunteer for Deb Andraca and Emily Siegrist state assembly campaigns, 2020 Volunteer for Biden/Harris presidential campaign, 2020 Previous runs for public office: N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: N/A Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Menasha Corporation Foundation, board member, 2010-2015 Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association, member, 2013-present Milwaukee Bar Association, member, 2014-present Friends of Estabrook Park, member, 2019-present Friends of the Shorewood Public Library, member, 2019-present National Association for the Public Defense, member, 2020-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Beyond the DCF case described above, while in private practice I represented pro bono a young woman in a direct appeal of a robbery conviction where we challenged her sentence. While in law school, I voluntereed at the Bluhm Legal Clinic in Chicago, where I helped draft a civil complaint on behalf of a wrongfully convicted man who had been tortured into confessing by Chicago police. That case later settled for $5.5 million. Also working at the Bluhm Legal Clinic, I drafted and argued a successful motion to suppress that led to the dismissal of charges against a mentally ill man who was being retried for robbery. He had been convicted of stealing 50 cents and an adult bookstore token from a homeless man, and had already spent a decade in prison. See Brown v. Stemes, 304 F.3d 677 (7th Cir. 2002). Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: Because I care about the people in my community. I became a lawyer and a federal defender because I knew that our legal system doesn’t always live up to its ideals. The wealthy get one type of justice, while the poor get another; cases take years to resolve, leaving defendants, victims, and the injured unheard and confused; and judges regularly impose long prison sentences without considering their efficacy and their personal and financial toll. Many see the system as rigged and broken. They believe that the court system doesn’t care about and can’t address their problems. As a public defender in the federal courts, I fight this perception by giving my clients the best defense possible. I do this by listening to and learning from them, showing them that I care about their lives and problems, and doing whatever I can to help them. But at the end of the day, I am just a defense attorney. So I am applying to serve as a judge because I want to do more. I want to bring the same attention, care, and consideration that I strive to bring as a federal defender to judging. Although judges can’t pass budget bills or make charging decisions, they do have enormous discretion. As a judge I will use that discretion to help my community. In criminal matters, Wisconsin, and Milwaukee in particular, lies at the center of our country’s mass incarceration problem. So our judges have to do things differently. I will sentence defendants in the most cost-effective, sensible, and humane way. I will move cases forward to give victims certainty and to stop defendants from pleading guilty because they can’t get a trial date or make bail. I will fight against unnecessary revocations by keeping probationers in my court. And I will work to create meaningful interactions between victims and defendants, in effort to foster peace, closure, and understanding. In civil matters, I will offer to mediate my cases, hold early discovery conferences to prevent abusive practices, and move cases forward promptly to reduce the parties’ costs. My overarching goal will be to show the people who come to my court that someone cares about them and their problems. I will do that by issuing timely, thoughtful, and accessible rulings, of course. But I will also show that by treating everyone in my courtroom with compassion and courtesy. As this question suggests, judges are public servants. I want to spend the rest of my life in service to the community, helping make it safer, fairer, and more unified. And I believe that I can do that best by serving as a judge. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), upholding most of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The decision’s main holding—that the individual mandate qualified as a tax and was thus constitutional—grabbed most of the headlines. But a second portion, dealing with Medicaid, was just as important. The ACA expanded Medicaid to millions, by making more people eligible and covering almost all of the expansion’s cost. Each state operates their own Medicaid program, and the law gave states an easy choice. They could either accept the additional funding and cover more people as required, or they could reject the new funding and lose all federal Medicaid funding. But several states wished to keep their current Medicaid funding while turning down the expansion. So they sued, claiming that this choice was impermissibly coercive. And the Supreme Court agreed. Legally, this was unprecedented. In prior decisions, like South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), the Court had discussed whether an optional federal program might come with such strong incentives that it interfered with the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. But the Court had never found a program meeting these criteria. What’s more, Congress has always attached strings to money it gives to states. And Congress certainly had the power to repeal Medicaid and then replace it with an entirely new program. Nonetheless, since Medicaid comprises a large chunk of every state’s budget, the Court held that the expansion provision was too impactful and thus too coercive. This decision has had serious consequences. Given the ability to refuse the Medicaid expansion, many states did. Studies estimate that nearly two million Americans don’t have health insurance as a result. Prior to the pandemic, more than 100,000 Wisconsin residents did not have access to Badgercare because the state rejected the Medicaid expansion. See Louise Norris, Wisconsin and the ACA's Medicaid expansion, Healthinsurance.org (June 14, 2020). The state instead gives money to help these residents buy insurance on the state’s ACA exchange. Id. Yet this has driven up the cost of all plans sold on the exchange. See Aditi P. Sen & Thomas DeLeire, Medicaid Expansion In Wisconsin Would Lower Premiums For Those With Private Insurance, Health Affairs (June 6, 2019). And not all of the affected residents ultimately buy insurance on the exchange, meaning that this policy choice, enabled by the Supreme Court’s decision, has resulted in thousands of low-income Wisconsin residents not having health insurance. These uninsured residents may not seek treatment when they should. This leads to worse health outcomes. To be blunt, the uninsured live less healthy, more painful lives and die sooner. When they do seek treatment, they typically can’t afford it, so hospitals pass along or swallow those costs. This leads to higher bills for those with insurance and to hospitals closing or cutting back in poor areas. Plus, since the federal government would pay more of the state’s Medicaid costs if Wisconsin accepted the expansion, not doing so costs the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year. A recent estimate noted that expanding Medicaid would bring in $1.6 billion in federal funding over the next two years. Refusing this funding leads to higher taxes and takes money away from other state functions. In short, the Medicaid portion of the Sebelius decision has had an enormous negative impact on the people in our state. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Many judges reach the right results. But the judges I admire most reach the right results and do so in the right way. They are unerringly careful with the facts, go out of their way to treat the parties and their arguments with respect, and issue clear, timely, thoughtful decisions. One judge who embodies this is the Seventh Circuit’s Ilana Rovner. She is a career public servant and a legal pioneer. Judge Rovner was the first female supervisor in the Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office, just the second female federal judge in Illinois, and the first woman on the Seventh Circuit. She and her parents were Jewish refugees who fled Latvia shortly before the Nazis invaded. Many of her relatives who stayed behind died in the Holocaust. But beyond her inspiring life, Judge Rovner is always kind and thoughtful and has a generous sense of humor. She asks questions respectfully, sincerely thanks the parties, and issues careful, thorough decisions. Judge Rovner has explained that she values the work that attorneys do and that she has “a lot of love” for her colleagues and for everyone in her courtroom. That comes through. Another judge I deeply respect is Pamela Pepper of the Eastern District of Wisconsin. I have appeared in front of her dozens of times and had a week-long trial in her court. While I would run my courtroom differently and I don’t always agree with her decisions, Judge Pepper goes out of her way to explain herself, to treat attorneys with courtesy, and to connect with my clients. Judge Pepper is also willing to take risks. For instance, she is perhaps the only federal judge in Milwaukee who will impose a sentence below the parties’ joint recommendation. She has a tremendous work ethic, is eager to listen and to learn, and has no problem admitting that she doesn’t understand an argument and asking for clarification. These are traits that one must have to be an outstanding judge. Because Judge Pepper is so humble and considerate, jurors, attorneys, and parties appreciate and respect her. Like Judge Rovner, she broke glass ceilings as the district’s first female district judge and first female chief judge. Finally, I went to several trainings on trauma before the pandemic. Presenters explained how prevalent trauma is, especially in Milwaukee, and how going to court can trigger a person with a trauma history, preventing them from understanding and participating in court. The presenters then listed some ways that attorneys and judges can help de-stress traumatized individuals. As I listened to these suggestions, I realized that Judge Pepper already followed them. This shows how much thought and care she puts into her work. I can’t be a trailblazer like Judge Rovner and Judge Pepper, at least not in the same way. But in terms of how I will act in court and how I will treat others, they are exactly the type of judges I will emulate. The proper role of a judge: As far as a judge’s core duties, a judge has to effectively learn, reason, and explain. Learning requires curiosity and diligence in each case, the crucial skill of listening—to the parties’ arguments, to witnesses—and the willingness to ask questions. Next, a judge has to reason fairly and effectively: applying the law to the facts without bias or prejudice. Then a judge has to explain decisions in a clear and accessible way. This allows the parties, the public, and any reviewing court to understand why a judge made a particular decision. On top of this, a judge must have courage. Sometimes the just result is not what the parties want or what might play well in the newspaper. A judge must be willing to stick their neck out in order to do what’s right. But the job is not just about getting and explaining the right result. What the judge does along the way matters. Interacting with a judge in court is likely the closest anyone ever gets to an elected official. And people come to court because they have problems they can’t resolve, often ones that are humiliating or intensely stressful. The way a judge treats people shows either that our government cares about people and their problems, or that it doesn’t. So to do the job well, a judge has to model concern, consideration, and empathy. This doesn’t mean giving the parties or attorneys free rein. Being considerate means respecting the time of everyone in court. A judge must be an efficient and creative courtroom manager, finding ways to maximize meaningful interactions and minimize delays and unneeded process. Also, judges should always search for ways to improve themselves and the court system. This requires questioning established customs and for judges to take hard, regular looks at themselves. A judge has to fight against complacency, has to stay up on changes in the law and procedure, and has to be willing to try new approaches. Finally, a judge must be accountable and accessible to the community outside of court. A judge should meet regularly with community groups and bar organizations, as well as the attorneys who practice in the judge’s court, not just to answer questions, but to learn and to understand how the judge can improve. This exposes a judge to new facts and ideas, helps the community understand the law and the legal system, and builds trust.
0 Comments
"Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information 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: Amber Raffeet August
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: May 25, 2023 (term ends July 31, 2024) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – Dominican High School, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: August 2022-present – Assistant Family Court commissioner, Milwaukee County February 2018-July 2022 – Staff attorney, Guardian ad Litem Division, Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee May 2015-February 2018 – Immigration and family law attorney, RISE Law Center, project of End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin May 2013-May 2015 – Associate attorney, Grzeca Law Group, S.C., Madison office for Milwaukee firm Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) General character of practice: I am currently an Assistant Family Court Commissioner in Milwaukee County. Prior to my appointment, as a staff attorney in the guardian ad litem division of the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, I represented the legal best interest of children from indigent families in Milwaukee County in family law proceedings such as divorce, paternity and child abuse restraining orders. As a guardian ad litem, I performed investigations for the Court and made recommendations as to legal custody and physical placement or in the context of a restraining order, recommendations related to its granting or not. My position required me to interact with many different individuals such as parents, grandparents, teachers etc. and also many different agencies, such as Child Protective Services (CPS), law enforcement and therapists' offices. This position required me to wear many different hats and to be extremely responsive to the Court and the families I worked with, versatile and creative in solutions that lead to the best outcome for the children whose interest I represented. Prior to my position at the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, I was an immigration and family law attorney at RISE Law Center. At RISE, I provided pro bono and low bono representation to survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence in family court proceedings, immigration cases and restraining order hearings throughout the State of Wisconsin. Because I was both an immigration and family law attorney, I had a special focus on cases that involved an overlap of immigration proceedings and processes and Family Court. RISE Law Center is a project of End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin which also allowed me to include policy and other initiatives related to domestic violence in my practice. Describe typical clients: Currently, I am an Assistant Family Court Commissioner. Prior to my appointment, I was a staff attorney in the guardian ad litem division at the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee where I represented the legal best interest of children from indigent families in Milwaukee County. As such, I did not have "clients" per se, but rather represented the children's best interest in family law proceedings, including restraining orders. The children in the cases where I was a guardian ad litem were very diverse culturally, racially and ethnically. They came from all different parts of Milwaukee County and had different needs such as special educational needs or mental health service needs. I saw each child as unique and worked diligently to represent their interests and assisted the Court officials in making orders related to legal custody and physical placement that supported the children's safety and well-being. The parties in my guardian ad litem cases were also indigent and typically one or both of the parties was a self-represented litigant. Through my practice, I became very adept at communicating and working with self-represented members of the community. In my previous position at RISE Law Center, I represented survivors of violence in their family law and immigration proceedings. These clients were women and men typically leaving abusive relationships or situations who were from all over the world and from all different walks of life. In terms of specialized areas, I specialized in guardian ad litem/family law practice, immigration law with a special emphasis on humanitarian immigration cases, cases that have both family law and immigration law implications and issues related to domestic violence. I also am fluent in written and spoken Spanish and was able to communicate with parents, clients, and children in both English and Spanish. Many of my cases involved Spanish speaking individuals. Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 30 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: All of the approximately 30 cases that I tried to verdict as an attorney were bench trials in family law proceedings in Milwaukee County Circuit Court such as contested paternity actions, divorces or child abuse restraining orders. I am extremely proud of the work that I completed in these cases as a guardian ad litem and believe that through my dedication, positive results have occurred in the wellbeing and best interest of the children I served and represented. I am also proud of the work I continue to do as an Assistant Family Court Commissioner presiding over family actions and domestic abuse and harassment injunction hearings. The Court decisions in these cases have all had a significant impact on the individual families and children involved. I would be more than happy to discuss more about these proceedings verbally, however, I want to make sure that I protect the confidentiality and interest of the minor children that I served as guardian ad litem and individuals I continue to serve as an Assistant Family Court Commissioner and because of that am only providing the few details listed above in written form. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: As an immigration attorney, I mostly focused on family based immigration cases and humanitarian immigration cases; however, I did also assist in cases in Immigration Court. When the federal government opened the family detention facilities in Artesia, New Mexico in 2014, I traveled with a group of volunteer attorneys from Madison to provide pro bono representation to women and children who were detained at the facilities. While there, I mostly represented the families in bond proceedings where I was arguing to the immigration judges who were being broadcast in remotely from other states such as Colorado, why the families should be released and trying to obtain a reasonable bond for them to post. These were adversary proceedings where the assistant chief counsels were arguing very strenuously for the families to remain detained. I was able to successfully argue multiple bond cases and help families be released from detention to continue to process their asylum cases and claims outside of ICE custody. Beyond that trip, I also assisted in immigration cases at both Grzeca Law Group and RISE Law Center that had administrative agency components and aspects that involved immigration court proceedings. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In April of 2018, I received my certification in Family Mediation from the University of WisconsinMilwaukee School of Continuing Education. In my current role, I cannot formally lead mediations; however, I use the skills from that mediation certification in conjunction with multiple years of working with individuals in high stress situations to resolve many contentious family law cases in front of me as an Assistant Family Court Commissioner. I am proud to say that I excel at helping parties to reach resolutions that allow me to fulfill my duties as a Court official, while at the same time helping to preserve the overall fair functioning of the Family Court system for all interested parties. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Volunteer for Judge Danielle Shelton’s campaign for Milwaukee County judge, 2019 Previous runs for public office: Not Applicable All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Danielle Shelton, Circuit Court Judicial Position, 2019 Brittany Grayson, Circuit Court Judicial Position, 2019, 2020 Kori Ashley, Circuit Court Judicial Position, 2021 Ana Berrios-Schroeder, Circuit Court Judicial Position, 2022 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL), member and roles including president, 2014-present. Wisconsin Law Foundation, fellow, Spring 2022-present Wisconsin Family Court Commissioners' Association, member, Fall 2022-present Leander J. Foley Jr. Society of Family Lawyers, member, Fall 2022-present State Bar of Wisconsin, Board of Governors, Executive Committee member and other roles, July 2021-July 2022 Women In Focus, Inc., member, Fall 2014-Spring 2021 Community Immigration Law Center, board of directors, 2015-2018 State Bar of Wisconsin, G. Lane Ware Leadership Academy, 2016-2017 Dane County Bar Association, Law for the Public Committee, 2013-2018 Latino Professionals Association of Greater Madison, member, 2014-2018 Latino Chamber of Commerce of Dane County, member, 2014-2018 American Immigration Lawyers Association, member, 2013-2018 Milwaukee Bar Association, member, February 2018-December 2018; September 2021-present Law Alliance, 2017-2018 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL) Through the Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL), I established and volunteered with the WAAL Pathfinders Legal Clinic where volunteer attorneys met with at risk youth at Pathfinders Milwaukee to provide pro bono limited legal services. I also established and continue to run WAAL's annual Halloween costume drive where WAAL in conjunction with other Dane County organizations provide requested costumes to the homeless children at the YWCA Madison in their shelter, Third Street program (mothers and children under the age of 5) and Empower Home program (mothers and children escaping domestic violence). Since I joined the board of directors of WAAL in 2017, I have assisted in the planning and execution of our annual VelanDale Scholarship Event where AfricanAmerican students from the University of Wisconsin Law School and Marquette University Law School are awarded scholarships to further their law school education. WAAL held its 30th Annual VelanDale Scholarship event virtually on September 23, 2021, and as President-Elect I served as the chair of the event. This event is named after the civil rights icons Vel and Dale Phillips. Women In Focus. Inc. While in Women In Focus, Inc., I frequently participated in the group's literacy program that provided monthly activities and books for the mothers and children at the YWCA Madison. I also established a series of Little Free Libraries throughout the North Side of Madison to encourage children's reading. I was the literacy committee chair from 2016-2018 for Women In Focus. Lastly, Women In Focus' largest annual event is the "I Have a Dream Ball" where the organization raises money for scholarships for students of color in Dane County to pursue a college education. I participated.in the planning and organizing of that event from 2014 to 2021. To date, Women In Focus, Inc. has awarded over $500,000 in scholarships to students of color in Dane County. Community Immigration Law Center I was a member of the Community Immigration Law Center's board of directors from 2015-2018. Even before joining the board, I was an active volunteer providing pro bono legal services to individuals at CILC's weekly immigration clinics starting in 2014. I also assisted in grant writing, scheduling and recruiting volunteers for the clinics and any other assistance the organization needed. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge; I have dedicated my law career to helping to better the lives of others in my community. Being a Circuit Court Judge would be an extension of that work because so many in the Milwaukee community struggle with poverty and other systemic challenges that bring them into contact with the court system. As an Assistant Family Court Commissioner, strive to treat everyone in my courtroom as someone who deserves dignity and respect regardless of their circumstances as they seek access to justice. I would continue this approach as a Circuit Court Judge. These values were instilled in me early in my life growing up in the city of Milwaukee and I believe it is important to remember that the people in our courtrooms are not just names on a docket sheet; they are our neighbors, coworkers, and fellow citizens. While those of us who work at the courthouse may be used to seeing these individuals on their worst day, I think it is important to remember that we cannot know their whole story—their struggles (such as mental illness or drug addiction or just a series of rough breaks) and their successes. I believe that this viewpoint—which I have honed through years of public interest practice and through my current position as a Court Commissioner—is vital to being a good judge. While I know it may not always be possible, it is my goal in every case to try to see each individual as their whole person. This would include the good and the bad, the strengths and the weaknesses. I think it is important that judicial officials continue to take a holistic view of individuals in cases and my experiences leading up to this point make me extremely good at this task. Through my work representing survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault at RISE Law Center, I saw people at their most vulnerable and scared. I was able to support them and recognize that they were more than just their most traumatic experiences. This is similar to decisions I make as a Court Commissioner and would make as a Circuit Court Judge when deciding how to best protect members of the community or victims of crimes. Judges must be willing to try and see the whole person, to discern what is needed and to have the courage to act decisively. In my previous position as a staff attorney in the guardian ad litem division at the Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, I honed my ability to connect with diverse clientele and to make them feel comfortable while they are going through difficult circumstances in the Court system. Finally, as the Immediate past president of the Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL), I think it is vitally important that our community members of color have decision makers that look like them—not only because it enhances the fairness and legitimacy of our judicial proceedings, but also because it can inspire others to see pathways toward access and opportunity they may not have previously imagined. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. I cannot think of a single case that has had more of an immediate impact—in terms of moving us closer to a more fair and just society—than United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013). In this case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. This is the landmark ruling that legalized same sex marriage throughout the United States, ending decades of contentious and often hate-filled debates over the humanity of fellow LGBTQ+ citizens. This historic ruling impacted many people in Wisconsin and elsewhere in the United States in a positive way. Countless individuals, who were previously denied the ability to marry and receive the same protections as heterosexual couples, were now able to celebrate their relationships and their unions the same way as everyone else. That summer, we were all provided tangible proof of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous line—that while the arc of the universe is long, it bends inexorably towards justice. Wisconsinites everywhere were treated to beautiful scenes of long-delayed weddings—now safely removed from the threat of legal annulment—at courthouses, churches and, in true Wisconsin fashion, at barns and tailgate parties, throughout our state. Beyond the impact on the LGBTQ+ community in our state generally, this case is of particular importance to me as an ally because I have several family and friends that were then able to access marriage and I was able to witness their joy and happiness on the day this decision came down and afterwards. In addition, this decision also is important to me personally because it reminds me of the legal authority which affirms my family’s blended history—the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967. I am bi-racial. My father is African-American and my mother is Caucasian, and they began their relationship in 1970—only a few short years after their type of union was legalized throughout the United States (although, in credit to Wisconsin, we were one of the minority of states to not have so-called anti-miscegenation laws on our books). Cases like Loving and Windsor remind me of the tremendous impact that each judge and justice can have on everyone else in the community and just how important it is to allow others the ability to live their true lives and be their true selves regardless of who they love. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: As a woman of color and the first person in my family to become a lawyer, the judge and justice I admire both demonstrate a series of “firsts.” They are powerful icons for women and women of color specifically. The first Judge that I admire is Vel Phillips. Judge Phillips was the first in so many areas in Wisconsin. She was the first African-American woman to graduate from the University of Wisconsin Law School, the first African-American judge in the State of Wisconsin and the first female judge in Milwaukee County. Beyond her trailblazing “firsts,” I also greatly admire her dedication to the law and to social justice and civil rights. While on the bench and off, Vel Phillips dedicated her life to civil rights causes and uplifting the community. I admire her dedication despite her frequent challenges—such as when she was appointed as a Judge in Milwaukee County but then lost her election afterwards. I also draw inspiration from her willingness to fight structural forces, such as her fight for fair housing and civil rights in Milwaukee. She believed wholeheartedly in the pursuit of equal rights and the use of the law to assist in that fight. I also admire her because she understood that as someone moves ahead in life, it is important to continue to lift others. Even with all her successes, she remained dedicated to her community, in particular the community of color in Wisconsin, and continued to support the public through her various roles and by assisting in providing opportunities to others. One of those opportunities where her legacy lives on is through the establishment of the VelanDale Scholarship Program through the Wisconsin Association of African-American Lawyers (WAAL), a scholarship for which I served as program chair in 2021 and continue to support through my role as immediate past president of the WAAL board. I also greatly admire Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Just like Vel Phillips, Justice Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She is the first Latina United States Supreme Court Justice and was, at the time she was confirmed, only the 3rd female attorney since our nation’s founding to rise to the level of the Supreme Court. She is not afraid to be open and honest about her own biography and the inevitable influence of her identity and her history in how she looks at and contextualizes the world around her. Despite harsh criticism during her confirmation process, Justice Sotomayor refused to back down from a vision of judging which acknowledges that judges are people first and foremost. She clearly believes that both the law and those who administer it should be approachable and accountable to other members in our society and is unafraid to use her voice, influence and decision making to support those beliefs. She has become revered in legal circles and the broader culture for her impassioned dissents, proving that she is unafraid to courageously follow through on her understanding of this country’s fundamental legal guarantees, especially its obligation to do justice to all citizens, regardless of identity. The proper role of a judge: Being a judge is a difficult role that requires the trier of fact to address many things in order to accomplish their goals. A judge must be fair and scrupulously monitor for any personal biases, even unconscious ones, they may be bringing to the bench. This allows a judge to ensure that their rulings are meeting the high ideals set by our system, which demands unbiased justice. By rigorously self-policing and doing everything possible to demonstrate fairness and integrity, the ideal judge gives the essential appearance of neutrality and fairness to other actors in the judicial system. A judge’s role is also to work diligently to process each case and continue to support the larger judicial system to promote judicial efficiency and allow individuals their days in Court as efficiently as possible. Especially in counties like Milwaukee County where each judicial calendar is extremely full, it can be difficult to accomplish the goal of efficiency while also providing sufficient attention to each individual case. Despite that difficulty, it is the role of a judge to make sure those who are coming in front of them all receive the same level of attention and care for their cases and each case’s unique set of facts. In this role, a judge must make decisions that not only help the individual litigants in front of them reach a just resolution in their case, but also instill confidence in the judicial system for the general public as a whole. Our system guarantees the right of public access to judicial proceedings, consistent with our overall democratic ideals. As a result, judges must act consistent with the trust they have been given. Finally, the role of a judge is to acknowledge that the individuals in front of them are people. They are more than their faults and failings; they are individuals who are often struggling with navigating the often complex and daunting legal system. A judge must treat all those that come in front of them with dignity and respect. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information 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. Note: Raphael Ramos is a former Wisconsin Justice Initiative board member.  Name: Raphael F. Ramos
Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: May 25, 2023 (term ends July 31, 2024) Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa High School – Greendale High School, Greendale, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: 2020-present – Milwaukee Housing Law Unit supervisor, Legal Action of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 2016-present – Eviction Defense Project director, Legal Action of Wisconsin 2015-2016 – Zone contract leader, GE Healthcare, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 2008-2014 – Associate attorney, Quarles & Brady LLP, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: As Director of Legal Action of Wisconsin's Eviction Defense Project (EDP), I defend low-income tenants in eviction court; have recruited, trained, supervised, and counseled over 100 pro bono volunteers, enabling them to provide (virtual) in-court, legal representation to low-income tenants; and engage in outreach to educate the public and supporters regarding the EDP and fundraise to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Project. In December 2020, I was promoted to Supervisor of Legal Action of Wisconsin's Milwaukee Housing Unit. In that capacity, I oversee all of the Milwaukee Office's housing related litigation and client service. In addition to my own caseload, I am responsible for supervising and training all of our housing attorneys, and for developing housing related litigation priorities and strategies. These duties are in addition to my previous obligations as EDP Director. Under my leadership, Legal Action of Wisconsin's housing unit has grown from one part-time housing attorney and paralegal in 2016 to a team of eight attorneys and two paralegals. My previous practice at GE Healthcare consisted largely of corporate transactions while my practice at Quarles & Brady LLP consisted generally of compliance related regulatory counsel. Describe typical clients: As a public service attorney, I provide free legal services and my clients consist entirely of low-income individuals who would otherwise be unlikely to have representation. My client practice is focused largely on housing litigation and the promotion of housing stability. While at GE Healthcare, I specialized in transactional roles: crafting and negotiating multifaceted business agreements and counseling internal stakeholders regarding business and legal strategy while ensuring compliance with federal and state requirements. At Quarles & Brady LLP, I provided corporate clients with legal counsel on environmental matters, regulatory compliance, business transactions, government inquiries, and project/site development. Number of cases tried to verdict: 1 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: TE V LLC v. [Party Sealed], Milwaukee Cty. Cir. Ct. Case No. 2019SC014924 This case was brought before the Milwaukee County Circuit court and raised several issues relating to courthouse procedure and the reaffirmation of retroactive rent abatement. My involvement began with my initial intake of the client and identification of grounds for appeal of the initial Circuit Court decision. I helped draft the pleadings for the appeal and, upon remand on the merits, helped develop the legal theory of retroactive rent abatement as a novel defense to eviction. The Circuit Court ultimately did not rule on the applicability of rent abatement in that case,* instead granting dismissal on other grounds. Most important Legal Action's tenant clients, however, was the fact that the Court found that retroactive rent abatement was a viable defense while reopening the case, recognizing a new potential defense to eviction for tenants living in sub-standard housing. * Note that the CCAP reporting for this case is inaccurate, as it indicates that the Court found that the defendant was not entitled to rent abatement. More accurately, the Court stated that a trial on those facts would be necessary to answer that question and instead dismissed the case based on the fact that the tenant was no longer living at the property. [Redacted] v. Circuit Court for Dane County, Wis. Ct. App. Case No. 2018AP2313 The case was brought before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals to address the question of whether a Circuit Court Judge had the authority to redact the name of a tenant from a dismissed eviction action. As Director of Legal Action's Eviction Defense Project, I had a prominent role in crafting the legal theory advanced by [redacted] and assisted in briefing the issue for the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled in favor, finding that the administration of justice can require redaction of party names in circumstances where the existence of a dismissed eviction case could inhibit a tenant's ability to find safe and secure housing. That ruling has had a tremendous benefit to tenants as it will allow them to obtain housing without the burden of dismissed evictions creating a misleading impression of their rental history. Appleton Papers Inc. and NCR Corporation v. George A. Whiting Paper Company, et al., E.D. Wis. Case No. 08-CV-00016-WCG This case was one of several tied to historic PCB contamination in the Fox River in Northeastern Wisconsin. I provided extensive behind the scenes litigation support, assisting with depositions, legal research and briefing, and review of case files. In so doing, I analyzed and unwound complicated corporate relationships, highly technical procedural arguments, and worked collaboratively with a large team of attorneys, paralegals, clients, and other parties in interest. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have experience representing clients in defense of allegations of regulatory violations and non-compliance before administrative agencies. In that capacity, I negotiated settlement agreements between clients and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I have also provided testimony to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in support of a rule-making petition to reinstate the practice of ghostwriting for pro bono attorneys. (Wisconsin S.C. Rule Petition 19-16). Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). As the Director of the EDP and Supervisor of Legal Action's Milwaukee Housing Unit, I have multiple administrative responsibilities that extend beyond my obligations in the courtroom. I worked extensively with internal staff and the courthouse to develop a new, and unique, template for pro bono service delivery that has been recognized by the Legal Services Corporation as a national model. In so doing, I obtained experience evaluating systems to enhance their efficiency and allow for greater access to those systems. I am also responsible for recruiting and training other attorneys on landlord/tenant law to prepare them to provide in-court advocacy. My non-litigation legal experience includes extensive transactional work, consisting of the negotiation, drafting, and evaluation of business agreements. At GE Healthcare, much of my daily practice consisted of navigating the complicated weave of internal politics, contentious negotiations, and corporate interests. While at Q&B, I specialized in brownfield redevelopment, helping clients evaluate the risk associated with project and site development and counseling them concerning responsible and sustainable development and regulatory compliance. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Molly Gena campaign for Milwaukee Municipal Court Judge, volunteer, 2023 Obama campaign, volunteer, 2012 Obama campaign, election observer, 2008 Previous runs for public office: n/a All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Molly Gena, City of Milwaukee Municipal Court Judge, 2023 Janet Protasiewicz, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, 2023 Sara Geenen, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2023 Nidhi Kashyap, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge, 2021 Danielle Shelton, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge, 2019 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin Justice Initiative, board member, March 2019-present Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic, volunteer, September 2008-present Wisconsin Asian American Bar Association, member, September 2019-present Milwaukee Bar Association, member, 2008-present Philippine Cultural and Civic Center Foundation, volunteer, 2006-present Milwaukee Debate League, member and roles including president, 2011-2017 Legal Action-VLP, volunteer, 2008-2014 Sojourner Truth House, volunteer Restraining Order Clinic, 2008-2014 Quarles & Brady, volunteer pro bono Eastern District inmate cases, 2006-2014 My Home, Your Home, board member, 2009-2011 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I have been a volunteer with the Marquette Volunteer Clinic since graduating from law school in 2008. There, I provide pro bono representation to individuals on a variety of legal issues in a clinical, brief service, setting. I am also a volunteer with the Philippine Cultural and Civic Center Foundation and sit on the Board of Directors for the Wisconsin Justice Initiative. I previously served on the board for the Milwaukee Debate League, which I helped found in 2011 and where I served as Interim President, Vice President, Secretary, and Chair of the Fundraising Committee. I obtained my first board experience through service as a board member with My Home, Your Home. I previously volunteered with the Sojourner Family Peace Center's Restraining Order Clinic from 2008 through 2014 and assisted victims of abuse or harassment with the acquisition of TROs. I also provided extended representation to two inmates in separate court appointed pro bono conditions of confinement cases before the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Together with lead counsel in one of those cases, we took the case to trial in the Green Bay Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin where the jury deliberated for several days before reaching a verdict against our client. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I seek this appointment because, as a resident of Milwaukee, I care about my home and because I have the diversity of perspective and humility necessary to serve the people of Wisconsin effectively, honestly, and fairly. As I considered pursuing this seat, I contemplated the hubris inherent to the idea of a judge—the idea that one person can be empowered to judge another. It is an awesome responsibility and the first question I had was whether I could succeed in this role. Competence is not enough. To serve the people, our judiciary must be comprised of people willing and able to bear the judicial mantle of responsibility. In my arrogance, I believe myself capable. My professional path has taken me from a large private law firm, to in-house at a Fortune 50 company, to public service and representation of the poor and indigent. Following that course, I learned to navigate the highly technical world of environmental laws and regulation, balance the intensely political and business-oriented focus of corporate law, and face the humanity and desperation tied to representing people who struggle with parts of life I take for granted. These experiences are the source of my confidence, but, more importantly, they showed me that I do not know everything. They temper my arrogance and forge humility from diversity of experience. I have been fortunate to work with the wealthy, the destitute, and the in-between, and I can see from their varying perspectives. I grew up poor and a minority. My family immigrated from the Philippines when I was two. I remember my parents, my two siblings, and I sharing a single room in my aunt’s house for years. I remember the casual racism of my grade school addressing my dad as “Dr. Ramos” based on the stereotype that all Filipino men are doctors. I remember the intentional racism of being called a “chink” in 7th grade and asked if I was “the black kid” from the Mighty Ducks in the 9th. I remember the inadvertent racism and tokenism of being asked by an employer to join a photo shoot for a client for whom I had never done any work. I remember these things, just as I remember becoming a citizen, graduating from law school, and joining a big firm. Together, they shape who I am today. It is an odd thing, to feel summed up by individual aspects of your being. That feeling taught me, however, that the way we view the world is informed by our experiences and the way others view and treat us is a critical part of that experience. I want to serve so that I can use my experience to ensure that the people of Wisconsin know that they are treated fairly because they have been given the opportunity to be heard and because their experience in court reflects the thoughtfulness, intelligence, and integrity emanating from the bench. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, that partisan gerrymandering is a political question beyond the reach of federal courts, has already had a profoundly negative impact on Wisconsin democracy and represents an abdication of the Court’s duty and commitment to separation of powers. While much could be written on the Rucho decision, this commentary is directed at the Court’s comments that its ruling does not “condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void” nor “condone excessive partisan gerrymandering.” The Rucho decision does not condemn complaints to a void; rather, the breadth of the decision in many ways prevents complaints from even being voiced. Instead of addressing the question of “how much politicization of districting is too much,” the Court begged off the issue entirely by declaring the question political in nature and beyond the reach of federal courts. The proposition is ludicrous. If the clearly partisan gerrymandering that existed in Rucho, as outlined in Justice Kagan’s review of the legislative history in her dissent, was insufficient to trigger that analysis, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where gerrymandering could be subject to federal judicial review. The Court could have reversed and remanded, requiring the lower courts to develop a new system. Instead, the Court threw its hands in the air, decided it was too hard, and said not to ask about it again. As a result, the Rucho decision curtailed the ability of voters in states like Wisconsin to seek review of partisan gerrymandering. No better proof of that exists than the dismissal of the state gerrymandering case, Whitford v. Gill, mere days after the Supreme Court decision. In Wisconsin, where a party can win 205,000 more votes than the opposing party but still yield 29 seats in the assembly, the gerrymandering case was dismissed on joint motion due to the far reaching holding in Rucho. By denying federal judicial review, the Court stands idle while gerrymandering persists. The Court’s deference to state legislatures places decision-making authority in the hands of those perpetrating gerrymandering and potentially renders unfair lines immutable. The Court cited to Florida and other jurisdictions that are restricting partisan considerations in districting through legislation, but those are examples of where the political will to combat gerrymandering already exists. In circumstances where no protection exists and where a majority of legislators have entrenched their position due to gerrymandering, those legislatures have no incentive to change the status quo. The designation of “representation” through gerrymandered lines is antithetical to the concept of a democratic republic and, as the law of the land, the Rucho decision’s enables that practice and will have lasting, negative, repercussions on Wisconsin democracy. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: Among others, I have great respect for Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judges Ellen Brostrom and William Pocan. Judge Brostrom presided over the Small Claims court when Legal Action launched the Eviction Defense Project. As an administrator of the court, she worked with her staff and Legal Action to establish an efficient model of same-day legal representation. It should be unsurprising that, when representing before her, efficiency, fairness, deliberation, and respect are hallmarks of her court. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lockett (Case No. 2014CV6365) exemplifies why I admire Judge Brostrom. In that case, a default judgment had been entered against a defendant whose car had been stolen and crashed without her knowledge or participation. Years later, my wife represented the defendant and filed a motion to reopen. Judge Brostrom denied the motion due to the defendant’s failure to answer or file a motion to reopen in a timely fashion. Remarkably, however, Judge Brostrom reconsidered sua sponte and issued a new decision that differed in result, but was equally grounded in the law. In it, she noted that Wisconsin Statutes empower a court to “do substantial justice” and that “[s]addling a woman with thousands of dollars in debt for an accident she did not cause because she failed to grasp a means to respond to an ensuing lawsuit is not justice.” Judge Brostrom’s realization that the decision she had made, while legally justifiable, was fundamentally unjust is inspiring. As administrators of justice, it behooves the court to have judges with the humility to place justice ahead of their own ego and the courage to act on that conviction. Judge Brostrom has always carried herself as a person of intelligence, integrity, and honesty, and her actions that day were consistent with that impression and left an indelible mark on my view of how a judge should preside. Likewise, Judge Pocan’s tenure on the small claims court provided me with a model to aspire to as a hopeful jurist. In preparing this application, I sought counsel from numerous colleagues to get their opinion on what virtues are most valuable in a judge and which judges do they view as being particularly strong. Judge Pocan’s name resounded in those conversations with regularity. The consensus view, which aligns with my own, is that Judge Pocan is profoundly thoughtful, fair, and well-prepared. Interestingly, Judge Pocan once told me that his bailiff in Small Claims said he saw fewer upset litigants in Judge Pocan’s courtroom than in any other. The reason that Judge Pocan believed that to be the case was not due to his legal acumen or prestige as a judge. Rather, he tied it to the simple fact that he tried to make the litigants feel human. Judge Pocan’s temperament and ability to relate to those before him creates an element of trust between litigant and judge, a trust that helps parties feel that justice has been served. It is a skill, among his many others, that I admire greatly. The proper role of a judge: The role of a judge is multifaceted and, while it begins on the bench, I believe the role extends far beyond it. A judge’s principal responsibility is, of course, to uphold the law and to analyze and apply statutes in a manner faithful to the constitution and legislative intent. They are also tasked with conducting the case ethically and fairly. On the bench, a trial court judge’s perhaps most important role is that of a listener and student. Some of the greatest assets available to a judge are the attorneys and litigants appearing before the court on any given day. Even when experienced, a judge must have the humility to be educated by the attorneys that have spent days, weeks, or months preparing a case and the litigants living through it. Ultimately, it is the judge’s role to filter those views through a critical lens of analysis so that debatable issues are given the opportunity to be heard. In addition to responsibilities on the bench, a judge’s administrative responsibility to the system and the community is equally important. Judge’s bear an obligation to ensure that the judicial system and its attendant processes allow for access to justice, equality of access, and equal justice among its participants. To that end, I believe that judges need to be engaged with the system, to understand and identify its deficiencies so that they can enhance efficiency and eliminate systemic barriers that make the court system burdensome to navigate. In a similar vein, the role of a judge should involve participation in the community. It is not enough for judges to take their seat on the bench, preside, and go back to their private lives. The judiciary must be involved with the community in order to understand its needs, to see and hear the concerns that people have, and to make certain that they are in touch with the realities of everyday life and that their rulings are not wholly inconsistent with expectations of fairness and justice. As a non-profit attorney, I see clients every day who say that the judicial system has run roughshod over them. They tell me that they felt unheard, that they were never given the opportunity to speak, and that the court was unfairly biased in favor of the opposing party. Whether those feelings were well-founded is important, but beside the point. Perceptions of procedural fairness have a profound effect on litigants’ view of the legitimacy of the courts. When people do not believe that the system is fair, they do not believe in the system, and the court finds itself diminished. One need only look at eviction court, where people face the catastrophic threat of losing their homes, yet nearly half of the cases end in default. It is the job of the judiciary to create and justify faith in the system and demonstrate to the public that while a judge may not rule in their favor, they will give them the opportunity to be heard. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information 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: Ryan Nilsestuen
Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: Dec. 22, 2022 (term ends July 31, 2024) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – Luther College, Decorah, Iowa High School – DeForest Area High School, DeForest, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: January 2019-present – Chief legal counsel, Office of the Governor, Madison, Wisconsin June 2011-January 2019 – Chief legal counsel, attorney, LTE, and law clerk, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin General character of practice: I lead a team of talented attorneys who advise Gov. Evers and his Administration on everything from routine legal matters to high-stakes litigation. This includes successfully advising and representing key decision makers on issues that impact the entire state of Wisconsin, including redistricting, elections, separation of powers challenges, employment cases, and public records lawsuits. I also chair the Governor's Pardon Advisory Board. In this role, I have assisted Gov. Evers in pardoning hundreds of individuals who have made amends and completed serving their felony sentence. Describe typical clients: I represent Gov. Evers and his administration. As a result, I have significant experience in a wide variety of areas in the law, including administrative, constitutional, contract, criminal, elections, employment, and public records law. Number of cases tried to verdict: Unknown (most litigation experience in administrative contested case hearings) List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: Coyne v. Walker, 2016 WI 38, 368 Wis.2d 444. I successfully represented then-State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV, (Judge Sherman authored the decision) and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I drafted all of the briefs and argued the case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. DPI Chief Legal Counsel Janet Jenkins was my co-counsel. There were numerous opposing counsel, including Maria Lazar, Timothy Barber, David Meany, Andy Cook, and Daniel Lennington. This case challenged the constitutionally of 2011 Act 21, which gave the governor veto-like authority over administrative rules promulgated by state agencies, including rules promulgated by the state superintendent of public instruction. The decision was significant because it upheld the independence of the state superintendent, as intended by the framers of our state constitution. Koshkee v. Evers, 2018 WI 82, 382 Wis.2d 666. Along with DPI Attorney Benjamin Jones, I represented then-State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers in an original action which re-litigated the result of Coyne v. Walker. Before we could argue the case on the merits, an issue arose of who could represent the DPI and State Superintendent Evers. The Attorney General argued that only the Department of Justice could do so. Even more problematic, the Attorney General argued that he alone determined the ends of representation, even if it was contrary to the client's position (and in violation of the Supreme Court's Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys). Opposing counsel were Misha Tseytlin and Ryan Walsh. We prevailed before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This case is significant because it established that state officials, sued in their official capacity, are the client and, as such, the Attorney General may not dictate their litigation positions. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: As an attorney with the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, I participated in numerous administrative proceedings. This included defending the department in employment matters before the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division, the Labor & Industry Review Commission, and the Division of Hearings and Appeals. I also represented the department in matters before the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I also have experience overseeing administrative proceedings. For example, I chair the Governor's Pardon Advisory Board, which has heard from hundreds of pardon applicants. I also am a member of the Wisconsin State Claims Board, which hears claims made against the State of Wisconsin. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have significant non-litigation legal experience, including: negotiating, drafting, and reviewing contracts; conducting investigations in employment, civil rights, and licensing matters; drafting final agency decisions; drafting administrative rules; handling public records requests; advising on state ethics matters; and participating in mediations. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Volunteer (multiple campaigns since 2004) Previous runs for public office: None listed. All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Susan Crawford judicial campaign, 2018 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Inns of Court, 2020-present American Constitution Society, 2020-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: Since 1998, I have volunteered numerous times for Habitat for Humanity. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to be a judge because I strongly believe in the need for a strong, independent judiciary to protect our democracy and constitutional rights. Following the 2020 presidential election, scores of lawsuits, including six in Wisconsin, were filed across the nation in an unprecedented effort to overturn the free, fair, and accurate results. Each of these lawsuits failed. But some of them came close. In Trump v. Eiden, 2020 WI 91, 349 Wis.2d 629, the former president's campaign sought to disqualify the votes of 220,000 people in Dane and Milwaukee Counites. A slim 4-3 majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the former president's claims either had "no basis in reason or law" or were barred by laches. It shouldn't have been such a close vote. Unfortunately, this lawsuit and others across the nation demonstrated just how fragile our democracy is. It also was a reminder of the critical role the judiciary plays in protecting our democracy and constitutional rights. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. In Johnson et al v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2022 WI 19, the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted new legislative maps authored by the Wisconsin Legislature, effectively overriding the Governor's veto of those same maps. In doing so, the Court gave its approval to the most gerrymandered and partisan maps in the nation. This decision has had a significant and profoundly negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. First, the ultimate decision - and the process the Court used to get there - undermined the Court's credibility as independent, non partisan branch of government. As Justice John Paul Stevens once wrote, "It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law." Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 128 (2000). The public's confidence in the judiciary is undermined when courts search for a result, especially a highly partisan result, rather than find the answer required by the faithful application of the law. That is exactly what the Court did in Johnson, where the Court's "least changes" approach was unmoored to Wisconsin law. Second, the decision thwarts the ability of the people of Wisconsin to have a truly representative government. By adopting highly partisan and gerrymandered maps, the Court ensured that one party will remain in control of the legislative branch of government even if a large majority of Wisconsinites vote for the opposing party. This prevents the people of Wisconsin from being able to have a truly representative government. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: I greatly admire Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Anne Walsh Bradley. Justice Walsh Bradley is the paradigm of what a justice should be. She is always well-versed in the arguments made by the parties appearing before the Court. She asks insightful questions that illicit the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments being made. Finally, no matter how contentious a case is, she always maintains a respectful demeanor to her fellow justices and the litigants. I also admire former Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. One of the most memorable experiences I had as a law student was watching an oral argument before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Some of the justices asked difficult or "gotcha" questions. Others offered softball or "lifeline" questions. But Justice Abrahamson's approach showed her unparalleled intelligence and humor. I was in awe off how she carefully conducted a series of questions which led the attorneys to a conclusion that may (or may not) benefit their position. At the same time, her questioning undermined or supported questions asked by the other justices. Beyond her brilliance, I admire Justice Abrahamson's impact on the law and work ethic. The numbers speak for themselves. She authored 525 majority opinions, 493 dissenting opinions, and 326 concurring opinions. And, at the same time, she gave countless speeches and wrote scores of articles on the law. No other justice has had such an impact on Wisconsin law. The proper role of a judge: Entire essays and books have been written on the role of a judge. But I believe the preamble to the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct best summarizes the role and importance of judges: Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law... [J]udges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information 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: Frederick J. Strampe
Appointed to: Waukesha County Circuit Court Appointment date: Nov. 29, 2022 (to term ending July 31, 2023) (defeated in April 2023 election) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – United States Military Academy, West Point, New York High School – Wausau East, Wausau, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: 1997-present – Attorney, Borgelt, Powell, Peterson and Frauen, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit General character of practice: My practice is focused on civil litigation. I appear in Circuit Courts throughout Wisconsin and the Eastern and Western District Courts. I handle all phases of civil litigation from the initial pleading through trial. The majority of my time is spent on investigations, depositions, document analysis, discovery, settlement discussions and pre-trial motions. My legal specialty is trial practice. I average one or two trials a year. I have extensive experience with claims at assisted living facilities, insurance coverage issues and product liability claims, along with most types of personal injury cases, with an emphasis on traumatic brain injuries. Describe typical clients: Most of my work is for defendants in civil litigation. Usually, I am retained by an insurance company to represent their insured in a lawsuit, or a pre-suit investigation. I represent clients regarding all types of insurance policies and have developed a specialty relating to assisted living facilities and traumatic brain injuries allegedly caused by exposure to Carbon Monoxide. Number of cases tried to verdict: 19 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: Local Government Property Insurance Fund (“LGPIF”) v. Lexington Insurance Company I represented LGPIF. This case involved a fire that occurred at the Milwaukee County Courthouse in July of 2013. LGPIF insured Milwaukee County and determined that the fire was a covered loss. LGPIF paid over 17.4 million dollars for this loss and sought to recover a portion of this amount from its reinsurer, Lexington. Lexington refused to pay the loss claiming the damages were the result of an electrical failure, which was not a covered loss. LGPIF filed suit to recover the reinsurance benefits contained in the insurance policy issued by Lexington. Along with Co-counsel Barbara O’Brien, I was responsible for all written discovery, expert retention, depositions, and pre-trial motions. My involvement focused on the damages sustained at the courthouse and the competing expert opinions regarding the cause of the loss and the resulting damage. The matter settled just before trial. Holder et. al. v. Fraser Shipyards I represented Capstan Corporation, the owner of Fraser Shipyards. This matter involved four related cases with 70 plaintiffs. All the plaintiffs were shipyard workers at Fraser Shipyards in Superior, WI. They were exposed to hazardous levels of lead while preforming work on the HERBERT C. JACKSON, a great lakes freighter owned by Interlake Steamship Company. While each worker had different alleged injuries, most of the workers claimed traumatic brain injuries resulting in memory and processing problems, along with some physical injuries from the lead exposure. Plaintiffs claimed that Fraser Shipyard, Capstan and Interlake knew that lead paint on the vessel would be disturbed by Fraser's work and took no preventative measures to protect the workers. I took over the representation of Capstan a few months before the Holder case was set for trial. I was responsible for investigating the loss, written discovery, depositions, expert retention, procedural motions, discovery motions, motions in limine and pre-trial submissions. The Holden case settled less than one week before trial was set to begin. The other three cases settled after significant discovery. [Redacted] v. Mortle I represented Mortle Trucking. Mortle performed snow and ice removal services at the clinic where [redacted] Doctor worked. [Redacted] slipped and fell in the clinic's parking lot after a snow event. She sued Mortle and the property owners claiming that the parking lot was negligently maintained. [Redacted] claimed significant back injuries from the fall. She had over [redacted] in past medicare expenses and claimed over [redacted] for future medical expenses. Additionally, [she] had a 20 year history of back issues. In December, 2021, the case was tried by Judge Chris Foley in Milwaukee County. After a five day trial, the jury concluded that Mortle was not negligent. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: As part of my work for Assisted Living Facilities and Day Care providers, I have handled several cases involving the Division of Hearings and Appeals. These appeals involved orders to close a facility, revocation of licensing, need for a plan of correction, and requests to reduce fines. I have participated in pre-hearings and scheduling/status conferences with Administrative Law Judges. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have mediated hundreds of cases all over the State of Wisconsin. I have represented parties in arbitrations approximately 15-20 times. Also, I have been appointed by the defense as an Arbitrator approximately 10 times. None of these cases proceeded to a full arbitration. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: N/A Previous runs for public office: N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: None that I remember Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Wisconsin Defense Counsel, past president and other roles, 1997-present Defense Research Institute, 1998-present American Board of Trial Advocates, 2014-present Lakeland Officials Association, program chair-football, 1997-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I have officiated High School Football since law school. I have been the crew's Referee for approximately 14 years. We officiate a Varsity High School game every Friday night during the season. Each season we are selected by the WIAA to officiate one or more playoff games. We were selected to officiate two State Championship games at Camp Randall Stadium in Madison, WI. Occasionally, I officiate Youth Football in the community. In law school I also officiated ice hockey. When I moved to Milwaukee, I continued officiating Youth and High School Ice Hockey. I stopped officiating hockey approximately 10 years ago. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I began my professional life serving our Country and I want to continue my professional life serving the people of Wisconsin. As a young man, I was prepared for the rewards and challenges of serving as a junior officer in the Army. After 25 years as a litigator, I am prepared for the rewards and challenges of serving as a Circuit Court Judge. I want to utilize the skills I have developed to help more than my clients, myself, or my firm. The mission of my alma matter, The United States Military Academy, is to “develop leaders of character for a lifetime of service to the Country.” By serving as a Circuit Court Judge, I can continue my service to our State and our Country. My personality and litigation experience give me the skills needed to serve effectively and successfully as a Circuit Court Judge. Our system of government only works if we have strong, independent, and impartial Judges committed to the rule of law. Circuit Court Judges must be fair and impartial without preconceived agendas or goals. I want to serve the people of Wisconsin to ensure these important pillars of our society are preserved. As a Circuit Court Judge, I will be independent and impartial in practice and appearance. I am committed to the Rule of Law. I know that Circuit Court Judges must apply the law, not create the law. The application of the law must be done impartially, regardless of the litigant’s politics, background, or motives. Everyone who appears in Court must leave the Courtroom knowing that the Judge and the process were impartial. Litigants and observers must know that the Rule of Law, not the Judge’s personal opinions, decided the outcome. I have the personality and experience to enforce the Rule of Law in a way that is equitable and leaves all parties understanding that the process was fair. I want to serve as a Circuit Court Judge to utilize my talents, skills, and experience to strengthen our State. I will help maintain an independent judiciary, committed to the Rule of Law. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin: I believe Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc, 509 U.S. 579, (1993), which was adopted in Wisconsin by Sec. 907.02(1), Wis. Stats., and Siefert v. Balink, 2017 WI 2, has a great impact on the people of Wisconsin, even if few people know about it. When Wisconsin adopted the Daubert Standard, a great deal of authority was transferred from the Jury to the Circuit Court Judge. Under Daubert, the Circuit Court must determine if an expert’s opinions are reliable. While the Court repeatedly indicates that the Circuit Court is not taking the place of a Jury, a party whose case is dismissed because their expert was ruled unreliable will certainly disagree. Although Daubert and Seifert list numerous factors the Court can consider, the Siefert Court stated, “the trial court may consider some, all, or none of the factors.” Siefert, Para 64. The Siefert Court explains that the Trial Court should not accept expert testimony just because the expert is qualified. Seifert, Para 75. However, the Court goes on to explain that the reliability standard can be satisfied by the witness’s “personal knowledge and experience.” Siefert, Para 78. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin ends its analysis by deciding that a Circuit Courts decision to admit, or exclude, expert testimony will only be reversed if the Circuit Court abused its discretion. Seifert, Para. 93. The standard adopted in Seifert gives the Circuit Court tremendous power in any case that requires expert testimony. In many cases, at least one party will have a reason to challenge the other side’s expert. Once challenged, the Circuit Court can exclude the testimony based on “all, some, or none,” of the relevant factors identified in Daubert and Siefert. If there is a plausible reason to exclude the evidence, the Circuit Court’s decision will survive appeal. Because of the broad authority Circuit Court Judges have, to exclude or admit expert testimony, the selection of Judges may be more important than the people of Wisconsin know. The significant power granted to the Circuit Court relating to expert testimony could have a positive or negative effect on the people of Wisconsin. Many citizens of Wisconsin do not know the Circuit Court has this much control over expert testimony. Because of this, Circuit Court Judges must carefully analyze any challenges to expert testimony. Expert testimony should be excluded when the testimony is clearly unreliable. If expert testimony is excluded, the Circuit Court should make a record explaining why the testimony was excluded, so the people of Wisconsin understand why the expert was not allowed to testify. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: There are many Judges I have appeared before who I admire and respect. Judge Richard Sankovitz, who retired from Milwaukee County, and Judge Dale English in Fond du Lac County stand out for a variety of reasons. First, they are always prepared. When they say they have read the briefs and have a few questions, it means they have not only read the briefs, but have also researched the topic. They do not waste time on irrelevant or secondary matters. Rather, they make the parties answer tough questions about the key issues. This type of preparation and commitment to understand and evaluate the case is something I greatly admire. Second, they are willing to use common sense in the administration of their courtrooms. They expect the Attorneys who practice in their courtrooms to be prepared and efficient. However, they understand the difficulties that can arise during a complicated case. When appropriate, they will modify Scheduling Orders and deadlines. However, they will also deny requests when the modifications are not justified. During trials and court hearings, they enforce the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence in a way that demonstrates an understanding of the rules and an understanding of how the rules should be applied. Finally, it is clear in court that Judge Sankovitz, and Judge English are attempting to enforce the law in an impartial manner. I have never felt that they were manipulating the law to get the result they wanted. Rather, they strive to issue the decision required by the law. They treat all parties with respect and work hard to obtain the correct result. Even when I disagree with their decisions, I am confident that they analyzed the issues appropriately and reached the decision they believed was required by the law. The traits that I admire in Judge Sankovitz and Judge English are the traits I will strive to emulate as a Circuit Court Judge. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a Circuit Court Judge is to enforce the law. The Circuit Court is not the place to create new law. However, the Circuit Court Judge must enforce the law in a fair and impartial manner. All litigants must be treated with respect. Not only should litigants leave the courtroom feeling that they were treated fairly, but they should be treated fairly by the Court. Not everyone can leave the courtroom happy with the result. However, I believe the proper role of a Circuit Court Judge is to enforce the law evenly, to ensure all litigants leave the courtroom knowing that the process was impartial and fair. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information 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: Anthony C. Nehls
Appointed to: Fond du Lac County Circuit Court Appointment date: October 14, 2022 (effective December 5, 2022, to complete term ending July 31, 2024) Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee High School – Random Lake, Random Lake, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: July 2007-present – Attorney, Nehls Law Office, S.C., Mount Calvary, Wisconsin May 2006-July 2007 – Assistant state public defender, Wisconsin State Public Defender’s Office, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: I have a solo practice focusing on Criminal Defense, Juvenile Delinquency, Child in Need of Protection and Services (CHIPs), Termination of Parental Rights (TPR), OWI, Estate Planning, Probate and Real Estate. I represent parents in both CHIPs and TPR cases. 60% of my practice is focussed on litigation and the rest is transactional. Of the transactional work I handle about 8-10 probates a year, 40-50 estate planning clients and about 40-50 real estate transactions. My office is located in what is commonly referred to as the Holy Lands of Northeast Fond du lac County. There has been a law office in this area for nearly 70 years and I have been the attorney for the past 15 of those years. Describe typical clients: Many of my litigation clients are indigent and appointed through the County. Most of these clients have mental health and/or substance abuse issues. I specialize in CHIPS and TPR cases representing parents who have had their children removed from their care. My transactional clients are usually from the rural eastern part of Fond du Lac County. Number of cases tried to verdict: 42 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: State v. [Redacted], Fond du Lac 18-CF-534-Honorable Dale L. English Opposing Counsels were DA Eric Toney, ADA Catherine Block and AAG Sarah Burgundy I was appointed to represent [redacted] on August 13, 2018. [Redacted] was charged with felony possession of narcotic drugs as a repeater. [He] had overdosed and police were called to revive him. At that time, Wis. Stat. 961.443(2)(b}2. allowed an "aided person" to be afforded a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. An "aided person" was someone who was the subject of a 9-1-1 call. I filed a Motion to Dismiss or for an evidentiary hearing to determine if [redacted] met the criteria as an "aided person". The Court denied the Motion to Dimiss but found that [redacted] was an "aided person" as defined by staute. The court ordered the DA's Office to offer-a Deferred Prosecution Agreement on October 12, 2018. After three more hearings and no Deferred Prosecution Agreement being offered, I again moved to dismiss. On October 24th, 2019, the court ordered the case dismissed for failing to abide by the statute. The State appealed the decision on November 20, 2019. On June 17, 2021 the Court of Appeals Summarily Affirmed the dismissal. The case is significant because it had so many different legal issues. Does a circuit court have the authority to dismiss a case when a prosecutor refuses to follow a statue providing immunity to a defendant when the prosecutor doesn't agree with the legislature? The DA did not feel the defendant was being held accountable for his actions. The great tragedy of the case was that the legislative intent of the statute was to provide help to those suffereing from drug addiction in a timely manner. Luckily, [redacted] sought and received treatment on his own but the DA's Office spent 3 years fighting the case all the while refusing to assist in his treatment needs. In re the Matter of [Redacted], ML-17-0306 ALJ Beth Whitaker Div. of Hearings and Appeals Opposing Counsel Atty Chelsea Brocker I was retained on October 3, 2018, to represent [redacted] in an appeal of a decsion by the Fond du Lac Dept. of Social Services (DSS) where he and his wife were found to have abused 2 adoptive children. [Redacted] and his wife adopted 3 children from a Haitian orphanage in 2012. They quickly became concerned with behavioral issues with 2 of the children. The kids displayed symptoms of Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD). The symptoms became so severe that one of the girls attacked [his] wife with a knife. A psychiatrist reported the parents for abuse to DSS based on stories told be the 2 children. After a 2 day trial from November 19-20, 2018, the parents were exonerated of the abuse substantiation. It was significant for the parents to prove that they were not abusive to their children. They loved their children but were fearful of what they may do. It is not uncommon for adoptive parents to find that children raised in orphanages, who were deprived of nurturing at an early age, suffer from RAD and sociopathy. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I have represented dozens of clients before Hearing and Appeals in both Probation/Extended Supervision revocation proceedings and while appealing a substantiation of Child Neglect or Abuse by the Dept of Social Services. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I advise clients in estate planning and draft wills, powers of attorneys, trusts, and TOD deeds. I have represented hundreds of clients in real estate transactions from offers to purchases, condition reports, ordering title work, drafting deeds and preparing and filing E-Returns. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Campaign treasurer for Judge Kristine Snow, Dodge County Circuit Court Previous runs for public office: None listed All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Judge Kristine Snow, Circuit Court Judge, 2020 Judge Andrew Christenson, Circuit Court Judge, 2021 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Brooke Industries, Inc., board of directors, June 2022-present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: For nearly 14 years I worked as assigned counsel through the State Public Defender's Office representing indigent clients in a wide variety of criminal matters. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: Since an early age I have pursued opportunities to serve my community. At the age of 20 I enlisted in the US Army to serve. I became what they considered a three-time volunteer. I volunteered for the Army. While serving, I volunteered for Airborne duty as a US Army Paratrooper. As a Paratrooper I volunteered to serve in Special Forces. The military is a melting pot of America. Persons from all over the country, from all walks of life come together for a common goal. During my time I loved being a representative of my country in far-away places doing things for the good of my country. While performing these duties I was able to meet and form friendships with people from around the globe. Whether they were Kosovars looking to reclaim their homeland and build a better nation or Tigrinya tribesmen who entered service on the side of the Eritrean government so that they could escape the oppression of the Ethiopian government. After being injured, I left the service to attend law school. I always hoped that my experiences and ability to understand different cultures and ethnicities could someday serve me to make my community a better place. These experiences helped shape my views of the world. Having lived with, ate with, trained with and worked with people from different cultures left me with the understanding that wherever we come from we all share the same wants and needs in life. My legal career started as an intern with the Fond du Lac State Public Defender’s Office. I enjoyed the idea of helping the less fortunate and the underserved. After 16 years practicing as an attorney in Wisconsin, I believe it is time serve once again. I am an experienced attorney. I’ve represented thousands of people from all kinds of diverse and socio-economic backgrounds in a wide variety of legal matters. I can use my legal experience as well as my personal experience to help shape a better Wisconsin. In this present time, I feel my community needs people with a wealth of not only legal experience but life experience who are from different backgrounds and who can bring a more diverse range of thought. I wish to serve to make the legal system more approachable, and more friendly to litigants who may be experiencing mental health crises, addiction issues and poverty. I have witnessed these things first hand from an early age and believe a more understanding, even handed approach which searches for long term solutions using all available community resources would make Wisconsin and my community a better place. Every day in courtrooms across Wisconsin families of individuals charged with crimes beg for assistance in getting their loved ones the help they need. We have Veterans Courts and Drug Courts, but I would love to play a part in the development of Mental Health Courts so that we have tools available within the criminal justice system to get these people the mental health help services they need. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) In 2013, the US Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court that a routine Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) investigation was not a per se exigent circumstance and therefore a warrantless forced blood draw violated the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches of one’s person. The facts of the case are simple, a driver is pulled over for speeding and crossing the center line. Upon contact, the officer suspects the driver of being impaired. The officer requests the driver to submit to a preliminary breath test. The driver refuses to take a preliminary breath test, so the officer arrests the driver and takes the driver to a nearby hospital for a blood draw. The driver again refused to consent to the blood draw and the officer instructed that the blood draw be performed without obtaining a warrant. The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court had a wide-ranging impact on implied consent laws throughout the United States and Wisconsin. For years drivers in the State of Wisconsin were subject to forced blood draws without Court oversight. No warrants were needed and the individual would face increased penalties for refusing such a search. The argument was that driving is a privilege and not a right and thus the State should have the right to reasonably control the circumstances of providing that privilege. The decision focused on the exceptions to the warrant requirement for such searches. Instead of providing a bright line rule that all OWI cases should be viewed as exigent circumstances, as the State argued, the Court found that a case-by-case basis for examining the totality of the circumstances was still the best way to determine if an exception to the warrant requirement applied. This was the correct decision. It’s hard to imagine a search being more intrusive then being forced to submit to a needle being stabbed into one’s arm and having bodily fluid extracted without one’s consent. But that is what the implied consent laws allowed. The decision opened the door to other decisions regarding the enhanced penalties applied using refusals for warrantless blood draws. In Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) the U.S. Supreme Court addressed how McNeeley should apply to a state’s implied consent laws. The Court found that a defendant’s refusal of a warrantless blood draw should not be used to subject the defendant to increased criminal penalties. The WI Supreme Court ruled similarly for defendants facing advanced criminal penalties using prior refusals of warrantless blood draws. In 2018, the WI Supreme Court decided State v. Dalton, 2019 WI 86. Citing to Birchfield, the Court concluded that imposing “criminal penalties” on defendants who refuse to submit to a warrantless blood test are outside the “limit” of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches. These decisions can be traced back to the proper ruling in McNeely making it one of the most important cases of the last 25 years. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: The two judges I admire the most are Circuit Court Judge Robert Wirtz of Fond du lac County and Circuit Court Judge Terence Bourke of Sheboygan County. Both judges were consummate professionals. Professionalism may sound like a simplistic reason for admiration but sometimes the simple things in life make the greatest impact. While both these judges had very different approaches as to how they ran their courtrooms they both had one thing in common, an unwavering desire to always be professional. Professionalism can be shown through simple things. Showing up on time is being professional. Understanding that the parties, the personnel, the staff, the defendants are all there waiting on the judge to start the day. Respecting the litigants by being there on time and showing that they are important is an easy thing to do. Oftentimes the people attending court are full of fear, anxiety and a general sense of not knowing what will happen. The least a judge can do is be on time. Professionalism can also be shown by being prepared. We’ve all been in front of a judge who comes in to court and asks, “what are we doing today?” It is possible that one of the parties has spent hours of their personal time preparing a motion and a brief to be heard. Opposing counsel has filed a reply brief and has spent hours preparing their argument. Now both parties are unsure of how to proceed. These two judges were always prepared for court. They could summarize the filings, quote the filings, fully understood the issues that were before them and were prepared to proceed. They were knowledgeable about the law and the legal issues being argued. Both of these judges could speak plainly and clearly about any legal subject before them without the slightest hint of arrogance or condescension. Professionalism can be shown by how you treat people. I’ve watched both these judges closely in how they addressed defendants, attorneys, victims, witnesses, juries and court room staff. They were both extremely effective in communicating with people from a variety of different ethnic and/or socio-economic backgrounds. They treated everyone with the same amount of respect regardless of who they were or who they were representing. You would never have known from their demeanor whether they were talking to a person accused of a vile crime or the victim of that same crime. They were both impeccable in how they communicated without ever displaying the slightest sign of personal animus or feelings about the case. If I were ever fortunate enough to be appointed as a Circuit Court Judge or elected as one, the greatest compliment I could ever be given would be to have someone compare me favorably to one of these two judges. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is to be a knowledgeable, professional, communicative and most of all to be a neutral referee in applying the law, proper procedure and precedent to the disputes brought before them. The role of a judge is to apply the law to the facts of the case without regard to the personal opinion the judge may have on the subject. Judges to not legislate from the bench. The people of the State of Wisconsin have elected law makers for that task. I’ve often heard the judge’s role compared to an umpire in a baseball game. The umpire’s role is to call balls and strikes and outs but without impacting the result of the game. I believe this analogy is accurate. Like an umpire, a judge should have no interest in the end result of the dispute. The judge is oftentimes the figurehead of the legal system. The judge is the person people see when they first come into court and the last person heard before leaving court. Unrepresented litigants are often brought before a judge to have their disputes heard and then that judge is relied upon to determine the results. It is for this reason that knowledge and professionalism is so important. Treating people, whether unrepresented lay persons or experienced litigators, with respect and with understanding is essential. Parties should leave the courtroom with not only an understanding of what transpired but with a sense that they were fully heard. The parties may not agree with the decision of the judge or the result of their case but they should be confident that the result was the proper one according to the law, the procedure and the precedent applicable to the issues. It is therefore the role of a judge to listen critically. The ability to communicate to the parties, to apply the law fairly and appropriately and to render decision based on the facts and the law is essential. The role of the judge is to ensure both sides of a dispute are acting in accordance with applicable laws and procedure and treating the opposing party with the proper respect afforded all litigants. Again, they are very much a referee, setting the proper tone, exhibiting the proper professionalism and decorum that is expected within the courtrooms in Wisconsin and which is governed by the appropriate Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information 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: Mary L. Roth Burns
Appointed to: Oneida County Circuit Court Appointment date: August 12, 2022 (to term ending July 31, 2023) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Master’s – New York University, New York, New York Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – Newman High, Wausau, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: December 2021-present – Attorney manager, Burns Northwoods Law, Rhinelander, Wisconsin January 2008-August 2021 – Assistant state public defender, Office of the State Public Defender, Rhinelander, Wisconsin Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin State Bar of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin General character of practice: As an attorney with the Office of the State Public Defender … my practice was about 95% criminal law, with about 5% of my cases being mental commitments. I defended clients, both adults and juveniles, who were charged with felonies and misdemeanors. I met with clients and discussed their charges, their rights, their options, the likelihood of dismissal, and answered their questions. I appeared in court on a daily basis and worked hard to get signature bonds for our clients. I litigated motions where needed … and I negotiated with district attorneys. I tried to enlighten judges (respectfully) as to mistakes made by law enforcement. Describe typical clients: With the SPD, I represented indigent clients who qualified for representation. Many were parents, many had addictions, most were citizens, most of them just needed my help. In Oneida and Vilas Counties, many of my clients are Native American. I did specialize in juvenile cases - I was known in my office as the attorney who liked working with kids (this might be a function of my having been a teacher by training). Number of cases tried to verdict: 13 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: l. I am including a case that is older than seven years because it's the most significant case I was ever involved with, and it actually resulted in a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision. Ultimately published as In re Tyler T., 341 Wis2d 1(2012), 814 N.W.2d 192, 2012 WI 52, the case started out as a Walworth County juvenile waiver to adult court for a 15-year-old boy who had committed an armed robbery at the behest of his mother's ex-boyfriend. I argued for retaining the boy in juvenile court but realized at the hearing that ADA Wiedenfeld had attended the meeting of the Department of Health and Human Services where he had influenced the DHHS not to recommend retaining the boy in juvenile court. When Judge Carlson ruled in favor of the State, I filed an Interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals (COA), arguing undue influence and prejudice. When the COA upheld the circuit court's decision, the case was appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Although an SPD appellate attorney wrote the brief and argued before the Supreme Court, I attended the oral arguments with my client. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the circuit court, although their holding seemed to be that what the State did wasn't right but they weren't going to do anything about it. I did feel vindicated that Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justice Shirley Abrahamson joined. On the upside, while the case wound its way through the courts, my client matured considerably and was able to avoid a prison sentence in Walworth County case #10CF97. 2. State v. Michael Johnson (not his real name) in Oneida County, in 2015. Judge O'Melia. Michael was a 17-year-old autistic boy who was living with his mother and his abusive step-father (called him a Retard, often damaged Michael's possessions, broke his computer). During a fight about the step-father breaking Michael's prized computer, Michael snapped, grabbed a knife and stabbed his step-father; when the mother tried to intervene, she was slashed across the neck. He was charged as an adult with two attempted homicides, but I worked with experts to show that my client was not actually a danger to the community. Eventually the DA (Mike Schiek) agreed to Michael pleading to two lower felonies, probation with a few months in jail, and with Huber so he could stay in high school, plus expungement. Luckily, Michael did well, and his cases were expunged. 3. State v. N. Johnson (not his last name). 2018. Very emotional juvenile case because he was to be charged with Making Terroristic Threats because he and his girlfriend made some stupid statements, with emails, while on a school trip to a Mock Trial competition, indicating a plan to commit a school shooting. The school district quickly had a meeting where, without an attorney present, the school board expelled him after 3-4 hours of testimony. First, I convinced ADA Mary Sowinski to charge him only with Disorderly Conduct to start with. Then I filed an appeal of the expulsion with the State Department of Public Instruction - the DPI overturned the expulsion due to an inadequate record of the hearing (just 4-5 sentences to summarize 3-4 hours!). As a result, Nathan was NOT expelled. Moreover, after a couple months of discussions, the ADA agreed to a Consent Decree. Thus, Nathan walked away without an expulsion or a criminal record. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: As a public defender attorney, I regularly represented clients who were incarcerated in jail because they were on probation, extended supervision or parole, but who were placed on a hold due to some allegations of violations of their rules of supervision. If the clients wished to fight the revocation, I represented them at revocation hearings before an Administrative Law Judge (AW). In my first 4-5 years as a public defender, all of the parties at these hearings were in person, but eventually video hearings became the norm. Over the years, I have probably represented clients in 70-80 of these hearings. I continue to represent clients in revocation hearings, although I am now solo practice. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). In my limited spare time, I have helped local people with completing Power of Attorney for Finance and Power of Attorney for Health Care forms, as well as simple wills. I also was a founding member of the hybrid Vilas County Circuit Court/Lac du Flambeau Tribal Court (Zaagibagaa Healing to Wellness Court) from 2011-2019. I left that court only because I was determined to start a drug court in Oneida County and didn't have the time to do both. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I have been a volunteer in Oneida County for the Democratic Party for every election since 2011. This includes for President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, Tony Evers, Tricia Zunker and all the local candidates. I continue to do so, in the form of canvassing in person or over the phone. I ran for office this year. I lost, but my Township was very red. I worked very hard, knocked on lots of doors and made tons of calls. Previous runs for public office: Oneida County Board supervisor (defeated April 2022) All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: No Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Kiwanis Club, member, 1993-1997 Northern Arts Council, board member, 1994-1998 Barron County Bar Association, secretary, 2008-2009 Walworth County Bar Association, secretary, 2009-2011 ArtStart, board member, 2013-2019 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As an attorney with the State Public Defender, I was not permitted to perform pro bono legal work. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge -- I’m a Badger. I grew up in and attended schools in Wausau from kindergarten through my freshman year in college. My undergraduate degree and law degree are from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Both of my parents graduated from UW-Madison, as did both of my siblings and both of my daughters. I’m also a Hodag. I have owned my home in Rhinelander since 1990 and both daughters attended Rhinelander schools. I supported the schools with bake sales, as a band mom and by working to get funding referenda passed. I also supported the community by joining local arts agencies, including the Northern Arts Council and ArtStart. However, once I became a lawyer, my public service increased exponentially. Specifically, since law school, I have been serving in various counties for the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD), and I have vigorously represented indigent members of various demographics for fourteen years: eleven years have been in the Oneida County SPD office. In those eleven years, I worked beside the Department of Social Services (DSS) to resolve the needs of mentally ill adults and children in guardianships, child protection cases, and commitment cases. I perform a valuable public service by working with court staff, including the District Attorney’s office and the Corporation Council’s office, to resolve cases fairly and efficiently. In addition, I have worked hand-in-hand with jail staff to meet the needs of and address issues with many inmates during my SPD tenure. Also, when I was the SPD representative on the courthouse safety committee, I was involved in evaluating security for the staff and visitors to the courthouse. This judicial position would offer an opportunity to use my expertise to expand my public service even further – from individual clients to the entire local court system. I care about the people who work in the courthouse AND the people who come before the court at difficult times, whether as defendants, parties to civil suits, victims or family members. Back in 2019, I decided to initiate a drug court in Oneida County, similar to the drug court I was involved with in Vilas County. I gathered other supporters from DSS, the probation office, the Rhinelander Police Department, the District Attorney’s office, a County Board Supervisor, and various treatment providers. Together, as a team, we put together a grant to the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI). Although neither of the judges had agreed to take part, they also hadn’t said no, and told us that they would consider it, if we were successful with our grant application. Happily, in January of 2020, we learned that our grant was approved and that NDCI trainers would be coming from all over the nation for a week in May of 2020 to set up the court and train the team. Unhappily, at that point, neither judge would agree to take part, and the grant was put on hold. Of course, the pandemic shot the whole process down. However, that group has now renewed our effort to initiate a drug court. I ask that you appoint me as judge, because I am determined that Oneida County will get its drug court. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. In March of 2005, United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the decision in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), a 5-4 decision upholding the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling that the Eighth Amendment forbade imposing the death penalty on defendants who were under the age of eighteen when the crimes were committed. Justice Kennedy wrote that sentencing such a defendant to death is unconstitutional per se under the Eighth Amendment’s rule against cruel and unusual punishments. The decision held that, because national consensus against the death penalty had changed (“evolving standards of decency”), and because the defendant’s “youth and immaturity diminishes…culpability and blameworthiness…by a substantial degree,” the State cannot extinguish a young defendant’s “life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity.” The Court was influenced by various amicus curiae briefs presenting strong scientific evidence about brain development (or lack thereof) in late adolescence impairing decision making to a high degree and reducing culpability. Although Wisconsin is not a death penalty state, this case has had a tremendous positive impact on juvenile justice in Wisconsin, and will hopefully continue to have positive in the future. Because of Roper, defense attorneys like myself have reminded judges that, no matter whether a teenager is charged as an adult – meaning the justice system is calling him “an adult” – he is still an adolescent because Roper and other subsequent cases tell us that the Constitution covers these teens under 18: they are NOT ADULTS because their brains are different. I can use expert evidence and peer-reviewed studies to explain the effects of disabilities, trauma and immaturity on a juvenile’s intent, as well as on the ability to assist counsel. This has led to courts taking more time on cases involving my clients under 18 who have committed offenses, and has prevented more of my older teen clients from being sentenced more harshly. In the bigger, statewide picture, activists are pushing to change Wisconsin law so that 17-year-olds are not automatically charged as adults (except for the most serious charges). Wisconsin is one of only three states that mandates that 17-year-olds be charged as adults! With Roper telling us that the brain of a 17-year-old is not fully formed, more recent research has led to many other states retaining such teens in the juvenile system. Using updated research, some state legislators have worked for years to bring Wisconsin into the mainstream with this issue. Other similar juvenile issues, such as ending the practice of sentencing juveniles in Wisconsin to life without parole, have been attempted (SB862 in 2021), but have been blocked by the Republican majority. However, using Roper and its progeny, hopefully these laws will ultimately pass. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: The obvious choices here, for me, would be judicial rock stars Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and/or Shirley Abrahamson because they were strong smart women who persevered and broke glass ceilings for women attorneys that followed their lead. All three then worked so hard that virtually no one today doubts the value that they brought to their respective Supreme Courts. Nonetheless, I am choosing lesser-known jurists who are closer to home. First, Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. I can relate in many ways to Justice Bradley because she was born in Richland Center and I also have family ties to Richland Center. We both had what I call “previous lifetimes” – meaning we both had prior careers before attending the University of Wisconsin Law School. I was raised in Wausau, and that is where she raised her family and started her judicial career as a Marathon County circuit court judge. She was elected to the Supreme Court in 1995 and was reelected twice, having proven herself to be an excellent jurist. I have the life experience and work ethic indicating a potential to be an excellent jurist. I appreciate that Justice Bradley also works collaboratively with other justices and entities on the national level to advance the causes of freedom and justice. In addition, we have another connection - she wrote the wonderful dissent in my In Re Tyler T. case …. When Justice Bradley, joined by Chief Justice Abrahamson, wrote her support of my appeal of Tyler (a juvenile waiver case) based on my objecting to the prosecuting attorney’s improper involvement in what should have been an independent process, she stated the “answer to this question should be a resounding ‘yes.’” Thus, even though the majority ruled otherwise, I knew that I was right. Justice Bradley has continued to work tirelessly, first with Justice Abrahamson and now, with two other moderate justices, to hold the line against the partisan elements which currently drive the Court’s decisions. I can imagine how frustrating it must be to see where the Wisconsin Supreme Court is leaning these days. On occasion, I have seen her out to dinner in Wausau, and usually I respect her privacy and say nothing. But once, I just had to step to her table and thank her for all the thankless work she does for the people of Wisconsin. I was surprised that she was SO modest, grateful and gracious, thanking me for speaking up. She deserves a medal. Second, Judge Neal A. Nielsen, III, former Vilas County Circuit Court Judge. Having appeared before many judges in my career, I found Judge Nielsen to be the epitome of justice. He is smart, determined and firm, and his legal decisions are respected. He always took his time with my clients, explaining his decisions carefully. With strong ties to his community, he is also caring and kind. What really impressed me was Judge Nielsen’s determination to engage local tribal judges and other state entities to start a hybrid tribal/circuit court drug court. Even though it took a huge effort on his part to persuade all the parties that a tribal drug court was possible, Judge Nielsen pulled everyone to the finish line through the sheer force of his will. Thanks to his determination, this court has helped tribal members work to overcome their addictions and break the cycles of dysfunction that has damaged their families for generations. He is truly inspiring. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a judge is to apply the law fairly and equally to all parties, to protect the rights of all parties, and to proceed with honesty and transparency. This requires knowledge of the law, of course. However, the relationship between the language of the law and its interpretation is often not simple or straightforward. Ideally, a judge should be detached and objective, but one’s moral presuppositions or unconscious biases are the underpinnings of each supposedly objective decision. Luckily, if a judge has ethics, an awareness of underlying biases, and a common-sense core of fairness to buttress knowledge of the law, her interpretations of the law will be valid. Because the perception of fairness is also as important as the actual fairness, a judge needs to convey an image of fairness by being equally respectful to all parties, working to move cases along efficiently, and communicating effectively and patiently. In order to communicate effectively in this era. a judge must be technologically proficient so that Zoom hearings run as smoothly as in-person hearings. And, especially at criminal hearings, a judge should limit the use of legalese and strive to speak plainly and simply so that the defendants understand when the judge explains their rights and how the cases will proceed. Ideally, in the courtroom, the judge should be able to maintain order without sacrificing compassion. The importance of maintaining professional appearances and professional communication cannot be overstated. In addition, organization is important to manage the calendar and the staff. A judge is also part of the larger courthouse team and must work with other judges, attorneys, and courthouse staff to maintain a positive, collegial relationship so as to engender a positive image with the public at large. Citizens need to feel confident that the judicial system is operating in a fair and timely fashion. As such, a judge should be willing to communicate outside of the courthouse, embracing opportunities to discuss legal issues with community leaders, community organizations and area schools. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information 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: Patricia A. Baker
Appointed to: Portage County Circuit Court Appointment date: Dec. 7, 2020 (elected to a six-year term in April 2022) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota High School – La Crosse Central High, La Crosse, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: March 2017-present – Private practice attorney, Kessler & Greer Law Office/ALR LLC, Stevens Point, Wisconsin November 2011-March 2017 – Clerk of Circuit Court, Portage County, Wisconsin December 2009-November 2011 – Assistant city attorney (part-time), Wausau, Wisconsin October 2007-November 2011 – Assistant district attorney (part-time), Waushara County, Wisconsin November 2005-December 2009 – Solo practioner, Stevens Point, Wisconsin March 2000-November 2005 – Assistant district attorney, Marathon County, Wisconsin Bar and Administrative Memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: Approximately 30 percent is CPS (child protective services) and APS (adult protective services) Chips and guardianship matters - both as adverse counsel (parents and ward) and guardian ad litem work including Protective Placement reviews and initial petition matters. Another 30 percent is representation of parties in divorces and post-judgment work. I also work as a guardian ad litem in family cases. Approximately 30 percent is representation in criminal matters: felony, misdemeanor and probation revocation. I work in four counties: Portage; Wood; Marathon and Waupaca. I have several civil matters and administrative review matters with WI. Dept of Families. I am also a Portage County Family Court mediator and conduct one to two mediations each month, as well as mediations for other types of matters. Describe typical clients: I am court-appointed in many cases however have many private clients in all of the above categories, as well. With regards to my criminal cases, I have slightly more female clients than male which is my choice. I believe that women frequently have different needs and goals in criminal court which are frequently not met by male attorneys. I also have multiple Legal Aid Society appointments where I represent indigent women in family cases. Number of cases tried to verdict: Approximately 40-50 criminal and CPS jury trials List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: 1) K. S. was a Marathon County criminal case involving a young woman who was a child sexual assault survivor and a sexual exploitation victim. Many survivors have a tumultuous experience with law enforcement, and she was no different. When I met K.S. she was in jail having been arrested for residing with a drug dealer and having distribution quantity drugs and weapons located in her home. She was held in custody on a $10,000 cash bond. Our initial meeting was 2½ hours. It was clear she had made many poor choices based on an elementary need for companionship. She and I identified a strong support network for her - however they were all located in Milwaukee. I needed to get her out of the jail and to a place where she could receive the support and accountability that would set her up for success. My client had a significant criminal record. The District Attorney was seeking a lengthy prison sentence. He was opposed to her release on bond citing potential for escape, for non-appearance, potential for new crimes etc. I also needed to convince the judge, the former District Attorney, to reverse her decision to impose a $10,000 cash bond - something wholly unobtainable for my client. We held a contested evidentiary motion hearing to modify her bond in 2019. I had multiple witnesses including the Executive Director from Lotus Legal Clinic in Milwaukee and a former Milwaukee County Family Court Commissioner testify as to the "plan" we created to support K.S, house her, and hold her accountable to the court. At the conclusion of the hearing the Judge stated that she had never reversed an order for such a large cash bond, but felt that we had put together a plan for K.S. that could be successful. The judge released K.S. on a $10,000 signature bond and she never missed another court appearance. The longer that K.S. was in the community on bond, her chances to avoid prison improved. We went back to court for her sentencing approximately ten months later. By then, she established a solid track record that supported probation with possible early termination. This was a successful outcome for me; for K.S.; but also for the criminal justice system. K.S. is actively working with other exploitation survivors now. She is not taking a bed in Taycheedah and she is contributing to her community as a citizen now. I could not be prouder of K.S. and her accomplishments since my first meeting with her in the Marathon County Jail. 2) K.F. is a woman with a four-year-old daughter who was a product of an unprovable sexual assault. K.F. is indigent and did not have an attorney to defend against the challenge the biological father mounted against K.F.'s "good cause finding" to not reveal the identity of the father in the child support agency. Once he found out through various small-town contacts that K.F. had given birth to his child he began using the legal system to harass her. He filed motion after motion badgering her into agreeing to a minimal placement order with the child. He continued with threats to take the child away from K.F. completely and permanently. The Guardian ad litem in the matter contacted me and asked if l would consider representing K.F. through the Portage County Legal Aid Society. I agreed to do so. In the first hearing (November 2017) we were able to minimize the father's contact with the child until a variety of requirements were met, e.g. psychological evaluations and counseling. Since that time, we have held thirteen evidentiary hearings that have involved every family court challenge imaginable. We have involved Child Protective Services, restraining orders, multiple levels of law enforcement, multiple psychological professionals, and multiple medical professionals throughout these contested hearings. The father was ultimately diagnosed with significant psychological disorders that explain the ferocity of his legal demands in these proceedings. We also learned through a lengthy background investigation that the man left a trail of criminal convictions and unseemly activity in the state in which he had previously resided. We do not yet have a final order in the matter but we have achieved sole legal custody for K.F. as well as primary physical placement and a variety of rules that protect the child and mother. The case is set for the fourteenth evidentiary hearing in the near future. This case has been significant for me as this woman could have lost all rights to her only child but for my actions stepping in to give her a voice against a violent and abusive perpetrator. This case continues today, and I look forward to continuing to ensure that K.F. retains custody and primary placement of this child. 3) I recently represented a severely autistic 37 year old man who is the object of a guardianship and protective placement. During my annual review of his case his guardian told me that he would like to have his right to vote reinstated. The man has been institutionalized his entire life. I met with him and conducted my own evaluation of his ability to comprehend the election process. After seeing his ability to communicate using a physical aid it was clear he was well-informed and capable of making an informed decision in the ballot box, with the use of an aid. I filed a petition on his behalf; we participated in a contested hearing as to his abilities and the court agreed that he was certainly intelligent, informed, and was worthy of regaining this constitutional right that had been removed 20 years earlier. The man and his family were elated that I was able to see past his disability and use the law to regain a cherished constitutional right. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: I represented E. B. in multiple felony forgery and fraud charges. She was an accomplished Nursing Assistant and had begun taking classes to become an R.N. With the felony charges, she had her name added to the "Caregiver Misconduct" registry. We appealed the decision and I negotiated a settlement with the WI Dept. of Families whereby her name would be removed after one year. I also contested a second "caregiver misconduct" registry case for a daycare owner. We went to a contested hearing and won. Her day care is now open and providing care to children today. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). I have participated in ADR [Alternative Dispute Resolution] training through Marquette University (1997 through 1999) and have also recently taken the University of Wisconsin Divorce and Family Mediation Training. I mediate approximately 1 to 2 family law matters every month for the Portage County Family Court Commissioner. The statutes limit us to mediating only custody and placement issues for the county. I have also been retained privately to mediate guardianships and other family matters. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Treasurer, Veronica Isherwood for Portage County District Attorney (when she ran as a Democrat, unsuccessful) Previous appointments and runs for public office: Portage County Circuit Court, 2016 (lost in general election) Village of Park Ridge trustee and president, 2012-2018 (appointed and then elected) Stevens Point Area Public School District, 2014-2020 (won elections) Portage County clerk of circuit court, 2011-2017 (appointed and then elected) All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Susan Happ, Wisconsin attorney general, 2014 Joanne Kloppenburg, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2011 Rebecca Dallet, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2018 Jill Karofsky, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 2020 Katrina Shankland, Wisconsin Assembly, various Julie Lassa, Wisconsin State Senate, various Paul Piotrowski, Wisconsin State Senate, currently Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Portage County Bar Association, 1998-present; officer 2013-2016, including as president Rotary of Greater Portage County, 2012-present, including as president Community Foundation of Central Wisconsin, 2014-2020, including as president Mid-State Independent Living Choices Inc., 2012-present, including as director and president Wisconsin State Bar, Bar Relations committee, 2017-present Wisconsin Judicare, Inc., director, 2017-present Friends of Emerson Park, member, 2019-2020 Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As listed … above, I have represented K.F. as a Portage County Legal Aid case since November 2017. I have logged nearly 200 hours of pro bono representation in her matter. (I have also paid for countless documents; certifications and subpoenas in her case, as I know she is unable to pay for these things). Recently, a social worker called me and asked me to represent another young woman with an autistic child in a domestic abuse restraining order hearing to protect her and the child. I asked that the woman see if she qualified for Portage County Legal Aid Society representation and if yes, would handle the restraining order matter. She qualified. There was also an on-going CPS matter and the family court order needed to be modified. We held multiple evidentiary hearings to ensure that she and the child were protected from her abusive former boyfriend. I represented her in a day-long trial in her post-judgment family court matter, as well as the restraining order. We successfully changed custody and placement in the family matter and obtained an injunction which provided the protection my client and her vulnerable child needed. I volunteered at a State Bar of Wisconsin "Wills for Heros" clinic for the Wausau Police Department in 2018. I saw what a terrific program it is and decided to organize a clinic in Portage County with the Bar Association. We held it in 2019 serving 40 police officers. I have attempted to organize a second clinic, however have been unable due to the pandemic. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge -- My greatest passion as a lawyer has been to represent those who might not have a voice in our justice system: the vulnerable child, an intimidated victim, or a senior who can no longer speak. It has been fulfilling to me to represent the State in criminal cases where justice was achieved for a victim; rehabilitation obtained for an addict, or expungement for a deserving teen. In every case, I advocate for the best result possible using the many tools that the justice system offers. I have had a unique and varied legal path. Law was a second career for me, attending Madison while pregnant with my first and second children. In addition to being a lawyer, I have been a stay-at-home mom, a co-parent in a divorce, served as Clerk of Circuit Court and been a long-time school board member. I have been so much more than just a lawyer. Every position: prosecutor, defense attorney, guardian ad litem, Asst. City Attorney, and Clerk of Court has given me a unique perspective and a broader understanding of our complex justice system. It has also given me an opportunity to learn how the systems work and the tools that each area offers. Attending law school was a privilege for me. I was the first person in our family to attend college. I can see the rungs on the ladder that were extended for me. My goal has always been to improve the lives of all I touch and to repay the opportunities that were given to me. In every position I have held, I have worked to uphold our legal institutions by treating all people with respect and dignity. It is vital to understand that the litigants that enter the system might be dealing with one of their worst moments of their life; a divorce, an eviction, or addressing a crime. The integrity of our legal system depends squarely on the integrity and empathy of the judges running those courts. It also relies on the judge appreciating that this case might be the most important moment in this litigant's life. This requires listening, humility, and empathy; qualities that I have always strived to demonstrate. We must also acknowledge that our courts are at a crossroads: we have never had so many pro se litigants; our systems are being scrutinized for its treatment of people of color, and how it interfaces with law enforcement; we are using electronic technology in court hearings that lowers the decorum and perception of the courts. These issues must be addressed. My varied background gives me unique tools to understand and work towards resolution. I embrace the challenges these issues present. My career path has been unique and varied; I have always tried to see the glass half-full, and I have embraced opportunities for improvement. Should I be appointed, I would bring all these life experiences to the bench. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. As a three-term member of the Stevens Point Board of Education, for me the case that has demonstrated a significant impact to residents of Wisconsin is Davis v Grover 166 Wis. 2nd 501, 480 N.W. 2d 460 (1992). In the late 1980's then Governor Tommy Thompson advocated for a parental choice program to allow the State of Wisconsin to send taxpayer money to private schools to educate children. The first program was the Milwaukee Public Choice Program (MPCP) and was authorized as part of the budget bill in 1989. Actions by Superintendent of Public Instruction, Herbert J. Grover, caused a school parent Lanzetta Davis, and her daughter to challenge. The issues presented to the court were regarding the constitutionality of how the bill was enacted; the uniform district school clause and whether the classification of the bill, applying only to residents of a "first class city" was a violation of the Wisconsin Constitution, Sect. IV, Art. 18. The Supreme Court, by a five to four majority ruled that the process by which the bill was created was constitutional and that the "first class city" classification was likewise constitutional. This despite only being available to "Milwaukee" residents. The Supreme Court found that how the legislation was enacted - as part of the budget bill, to be constitutional. While they discussed the substantive issues of poverty in the City of Milwaukee that brought about the need for reform, the reality is those comments were nothing more than windowdressing for their analysis of whether the bill was a violation of the constitution. Additionally, while they stated a controversial bill should be vigorously debated in both houses of the legislature, only the dissent points out the lack of such a debate in the full senate. The Supreme Court provided a defense of the goals of the program stating reform was necessary due to the "monumentally oppressive poverty problems as found in first class cities...". However, this was nothing more than dicta, as the real issue before them was the process by which the bill was passed - as part of the budget. Once this method of passing school legislation (via the budget) was deemed constitutional, it created a gateway for subsequent legislation which allowed religious schools to receive funding via the choice program in 1994. It also set the stage for the dramatic statewide expansion of school choice throughout Wisconsin in 2011. Today the State spends over $145 million on private school vouchers annually and every dollar is taken from the local public school district. The majority created a precedent which justified this process of enacting controversial legislation. The precedent has affected local school districts across the state since its decision. The result of this decision by the Supreme Court has impacted the delivery of education to generations of Wisconsin schoolchildren. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: While I have worked with many wonderful judges these three stand out in my personal experience: Hon. Jill Falstad, Circuit Court Branch 1, Marathon County I worked with Judge Jill Falstad when she was District Attorney for Marathon County. I can state unequivocally that she was my mentor and the person that instilled in me my work ethic. When people state that I am thorough and well-prepared, the credit all goes to Judge Falstad. We co-counseled multiple jury trials in which I learned the benefit of preparation. Additionally, she has always pursued justice with a passion and done "the right thing" even when that meant doing the most difficult thing. We once disagreed on a disposition in a domestic abuse homicide. While we disagreed, she displayed a remarkable sense of compassion and never swayed from seeking justice in the case. When District Attorney Falstad ascended to the bench in Marathon County, I knew she would take that work ethic, her dogged pursuit of justice, and deep compassion with her. While she turned out to be a tough sentencing judge, my clients who appeared in her court were always treated with respect, dignity, and listened to thoughtfully. If I am appointed to the bench I will aspire to be as thorough, as thoughtful, and as compassionate as her. Hon. Gregory Grau: Circuit Court Branch 4, Marathon County I had the good fortune of trying multiple jury trials in front of Judge Grau when I worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Marathon County. I have chosen Judge Grau because he pushed me to "find the authority" for every decision. I recall my law professors telling us to always look to the statutes. I received the same admonition from Judge Grau asking "what is your authority for that?" countless times. A good judge listens but also demands preparation and a solid footing upon which decisions are to be made. Judge Grau was that judge - demanding the best from those appearing in front of him. He pushed me to reach farther, work harder, and always know the authority for which I made my requests. He was an outstanding role model. Hon. Frederic Fleishauer: Circuit Court Branch 1, Portage County I appeared before Judge Fleishauer more times than I can count. He was always thoroughly versed in the statutes and case law and an excellent jurist. However, I am listing him here because of my admiration for his leadership in our community. Judge Fleishauer advocated tirelessly for thoughtful problem-solving in the justice system. He was the catalyst for the creation of the Portage County Justice Coalition more than twenty years ago; our pre-trial supervision program for OWI offenders; and a private organization (Justiceworks Ltd.) to provide mentors and other alternative programs in the criminal justice system. He was deeply involved in our community, a true advocate for justice, and embodied the role of leader of the Portage County Justice system. The proper role of a judge: A Circuit Court Judge is a leader in the county justice system, a role model and moral compass for a community. In the courtroom the judge needs to exhibit decorum but also listen carefully to all parties. Respect for all people in the courtroom is essential. Most people will enter a courtroom only once or twice in their lifetimes. It may be one of the most difficult moments in that person's life. A judge must remember that while day-to-day hearings might become rote and routine, for the person seated in front of them, this might be the most critical moment of their life. A judge must give that interaction the great weight such an encounter deserves. The court must base its rulings on the proper authority, be it statutes or case law. A judge must be prepared and well-versed in the applicable statutes and case law. A Circuit Court judge does not make law, but rather applies existing law to the situation before it, even when the judge may not agree with the applicable law. When a judge rules, they should clearly explain the basis upon which they are relying. A recitation of the relevant facts is essential to understand why the judge ruled the way they did. A Circuit Court judge respects the role of the jury as the finder-of-fact and equally respects the constitutional role of jurors in the justice process. It is important for the judge to be perceived by all as fair and impartial in all matters. When there is a perception that it might not be possible to appear to be fair and impartial, the judge must be prepared to recuse him or herself and allow another court to handle the matter. A judge realizes the power of their words - they can encourage a defendant to improve themselves, speak to divorcing parents about the value of co-parenting and mutual respect, or motivate a litigant toward rehabilitation. The role of the judge in treatment or alternative rehabilitation programs is monumental. The judge can empathize with a defendant, inspire, motivate, or buoy up a relapsed defendant. As a team member for treatment courts, the judge bears the ultimate responsibility when a defendant fails and needs consequences or to be expelled from the program. Outside of the courtroom the judge is a community leader and the face of the county justice system. The judge must be able to turn a blind eye to criticisms for unpopular rulings. The judge's personal life is on display, as well. Actions by the judge and his or her family in the community must be beyond reproach. A judge should consider themselves a role model for good citizenship. Lastly, the role of the judge is to be an ambassador for the justice system. A judge listens, and cares deeply for the integrity of the justice system. A good judge imbues respect in all ways for our constitutional form of government. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information 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: LaKeisha D. Haase
Appointed to: Winnebago County Circuit Court Appointment date: Dec. 7, 2020 (defeated in April 2022 election) Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Oshkosh High School – Franklin High, Franklin, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: February 2019-present – Associate attorney, paralegal supervisor, Hogan Eickhoff, S.C., Appleton, Wisconsin September 2011-January 2019 – Assistant state public defender, Office of State Public Defender, Appleton, Wisconsin Bar and Administrative Memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court General character of practice: The general character of my current practice consists of Family Law - pre and post-disposition; criminal defense to include minor traffic offenses through Class A felonies, revocation proceedings before Administrative Law Judges; CHIPs proceedings where I represent both parents and children; Termination of Parental Rights proceedings representing both children and parents; Civil Litigation limited to Injunction Proceedings; Chapter 51 Commitments; and Chapter 54 and 55 proceedings. Number of cases tried to verdict: 4 List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: Injunction proceeding in Manitowoc County before Court Commissioner Charles Wingrove - the petitioner - wife alleged that my client, the respondent - spouse, sexually assaulted her throughout the court of the relationship and petitioned the court for an injunction. My client had a prior sexual assault conviction and was a registered sex offender. I obtained text messages between the parties. I was able to illicit testimony at the proceeding proving that the petitioner created the allegations due to infidelity and my client choosing to leave the marriage. My client was afraid that the injunction would jeopardize his placement with his children in the subsequent divorce proceedings. My client was fearful of testifying due to his past convictions. I spent a significant amount of time preparing my client for testimony. The petition for injunction was denied. Following the hearing, the clerk ran after me to not only congratulate me but inform me that throughout the proceeding she was messaging other clerks about the hearing because she was impressed with my preparation and professionalism. She also informed me that the court commissioner is rarely impressed by any counsel and responded positively to my representation of counsel, my professionalism, and preparedness. She then urged me to take more cases in Manitowoc County. 2nd degree and 3rd degree sexual assault in Brown County before the Honorable Donald Zuidmuilder …. The state alleged that my client sexually assaulted his family friend after a night out of drinking at a concert. The state moved to admit other acts. Specifically, the state wanted to admit evidence of the client grabbing another individual's breast years earlier in Michigan. As co-counsel for the client, a police officer, I drafted the objection for other acts. My primary role as co-counsel was to cross-examine the alleged victim at trial. My objection to the state's motion for other acts was successful and the court denied the state's motion. In preparation for trial, I reviewed the text message exchanges between the alleged victim and her husband which led to defense preparing to present additional motions to include the exchanges at trial. The state eventually dismissed the case, I believe, in part on the strong defense presented during pretrial hearings and telephone conferences with the state. Unfortunately, the state did refile the case later. I am co-counsel to a client on a 1st Degree Intentional Homicide charge in Outagamie County before the Honorable Gregory B. Gill, Jr. … I am the eighth attorney that has been appointed and the only attorney that has not been fired by the client. This case has been scheduled for trial on three separate occasions and the adjournments have not been due to defense counsel. My involvement in this case is significant because of my commitment to representing people of color, specifically, black men that are incarcerated in smaller counties in Wisconsin on higher level offenses. I am aware of the lack of legal representation from attorney's of color in the State of Wisconsin and I am all to familiar with the desire of clients to trust the judicial system even if it is a small fraction by way of their counsel. This client has expressed his appreciation of having an attorney of color represent him, an attorney that understands the cultural differences and dynamics that are important for him. My representation of this client has been nothing short of zealous advocacy but I also developed a relationship with him that is built on likeness and understanding that prior counsel could never provide. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: While employed with the Office of the State Public Defender I represented defendant's in revocation proceedings. As an Assistant State Public Defender, I represented countless clients in revocation proceedings. In private practice, I continue to represent clients at revocation proceedings, I have represented four clients in revocation proceedings while in private practice; three of which I was successful in avoiding revocation and one was a waiver of right to a revocation hearing. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation). Outagamie County Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Court (DATC) - As defense counsel team member, I was an integral part of the Drug Court team, I participated in pre-court staffings, hearings, team communication and decision making, information sharing, and team training. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: N/A Previous runs for public office: N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: N/A Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Women in Management, 2020 to present Wisconsin Association of African American Lawyers, 2011 to present Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, 2019 to present National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, 2020 to present Winnebago County Bar Association, 2019 to present Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: As an Assistant State Public Defender I was restricted from practicing or volunteering in any legal capacity outside of the agency. As an Assistant State Public Defender, I was a member of the Affirmative Action Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Committee, the Outagamie County Coordinating Counsel Committee, the Outagamie County Racial Disparity Committee, and the Outagamie County Evidence Based Decision Making Committee. As a student at Marquette University Law School, I volunteered at the Family Law Clinic, Small Claims Clinic, and the Pro Bono Legal Clinic. Prior to law school and while an employee at the Winnebago County Courthouse, I volunteered at the Legal Self Help Clinic and the Drunk Driving Victim Impact Panel. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I want to serve the people of Wisconsin as a Judge because I believe in the need to have a fair and impartial judiciary. I believe that a fair and impartial judiciary must be made up of individuals who are educated, compassionate, and diverse. I have practiced in the State of Wisconsin for over 9 years. I have approached every case and client with professionalism and respect. I have used my voice and position as an attorney as both learning and teachable moments. I have spent countless hours in the courtroom. I have practiced before Judges in over 12 different counties. I know that every person, is deserving of respect. I want to serve the people of Wisconsin, as Circuit Court Judge, for the same reasons that I chose to become an attorney, and that is to have a lasting impact on people, regardless of the case, the litigant, or the party. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin. Although, there are many cases that have had an impact, whether negative, on positive, on Wisconsin citizens, Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee greatly impacted the citizens of Wisconsin. The 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court, has allowed for a minute fraction of residents to have an overwhelming, bull-horn, influence in elections while essentially muting the microphone of Wisconsin citizens as it relates to local politics and issues specific to Wisconsin residents. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: One Judge that I admire is Retired Judge Thomas Gritton, Winnebago County. I had the pleasure to work for Judge Gritton as his court assistant. As a former prosecutor, Judge Gritton was committed to educating himself on all areas of the law to make an informed and impartial decision in every case before him. I was able to witness firsthand the respect he gave every person, regardless of the case, that entered his courtroom. I had a front row seat to the decisions he had to make and the thought that he put into each case whether it was a civil matter, criminal, family, or a minor traffic offense. The cases and tough decisions were at times difficult for him, yet he never treated, even the simplest of cases, as though the parties were not impacted by the justice system and ultimately impacted by him. Judge Gritton’s time on the bench was never about just getting cases through the system. I vividly recall walking through the doors of the Winnebago County Courthouse with Judge Gritton one afternoon when a woman walked up to him, calling out his name. She reminded him of her criminal case and sentence; it was a prison sentence and the first and only time she was sentenced to prison. To my surprise, she thanked him. She thanked him for the words at her hearing and thanked him for sending her to prison. She expressed that admittedly when he sentenced her, she was angry and upset. She went on to tell him that over time she thought about what he told her and was determined to turn her life. In addition to Judge Gritton, there are many other Judges and Justices that I admire, but a true standout is Justice Sonia Sotomayor. As a Justice, even when she is not a part of the majority, she speaks up. Her dissents as it relates to race, gender, criminal justice reform and discrimination are powerful, moving, and educational. Her reputation of extending kindness and respect to parties is well known. The proper role of a judge: The proper role of a Judge is to be a courtroom administrator. A judge is to interpret the law while apply the laws to the facts of a case while remaining impartial. A judge must be fully prepared to rule on matters, listen intently, and do the necessary work to lead to an informed, educated, and impartial decision. A judge has a duty to every person that enters the courtroom to treat them with respect, show dignity, and rule according to the law. A Judge must bring respect and dignity to the bench. A judge must learn and teach. I previously spoke of teachable moments, but it is clear that a judge has a duty to the community to teach and inform of those areas of the law that impacts the community. "Evers' judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Tony Evers' appointees to the bench. The information 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: Tricia L. Walker
Appointed to: Fond du Lac County Circuit Court Appointment date: Nov. 24, 2020 (elected to a six-year term in April 2022) Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Platteville High School – Northern Ozaukee High, Fredonia, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: July 2010-present – Attorney/owner, Law Office of Tricia L. Walker, LLC, Campbellsport, Wisconsin January 2010-June 2014 – Adjunct professor, Bryant and Stratton College, Madison, Wisconsin August 2010-January 2011 – Adjunct professor, Northeastern Wisconsin Technical College, Platteville, Wisconsin August 2010-January 2011 – Adjunct professor, Fox Valley Technical College, Appleton, Wisconsin February 2010-June 2010 – Associate attorney, Mum and Martin, SC, Waukesha, Wisconsin September 2009-December 2009 – Attorney, Friends of Abused Families, West Bend, Wisconsin June 2006-August 2009 – Associate attorney, Dahlberg Przybyla Law, Jackson, Wisconsin Bar and Administrative Memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin General character of practice: I am a solo practitioner. I handle the practice areas of criminal defense, family law, basic estate planning, CHIPS, restraining orders, guardianship, small claims, evictions and Guardian ad Litem. I have previously worked on matters including personal injury, contract, intentional torts, life insurance, business and LLC organization, general business law and pharmacuetical legal work. Describe typical clients: I work with a variety of people due to the diverse nature of my practice. My focus areas are criminal defense, CHIPS, family law and guardian ad. litem work. I work with everyone from children to prisoners. I am particularly well known as a guardian ad litem for Fond du Lac County due to my thorough work in this area. Number of cases tried to verdict: 13 (approximate) List up to three significant trials, appeals, or other legal matters in which you participated as a judge or lawyer in the past seven years: The trial case that stands out to me is In RE the marriage of [redacted] (it is sealed on CCAP by order of the court) …. I became attorney of record on 10/10/2014 and my most recent appearance occurred in 2019. I remain attorney of record in this matter. The original trial was bifurcated; the issues surrounding the children were heard on April 9, 2015 and the issues surrounding finances were heard on June 24, 2015. I became involved in this matter as a pro bono appointment through Legal Action of Wisconsin. I took this case on due to the husband's severe level of abuse towards both the wife and the minor children. My client was … a lovely person who is one of many people who have managed to escape an abusive marriage. Her bravery in facing a man who had beaten her and her children is both heartbreaking and inspiring. This case is significant because her case is the worst level of child abuse I have ever had to work on. I also handled it while pregnant and I had to fight to remain on the case due to a disagreement with the judge on how my pregnancy would affect the scheduling of the case. Experience in adversary proceedings before administrative bodies: My primary experience with administrative work is as a defense counsel for revocation of probation matters and OWI administrative suspension. I have handled dozens of revocations, whether we go to a full hearing or if we manage to resolve prior to a hearing. I have handled a few OWI administrative suspension hearings. The limited amount of OWI administrative hearings is due to the short time limits on the same. Describe your non-litigation experience (e.g., arbitration, mediation): I have participated in mediations as a family law attorney and a GAL for the minor children on multiple occassions. I represented parties in a number of mediations when I practiced personal injury law. I handled one case as an attorney mediator for a divorce. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None Previous runs for public office: None All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Michael Kenitz, Circuit Court judge, 2020 Professional or civic and charitable organizations: Mahala’s Hope (substance abuse facility), board member, August 2020-present Campbellsport Theater, board member, 2009-present Campbellsport Library, board member and treasurer, 2011-2018 Peace United Church of Christ, member and service on committees, 2014-present at various points Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: I volunteer at the family law legal clinic in Fond du Lac, which is a monthly clinic. I volunteer approximately three times per year. During this volunteer work, I give general advice and help direct pro se litigants to the correct paperwork for their matter. I have also worked with Legal Action through their referral service. As a private attorney, I have viewed it as my duty to take lower financial value cases, such as State Public Defender appointments and participation in the modest means program through the Wisconsin State Bar. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: I wish to serve as a Fond du Lac County Circuit Court Judge because I bring a wide knowledge base due to my practice of law that will positively serve both the community and litigants. I also believe that my diversity in both life and legal experience brings a different viewpoint to the bench. Our courts are currently filled with judges who have had very similar life experiences. This is even truer in rural Wisconsin. As an attorney, I know what it’s like to be the only person in the room that looks like me. I have been mistaken for a court reporter, client or interpreter over the years, despite carrying my briefcase filled with legal files and being appropriately attired at courthouse. I have spoken English to an attorney only to receive the short retort that he “does not speak Spanish” (which is probably weirder since I am Asian). I have experienced discrimination in its most blatant and insidious forms. One might ask why does diversity matter on the bench? It matters in all the ways representation matters. When we help amplify voices for people from differing backgrounds, we help achieve justice through understanding and compassion. People from differing backgrounds bring a varied insight to the bench that can lead to a positive public enrichment. It means that I also recognize discrimination from my seat and that I would do my very best to make sure that our judicial system will not tolerate injustice. It means that I would want to make sure that every voice has an opportunity to be heard in the courtroom. I wish to elevate to being a judge so I may run a fair bench with an academic approach to deciding matters. I am a former adjunct lecturer and the daughter of two educators who taught me to carefully explain and defend my positions. I will be the teacher’s child even on the bench. This means I will speak carefully and plainly to litigants without condescension or careless words. We have all had amazing educators in our lives and the best teachers rarely had to yell to get their point across. I would bring that type of academic approach to the bench. I would require litigants and attorneys to engage in respectful discourse. I would be properly prepared for court. I would remain open to learning new areas and expanding my knowledge base. I want to be a judge who makes careful decisions based on the legal record. I want to continue the local drug court program, which is in jeopardy of being eliminated if the new judge will not continue it. I simply believe we cannot incarcerate addiction out of people and that if a person can endure the rigors of drug court then they have a better chance of success in sobriety. I want to be a judge because I believe that I can do the job well. Describe which case in the past 25 years by the Wisconsin Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court you believe had a significant positive or negative impact on the people of Wisconsin: The case I feel that had the most positive affect on the people of Wisconsin is Obergefell vs. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). As the panel and Governor Evers will know, this is the case that determined that same sex marriage is legal in all fifty states. Marriage equality has long reaching legal ramifications. Obergefell had the impact of legitimizing thousands of same sex unions. The majority decision noted that “[n]o union is more profound than marriage” and the litigants simply asked for “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.” The impact of this decision resonated in an immediate change of legal issues within family law, estate planning, adoption, foster care, and health care law. As an attorney who has addressed family law issues and estate planning, this had an obvious effect on my clients and their lives. It also had an effect on criminal matters where domestic violence victims in a same sex relationship were now mandated to be treated with equality instead of derision by some courts. Prior to Obergefell, we were treating LGTBQ Americans as second-class citizens. It was the “separate but equal” for a new millennium with an appalling Plessy v. Ferguson sensation to it. With the patchwork quilt of states determining that a marriage will not be recognized in State A but recognized in State B and other states recognizing civil unions but not marriage, we created a shocking and dehumanizing standard in our country. Wisconsin was part of that legacy as we did not recognize same sex marriage. More than that, Obergefell is a case that amplified the holding in Loving v. Virginia. Without the holding in Loving, my own life would be very different. I would not be married to my husband and I would not be the mother of three biracial children. I see how Obergefell will affect my children’s generation through my own experience. Obergefell is not safe from attack. As recently shown in the dissents by Justice Thomas and Alito in the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the Kim Davis appeal, there are justices that wish to scale back equality. As Americans and as people who should care for each other, we should be judged on how we treat people who hold different principles and life experiences. We should not view that our experiences are the only ones with value. It is only when we can recognize that all people deserve equality under the law that we are truly a country that lives up to the premise that all people are created equal. Obergefell is a case that touches us all because equality in the law touches us all. Two or three judges whom I admire and why: The obvious answer is that we all stand on the shoulders of the notorious RBG. She helped women open the door to equality. I adore her ability to reach across the political aisle to befriend Antonin Scalia, which caused RBG to sharpen her own dissents. There are so many accolades that could be heaped upon her that I could not possibly stay within the word limit and therefore I shall simply state it is an honor to walk the path she helped forge for all people. I also admire Judge Jean DiMotto, judge emeritus from Milwaukee County. When I was a young attorney, fresh out of law school, I had the privilege of being in her court. The hearing would now be a cake walk, but at the time I’m sure I was slightly terrified. When we were done with our hearing, she took me into chambers. She welcomed me to the profession and kindly engaged me in a lively discussion. She discussed her own experiences as both a woman and an attorney and how it affected her career. In short, she took the time to explain to a baby attorney that we have all been there. In her time on the bench, I saw the same person who brought a sense of warmth and understanding. Her character shone through both on and off the bench. I followed her blog when she was undergoing chemotherapy and her eloquence continued with a self-deprecating fighting spirit. I found her to be a wonderfully effective judge and a person who deserves my utmost respect. I am simply sad that I did not appear in front of her more often. I have an enduring admiration for Justice Sonia Sotomayer. She’s a person who will never tone back her true self for policy or appearance. As the first Latina on the Supreme Court, she has adopted retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s pet project of civics education. She goes beyond the standard law school visits and takes the time to even visit elementary schools. This is a beautiful way to engage the average person in a discourse on important issues. Her background as an educator provides her with insight on direct engagement with the public and introduces these foundational ideas to possible future litigators and future decisionmakers. I prefer her “of the people touch” to an ivory tower mentality. I believe that judges best serve our public when they do not forget what the average person comprehends and would interpret the law. While I don’t always agree with the “hot bench” mentality she brings forth, I appreciate that the best judges ask insightful questions and forces the litigants and attorneys to be properly prepared. I think she has more than earned my respect through her rigorous defense of the Fourth Amendment. She and Justice Gorsuch often join forces to address Fourth Amendment issues. This is important because it shows that our Constitution is not for playing politics but for enforcing protections provided to all people within our borders. The proper role of a judge: A judge is to be physical manifestation of justice in a courtroom. It is his/her/their job to establish order, maintain procedure, determine evidentiary propriety and weigh the standards of each case. A judge should take the time to be properly prepared. This can mean requiring information prior to hearings or at minimum reviewing the court record/filings prior to a hearing. No one should have to endure the judge who is first reading the filings while seated at the bench. A judge should not unreasonably delay decisions. People need finality and the legal process is expensive for most people. A judge should be wary of even the appearance of impropriety. It is incumbent upon judges to enter the courtroom with an open mind and a listening ear. A judge should treat all with respect. A circuit court judge sets the tone for all following hearings and should be aware that the decisions of the court affect individuals directly and can bend the course of an individual’s life. A judge should be compassionate. This is not to say lenient but rather to be conscious of the distress that a decision can render towards litigants. I have been in front of judges who can send a person to prison with compassion. I have been in front of judges who feel that screaming about a minor infraction is a worthwhile venture. I think a judge should reserve harsh words for the litigant who will not respond to any other method. I think a judge should remember that the strict rules and procedures still have a human element to it. I do not think that a judge should treat litigants or attorneys with disdain over human conditions. A judge is bound by the laws and the precedents and should view cases through that lens. It is particularly important that a judge adheres to those requirements to make a proper record to avoid appellate congestion. A judge who disregards the law does no one any justice or civil service. I believe that attorneys who have spent time doing litigation will best understand that a judge should take the time to explain the reasoning for each decision. It creates the best record but more importantly, it helps the litigants understand the decision and feel heard. Many litigants will never return to court and this is the only impression they will have of our justice system. A litigant should walk away from the court feeling that a judge understood the facts even if he/she/they disagreed on the application of those facts to the law. I believe that where a judge engages in this behavior, the litigants and attorneys walk away with a more thorough understanding of the experience. In short, a judge will be the line of defense to prevent an unjust result. A judge should be mindful of this great honor and utilize his/her/their words carefully to provide for a proper functioning courtroom. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed