|
By Margo Kirchner As reported by WJI in its "Walker's judges" post on Brad Schimel and by various reporters in late 2018, no formal written application from Schimel appears to exist regarding his 2018 appointment as Waukesha County Circuit Court judge. But even outside of a formal application, written records regarding his appointment are scarce. A recent public records request by Wisconsin Justice Initiative sought copies of Schimel's application and the applications of all finalists for the position. The documents provided by the governor's office in response contained no written application from Schimel but did contain his recommendations of four others for the position. WJI's public records request also asked the governor's office for copies of any records, including emails and other correspondence, between Schimel and then-Gov. Scott Walker or his staff regarding the appointment. WJI received one page of records in response to that portion of its requests, with just the few lines of text messages shown in the image below. Paul Connell was the deputy attorney general under Schimel and Katie Ignatowski was Walker's chief legal counsel in November 2018.  That's it. That appears to be the whole written record preceding Schimel's judicial appointment.
Schimel had lost his statewide reelection campaign for attorney general on Nov. 6, 2018. Walker announced Schimel's appointment as judge on Nov. 20, 2018.
0 Comments
"Walker's judges" is an effort to present information about former Gov. Scott Walker's appointees to the bench. Since the election of Gov. Tony Evers, WJI has focused on "Evers' judges." However, from time to time WJI posts "Walker's judges" columns for those who still serve on the bench. Brad Schimel was Wisconsin's attorney general when he was appointed by Walker to the Waukesha County Circuit Court in November 2018, just days after Schimel lost reelection on November 6, 2018. Usually, the information for "Walker's judges" and "Evers' judges" columns comes from the person's written application to the governor, but in Schimel's case there appears to be no such application.  Name: Brad D. Schimel
Appointed to: Waukesha County Circuit Court Appointment date: Nov. 20, 2018, to term ending July 31, 2018 (elected to a six-year term in April 2019) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin–Madison Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee The Waukesha County Circuit Court website contains the following biography for Schimel: "Brad Schimel grew up in the Town of Vernon and graduated Mukwonago High School. He attended UW Waukesha for 2 years and then finished his Bachelor Degree at UW Milwaukee. He began his career in the Waukesha County Courthouse as an intern in the DA's Office in 1989, and after graduating UW Law School in 1990, was hired as an Assistant DA. He served as an Assistant DA until he was elected Waukesha County District Attorney in 2006 and was twice reelected as DA. He left the courthouse in 2015 after being elected Wisconsin Attorney General. Brad and his family stayed here in Waukesha County, and he returned to the courthouse as a Circuit Court Judge presiding over Br. 6 in January, 2019." Schimel's appointment was unusual in that he likely did not apply for the job in writing. As reported in late 2018, and confirmed by the results of a recent open records request by Wisconsin Justice Initiative seeking copies of Schimel's application and the applications of all finalists for the position, no written application from Schimel appears to exist. A press release from Sept. 13, 2018, set an application deadline of Oct. 5, 2018, for the position. Applicants were to submit a cover letter, resume, completed judicial application form, and two writing samples. In a letter dated Dec. 21, 2018, to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Patrick Marley in response to an open records request made earlier that month, Nicholas J. Korger, assistant legal counsel in Walker's office, stated that "(t)here were 14 applicants for the Waukesha County judicial vacancy and a group of 6 'final candidates' . . . . The group of final candidates consisted of the following applicants: Paul Dedinsky, David Maas, Jack Melvin, Brad Schimel, Sara Scullen, and Katherine Spitz." Documents included with the letter to Marley, and recently received by WJI in response to its more recent open records request, total more than 1,000 pages. They include applications from the other five finalists, but not from Schimel. In fact, included in the records are four recommendations that Schimel wrote for other individuals seeking the job: Mass, Melvin, Matthew Fernholz, and Sarah Ponath. The four recommendations were made in separate emails to Walker's judicial appointment inbox all dated Oct. 4, 2018, within 30 minutes of each other. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner Gov. Tony Evers has appointed significantly more women and people of color as judges than his predecessor did, shifting the makeup of Wisconsin’s judiciary. Of Evers’ 66 judicial appointments through 2024, 25 (38%) are persons of color and 36 (55%) are women. Among the appointments are Black, Indigenous, Latin, and Asian individuals. Evers’ appointments seem to show a concerted effort to provide litigants with state judges who are more representative of the state’s overall demographics than was previously the case. To achieve a more diverse bench, Evers in 2019 created a diverse Judicial Selection Advisory Committee, responsible for interviewing and recommending candidates for him to consider when he fills vacancies. Evers placed individuals from different backgrounds on the selection committee. Committee member Craig Mastantuono recently told WJI that Evers joined the committee at its first meeting and told them that judicial appointments were not to be rewards for donors or the politically connected. “I really think that says something about this governor,” he said. “It was very important to the governor to achieve a higher level of competency and diversity in the courts," Mastantuono said. The committee comprises 15 attorneys from different heritages, practice areas, and locations around the state. Mastantuono is first-generation Mexican on his mother’s side, a former officer of the Wisconsin Hispanic Lawyers’ Association, and a criminal defense attorney in Milwaukee. He has been on the committee during both of Evers’ terms. Other former and current committee members have come from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds. As for practice areas, current members include a retired circuit court judge, a deputy corporation counsel, a district attorney, a retired public defender, a University of Wisconsin Law School professor, an in-house corporate attorney, and law firm attorneys. They hail from New Richmond, Wausau, Neenah, Appleton, and Trempealeau and Portage counties, as well as the Milwaukee and Madison areas. Evers was “smart to access (a variety) of communities and put them at the table to recruit and recommend applicants,” Mastantuono said. Mastantuono noted that when the committee considers applicants, diversity involves not only gender, race, and ethnicity, but also practice area. Appointees are not predominantly prosecutors and large firm attorneys; they include public defenders and legal aid providers, among others. Attorneys gain “insight from sitting next to someone who struggles to pay the rent,” he said, and they can take that empathy with them to the bench as judges. “It’s a complete myth that there’s a trade-off between competence and diversity,” he said. “We’ve raised the competency and quality of the bench while achieving diversity.” Prior to the Evers Administration, Wisconsin had one of the least diverse or representative benches in the nation. A report by the American Constitution Society in 2016 gave Wisconsin an “F” grade, ranking the state 44th in the nation for judicial diversity. Among the report’s findings on Wisconsin’s judiciary, it found that white men were 41% of the state’s population but held 76% of judicial seats, while women of color were 9% of the population but held only 1% of judicial seats. The Walker Administration demonstrated a strong preference for conservative white men. A document provided by Evers’ office in response to WJI’s request for records created by the Walker Administration shows that of the 93 judges Walker appointed from 2011 to early 2019 only one was a person of color (Black) and just 23 were women.
Among the 69 white men Walker appointed were Brian Hagedorn to the Court of the Appeals in 2015, Daniel Kelly to the Supreme Court in 2016, and Brad Schimel to Waukesha County Circuit Court in 2018 (following his loss as the Republican candidate for attorney general that year).
Walker also appointed James Troupis to Dane County Circuit Court in 2015 and Vincent Biskupic to Outagamie County Circuit Court in 2014. Prior to his judicial appointment, Troupis had worked on the 2011 Republican redistricting maps and Act 10 public union bargaining legislation. In recent years, Troupis represented Donald Trump before the Wisconsin Supreme Court in an attempt to have the 2020 presidential election result overturned and was involved in the false Trump elector scheme. A decade prior to his judicial appointment, Biskupic was a district attorney embroiled in controversy over alleged deals for defendants who made donations to crime prevention and victim advocacy groups. Biskupic's brother was an attorney for the Walker campaign. Judges appointed by a Wisconsin governor run for election in the next available April election cycle. Nationally, the debate about diversity initiatives rages on. But President Joe Biden’s diversification of the federal bench—more than 60% of his appointees were women, with 37% being women of color—should be a lasting legacy. "Walker's judges" is an effort to present information about former Gov. Scott Walker's appointees to the bench. Since the election of Gov. Tony Evers, WJI has focused on "Evers' judges." However, from time to time WJI posts "Walker's judges" columns for those who still serve on the bench. Rebecca Grassl Bradley was appointed by Walker to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2012. Walker appointed Bradley to the Court of Appeals District 1 in May 2015, then to the Wisconsin Supreme Court just a few months later. The information below comes from Bradley’s 2015 application for the appeals court. That application is similar to the application she submitted for her circuit court position. Information for "Walker's judges" and "Evers' judges" is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: Rebecca G. Bradley
Appointed to: Wisconsin Supreme Court: Oct. 9, 2015 (elected in 2016 to a 10-year term) Wisconsin Court of Appeals-District 1: May 2015 Milwaukee County Circuit Court: November 2012 (elected 2013) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin-Madison Undergraduate – Marquette University, Madison, Wisconsin High School – Divine Savior Holy Angels, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Recent legal employment: December 2012-present – Judge, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Branch 45 2007-2012 – Attorney, Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 2004-2007 – Vice president-Legal Operations and Assistant Corporate Secretary (promoted from Associate General Counsel) RedPrairie Corporation, Waukesha, Wisconsin 2000-2004 – Attorney, Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin General character of practice: I began my career as a civil litigator and appellate attorney with Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP in 1996, primarily representing physicians and other medical professionals in malpractice suits and in medical examining board proceedings, in addition to defending parties against various product, premises liability, personal injury and wrongful death claims. I also defended lawyers in malpractice actions and represented insurers in coverage disputes. I joined Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C. in 2000 and continued my civil litigation practice, initially representing government officials and governmental entities in a variety of cases involving civil rights and liability claims, defending professionals in malpractice and negligence actions, and representing business entities in general commercial litigation. My practice began to focus on the technology sector in 2001 with my representation of software companies as well as software and technology licensees in lawsuits and arbitrations involving failed software systems implementations and in software licensing and other contractual litigation. I continued representing companies in a variety of industries in general commercial contract disputes. Between 2004 and 2007, I served as Vice President of Legal Operations for RedPrairie Corporation, where I managed the company’s litigation but predominately performed transactional work. After resuming private practice with Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C. in 2007, I represented parties in litigation and arbitrations involving software licensing, software and telecommunications systems implementations, information security and data breaches, domain name and website conversion, intellectual property infringement, state and federal computer crimes, trade secrets, employment law, financial services, federal Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and general commercial contracts. Type of practice: civil, 95%; family, 5% Number of cases tried to verdict or judgement: jury, 1; non-jury, 1; arbitration, 2; administrative bodies, 1 Please note that the numbers above reflect cases that I tried as first chair. I second-chaired numerous additional cases. Number of cases litigated on appeal and details: 6 List and describe the two most significant cases in which you were involved: In re Grede Foundries, Inc., 651 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2011): I was part of a team of lawyers representing Grede Foundries in a Chapter 11 reorganization under the federal Bankruptcy Code that ultimately led to the sale of substantially all of the operating assets of the company and the preservation of over 1500 jobs in the State of Wisconsin. In addition to negotiating the debtor’s obligations to utilities around the country, I successfully moved for a ruling that one utility violated the automatic stay by asserting a $1 million post-petition lien against the debtor, potentially jeopardizing the planned sale of the company. Judge Martin ruled in favor of the debtor on this issue, voiding the tax lien and largely adopting the principal arguments advanced in the motion. Judge Martin’s ruling was affirmed by Judge Crabb on appeal. Judge Crabb's decision was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. … I played a substantial role in researching and developing the arguments and in drafting the motion, which construes the text of the applicable state and federal statutes, drawing on the intent of the drafters as expressed in the legislative history, and applying existing federal precedent. Hasbro Inc. v. Catalyst USA Inc., 367 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2004): I co-chaired an arbitration that spanned five months, over a dispute requiring the interpretation of a complex software license agreement. This case was significant in my practice given the complexities of the facts, the breadth of legal issues, the number of witnesses and the extent of discovery and testimony, all in the context of an administered arbitration proceeding that concluded two years after the demand for arbitration was filed. The vacation of the arbitration award …was a result rarely achieved in federal court. The arguments I advanced on behalf of my client, both in briefing and in oral arguments to the appellate court, were based upon the application of the Federal Arbitration Act to a situation where the arbitrators exceeded their powers by failing to comply with the arbitration rules requiring an award to be issued within a specific and calculable timeframe. The appellate court’s remand of the case for enforcement of the arbitral award focused on the harshness of the outcome for, and the perceived injustice to, one party rather than applying the text of the Federal Arbitration Act or the parties’ arbitration agreement and for that reason was also significant to me as a demonstration of a judicial philosophy at odds with my own. Number and nature of cases heard during your judicial or quasi-judicial tenure: During my judicial tenure, I have served as a judge at Children's Court, where I have presided over cases involving children in need of protection or services ("CHIPS"), juvenile delinquency, guardianship, child abuse and harassment injunctions, and juveniles in need of protection or services ("JIPS"). Currently, I preside over cases involving termination of parental rights ("TPR") and adoptions. Since I took the bench in December 2012, I have presided over approximately 700-800 cases annually. Two most significant cases heard as a judicial officer: As a judge assigned to a Children's Court rotation since I took the bench, nearly all of the cases I have heard are statutorily confidential and every case is significant with respect to the impact on the children, families, victims and community members affected by the decisions I make. For example, I have frequently made decisions involving where children will live, who will raise them, whether parents are able to see their children, whether parents will retain or lose their parental rights, what parents need to do in order to have their children returned to them, what mental health interventions children and parents must receive, what consequences juveniles will face as a result their delinquent acts, whether to retain juveniles charged with delinquent acts in secure custody and incarcerate them when adjudicated delinquent, and whether juveniles should be prosecuted for their alleged crimes in juvenile or adult court. Many of the cases are emotionally charged, present complex evidentiary issues, and involve significant Constitutional rights and liberty interests. SCR 60.04(1)(m) provides that "[a] judge may not disclose or use, for any purpose unrelated to judicial duties, nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity." Accordingly, given the confidentiality protecting the children and families involved in juvenile court proceedings over which I have presided during my judicial tenure, I am unable to describe particular cases. Two of the most significant types of cases I have heard as a judge involve termination of parental rights ("TPR") and petitions for waiver of juveniles into adult criminal court. In the first phase of a TPR action, a determination is made—via party admissions, jury trial or court trial—as to whether one or more grounds exist for terminating parental rights. In the second phase, the court alone determines whether to terminate parental rights, with the best interests of the child the prevailing consideration. The court is statutorily obligated to consider six statutory factors during the dispositional phase of the proceedings, including the likelihood the child will be adopted, whether the child has substantial relationships with the parents or other biological family members, whether it would be harmful to sever those relationships, the duration of separation of the parents from the child, and whether the child will be able to enter a more stable and permanent family relationship if the biological parents' rights are terminated. That ultimate decision, like many others I have made as a judge, highlights the tremendous power possessed by trial court judges, who significantly and permanently impact the lives of individuals with cases before the courts. In certain juvenile delinquency cases, the State of Wisconsin may file petitions seeking waiver of juvenile court jurisdiction, which if successful would result in juveniles as young as 14 facing charges in adult criminal court proceedings. I presided over multiple evidentiary waiver hearings, during which the parties present testimony and other evidence relevant to the five statutory factors required to be considered by the court, including the juvenile's personality and prior record, the type and seriousness of the offense, and the adequacy and suitability of services available in the juvenile system. The consequences of a decision on a petition for waiver are significant for both the juvenile and the public. In children’s court, juveniles are not entitled to jury trials and the maximum consequence for an adjudication in many waiver-eligible cases is five years of supervision by the Department of Corrections under the Serious Juvenile Offender Program, with a statutory maximum incarceration of three years. In adult criminal court, juveniles have the right to a jury trial and face decades of possible imprisonment if convicted of the types of offenses for which waiver petitions are typically filed. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Other than my own campaign, no. Previous runs for public office: After Governor Walker appointed me as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge in November 2012 to fill a vacancy created by Judge Thomas Donegan's retirement, I won more than 59% of the vote over two opponents in the February 19, 2013 primary. I was elected to a full six-year term on April 2, 2013, winning over 53% of the vote. All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: I offered my endorsement of Justice David Prosser in his 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court race. I also endorsed Judge Thomas McAdams and Judge Christopher Dee in their campaigns to retain their seats as Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judges appointed by Governor Walker. I may have offered my endorsement to other judicial candidates in the past but I do not specifically recall. Bar and professional societies: State Bar of Wisconsin Federalist Society (president from 2007-2012) Seventh Circuit Bar Association St. Thomas More Lawyers Society of Wisconsin Significant pro bono legal work or volunteer service: When I was a practicing attorney, I volunteered for two pro bono guardianship clinics—Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, Inc. Guardianship Clinic and the Milwaukee County Guardianship Assistance Program. The clinics provide free legal services to families of developmentally disabled young adults who are near age 18, or have already reached age 18, and lack the mental capacity to make health care decisions for themselves. Once these disabled young people reach adulthood, their parents lose the legal authority to make health care decisions for them. I served as a volunteer attorney to seek appointment of the parent (or other family member) as the guardian of the person so that there is someone in place with legal authority to continue making decisions for that young adult. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge: After sixteen years as an attorney in private practice, in 2012 I felt called to public service as a judge by my strong belief that the people of the State of Wisconsin are best served by judges who understand their duty to state what the law is and not what it should be or what they want it to be. I offered my candidacy not because I wanted to "become someone" but because I want to do something—namely, apply the law as it exists and not as I might wish it to be—in order to preserve the rule of law and the proper balance of governmental powers. Sometimes the results of applying the law may be unpalatable or even repugnant to a judge; however, a judge’s preferences regarding policies or outcomes should be irrelevant to and absent from the judge’s rulings. A judicial candidate seeking to enshrine subjective policy judgments should seek a seat on the legislature rather than on the judicial bench. My deep respect for the rule of law and my recognition of the importance of an appropriate deference to the legislative branch in achieving the ideals of true justice drove me to pursue this different avenue in the law as a judge rather than an advocate. Name one of the best United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions in the past 30 years and discuss why: One of the best United States Supreme Court decisions in the past thirty years is Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), in which the Court re-affirmed its First Amendment jurisprudence of protecting religious groups from unlawful viewpoint discrimination by state entities that invoke unwarranted Establishment Clause concerns to justify such discrimination. Under the authorization of New York law, Milford Central School adopted a policy permitting community access to its building for certain uses, including the “welfare of the community.” The Good News Club, a private Christian organization, requested access to the school cafeteria for afterschool meetings of grade school children. Among the Club’s activities were Bible lessons. Invoking the school’s policy prohibition on the use of its facilities for “religious purposes,” the school denied access to the Club. In an opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court recognized that a State’s prerogative to restrict speech in a limited public forum is limited: a State may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the viewpoint it espouses without violating the First Amendment. The Court relied on precedent that struck down, in one case, a school district’s exclusion of a private group presenting films with a religious perspective and, in a second case, a university’s denial of funding for a school newspaper expressing a religious perspective. The Court next rejected the school’s argument that its exclusion of religious groups from school facilities was necessary to avoid running afoul of the Establishment Clause. The Court acknowledged the State’s compelling interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation but found no such valid interest in this case. The Club’s non-mandatory meetings occurred after school hours, were open to all students between the ages of six and twelve (with parental consent) and received no school sponsorship; therefore, opening the same access to a Christian group as that afforded any other group would exert no coercive pressure on the community to participate in the activities of the Club. Moreover, granting access to secular and religious organizations alike would respect the principle of State neutrality toward religion. In declining to recognize the State’s professed Establishment Clause interest, the Court suggested that the State’s exclusion of a religious group from public facilities presents as much danger of signifying hostility toward a religion as such a group’s presence may of indicating an endorsement of that viewpoint. Indeed, the Court understood the pernicious and chilling effects of viewpoint discrimination on individual thought and expression as a countervailing constitutional concern based upon the impingement on the free speech rights of members of religious groups. The Establishment Clause does not ban religious expression from the public square; rather, it commands neutrality toward religious viewpoints, which is achieved when a State applies its policies in an even-handed manner across organizations seeking access to its facilities, whether such organizations are secular or religious. In upholding the First Amendment rights of religious organizations and in its recognition that the Establishment Clause does not require hostility toward religion in attempts by a State to avoid an advancement of religion, Good News Club qualifies as one of the best U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the last several decades. Name one of the worst United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 30 years and discuss why: Although several United States Supreme Court opinions may qualify for the title of “worst,” Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) represents one of the most abusive attacks on a constitutional right in the last thirty years by expansively interpreting the power of eminent domain to permit the taking of property, not for a constitutionally-sanctioned “public use” but rather for “public benefit.” The Fifth Amendment includes the following restriction on the government’s eminent domain power: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Supreme Court’s takings clause jurisprudence traditionally applied the plain meaning of “public use” for purposes such as building roads; however, in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), the Court expanded the ordinary meaning of “public use” to encompass “public purpose” in order to uphold governmental actions designed to remedy urban blight. That decision conferred vast discretion on governmental entities to identify “blight” where it would not be found by an objective eye, in order to justify the condemnation of property to the benefit of would-be developers promising jobs and higher tax revenue. Over time and in state courts around the country “public purpose” morphed into “public benefit,” at the expense of most often powerless property owners. In 2005, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to examine the constraints on the government’s exercise of its eminent domain power in the context of economic development rather than the elimination of true blight. With the usual promises of jobs and increased property tax revenue, the New London Development Corporation (“NLDC”)—a private nonprofit organization—proposed a plan to enhance the land surrounding a new corporate site, which would require the condemnation of residential properties. The properties belonging to the owners who resisted the sale of their properties to the NLDC were to be replaced by private corporate offices or rather vaguely described “park support” and leased to a private developer. Despite the fact that property would be taken from several private parties and given to another private party, the Court nevertheless characterized the taking as public, relying on a mere promise of more tax revenue and more jobs, regardless of whether that promise would ever be fulfilled. The Kelo decision poses a threat to every property owner in the United States by enabling private parties that are financially or politically more powerful to successfully petition often unaccountable governmental entities to take property on their behalf in the name of “public benefit.” The fact that some good resulted from the outrage provoked by the decision—a majority of states subsequently enacted restrictions on eminent domain power—does not reverse the Supreme Court’s trampling of the Fifth Amendment in that opinion. Describe your judicial philosophy: My judicial philosophy is reflected in my response to the question of why I originally sought appointment as a judge; it is conservative, textualist, and restrained. In fulfilling the judicial duty to uphold the rule of law, judges should access objective sources of statutory and constitutional interpretation, such as the text and history of the law, and resist influences beyond those sources, leaving activism at the capitol and instead exercising judicial restraint. There are, of course, statutes that confer discretion on the court to apply certain factors to the facts of a case, but that discretion is not to be exercised arbitrarily. For example, judges are afforded some discretion in applying the “best interests of the child” standard in family law disputes over custody and physical placement, as well as in cases involving CHIPS and TPR over which I have presided. However, those judgment calls should be fully informed by prevailing precedent, narrowly but reasonably construed to effectuate the intent and policy judgments of the legislature rather than those of the judge personally. Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 78 characterized the judiciary as having “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment…” My judicial philosophy ensures that on the bench I exercise my legal judgment in an appropriately restrained manner, devoid of political and social policy judgments. In over sixteen years of private legal practice, encompassing both civil litigation as well as the construction of complex commercial contracts, I honed my skills in the textual interpretation that underlies an appropriately restrained exercise of judgment. In serving as a judge for over two years, I faithfully exercise my duty to apply the law as it is written and not as I may wish it to be. Other information you feel would be helpful to your application: My ability to win a contested primary election in Milwaukee County against two opponents, as well as the general election against a challenger who spent approximately $250,000 in the race, establishes that I can be successful in retaining this seat on the District I Court of Appeals, should I earn the Governor's appointment. In my first race, I was able to secure significant bipartisan support and maintain a highly visible presence in Milwaukee County through numerous public appearances and speeches. I was a tireless campaigner, meeting with public officials, business and community leaders, the media, and voters throughout Milwaukee County. I was honored to have a campaign team that created and coordinated print, radio, television and Internet messaging, consistent with my campaign themes, that resonated with voters. Since my election in April 2013, I have maintained a significant presence in the County, continuing to attend community events and forums. My social media presence on Facebook, LinkedIn and on my website, www.judgerebeccabradley.com, is well-established. I thoroughly understand the work required to launch and maintain a successful campaign to retain a judicial seat as an incumbent appointee. I have also earned a reputation on the bench as a hard working, fair and impartial judge with an excellent judicial temperament. It would be my honor and privilege to serve as a member of the judiciary on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. "Walker's judges" is an effort to present information about former Gov. Scott Walker's appointees to the bench. Since the election of Gov. Tony Evers, WJI has focused on "Evers' judges." However, from time to time WJI posts "Walker's judges" columns for those who still serve on the bench. Judge William W. Brash III presently serves as Chief Judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The information below comes from his 2015 application for the court of appeals seat. Brash was appointed to Milwaukee County Circuit Court in 2001 by then-Gov. Scott McCallum. Information for "Walker's judges" and "Evers' judges" is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Italics indicate direct quotes from the application. Typos, including punctuation errors, come from the original application even though we have not inserted “(sic)” after each one. WJI has left them as is.  Name: William W. Brash III
Appointed to: Wisconsin Court of Appeals-District 1 Appointment date: October 2015 (effective December 2015). Elected April 2017 and now running for a second 6-year term in the April 4, 2023, election. Education: Law School – Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin Undergraduate – St. Norbert College, DePere, Wisconsin Legal employment: 2001-2015 – Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge 1997-2001 – Milwaukee County reserve municipal judge 1984-1997 – Fox Point municipal judge 1990-2001 – Principal, William W. Brash and Associates, S.C. 1990-1991 – Partner, Hopkins and Brash, S.C. Bar and administrative memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings. I was actively engaged in the General Practice of Law for over twenty-three (23) years, commencing in November 1978 and ending in December 2001. The character, nature and composition of my practice changed during this period based on the nature of my employment and/or business affiliations, as well as the needs of my clients. This started to become more consistent, however, during approximately the last five (5) years of my private practice career because of my ability to exercise greater discretion in my client composition, while at the same time maintaining consistent employment for myself and my staff. During this same time, I had now established a network of attorneys to whom I could make referrals in those areas that required specialized knowledge and ability, such as personal injury, products or malpractice matters, certain types of criminal matters and appellate work. Upon review of the last two (2) year period immediately preceding my appointment to the Circuit Court, my office opened four hundred sixty (460) new files. These files encompassed eight (8) major areas of the law, specifically:
Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 2, non-jury, dozens; arbitration, 0; administrative bodies, 25. List and describe the two most significant cases in which you were involved: I must start by indicating that each client feels that his or her case is the most significant matter before the court. However, none of these cases was particularly significant or noteworthy in light of the nature of the case or the decision handed down by the Court. Therefore, please see my responses to [other] questions . . . . Describe the nature of cases you have heard during your judicial or quasi-judicial tenure. I am currently assigned to the Felony Division, and I have a General Felony Calendar, which is one of five (5) such courts in Milwaukee County. I began this current rotational assignment on August 1, 2013, after completing four (4) years in two (2) civil assignments. I handle all manner and nature of felony theft, robbery, burglary, felony OWI’s, injury by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle, attempted homicide, substantial battery, Chapter 980 cases (sexually violent individuals), white collar crime, voter fraud, etc. These courts are general catchalls for all felony matters not otherwise assigned to specialty courts. . . . Prior to my current assignment, I served for three (3) years, August 2010 to July 31, 2013, in the Civil/Probate Division, the last two (2) years as the Presiding Judge in that division. These calendars are comprised of roughly fifty percent (50%) large claims civil matters, and fifty percent (50%) probate, estate, guardianship and mental health matters. The Presiding Judge in this division works closely with the Probate Department in addressing certain policy issues, in a department that consists of a Commissioner, two (2) Deputy Registers in Probate, an administrator, and ten (10) other personnel as well as working with staff at the mental Health Complex. . . . Brash then discussed prior assignments to Large Claims Civil, General Felony, Homicide/Sexual Assault, Felony Gun, Domestic Violence, and General Misdemeanor calendars. During the period of May 1997 through November 2001, I served as a Reserve Municipal Judge for Milwaukee County, which was an annual appointment by the Chief Judge of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. In this capacity, I served in both the City of Milwaukee, as well as the surrounding communities, and handled thousands of cases for the various municipalities. I served as the Fox Point Municipal Judge from November 1984 to May 1997. I was initially elected in a special election to serve the balance of my predecessor’s term and thereafter in four (4) successive general elections in April of 1985, 1988, 1991 and 1994. During my tenure as the Fox Point Municipal Judge, I handled in excess of twenty five thousand (25,000) cases. Describe the two most significant cases you have heard as a judicial officer. Kenosha Unified School District, et al. vs Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Inc., et al. Case Number 08CV13726 This case involves five (5) Wisconsin school districts in an alleged two hundred ($200,000,000.00) million dollar securities fraud matter related to investments made by the school districts in synthetic credit derivatives, including collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps. These instruments were sold by Stifel, purchased by the school districts, IE Kenosha, Kimberly Area School District, the School District of Waukesha, the West Allis School District and the Whitefish Bay School District relative other pension benefits, and created and marketed by the Royal Bank of Canada Europe Ltd., RBC Capital Markets Corp. and RBC Capital Markets Holdings (USA) Inc. The plaintiffs are primarily represented by Stephen Kravit and Christopher Krawczyk of Kravit, Hovel & Krawczyk and the defendants Stifel are primarily Represented by Brian Cahill of Gass Weber Mullins LLC., while the RBC defendants are primarily represented by Terry Johnson of Peterson Johnson Murray. At Various times through out these proceedings there were as many as twenty (20) attorneys involved in this matter, representing not only the principal actors, but various insurance companies and other third party defendants. This matter was originally filed in September of 2008 and I assumed responsibility for this case in August 2009 and as of my rotation on July 31, 2013, the matter had not concluded. I believe this to be a significant matter because it occurred after there had been a change in the law relative the financing of other pension benefits and based upon the complex nature of those issues presented and the relative roles of the parties involved. Milton J. Christensen et al. vs. Michael J. Sullivan et al. Case Number 1996CV1835 This case involved an action initiated on the behalf of inmates of Milwaukee County, alleging overcrowding in the jail facilities and a lack of proper medical care and attention. A petition for a writ of prohibition was originally filed in March 1996, and thereafter a summons and complaint, with the matter ultimately being certified as a class action. During the pendency of this matter this case was managed by nine (9) different Circuit Court Judges, with a partial resolution having been reached by the parties pursuant to the execution of a consent decree in March 2001. The parties continued to litigate a number of issues relative compliance with the decree, as well as issues relative the authority to take certain actions pursuant to the consent decree, which ultimately culminated in series of hearings in 2012 and 2013 in my court. As a result of these hearings, I ordered the County to execute a contract with Armor Correctional Health Services Inc. to provide medical services to Milwaukee County Inmates. The parties were represented by various counsels during the course of this matter, but most recently by Peter Koneazny of the Legal Aid Society, Laurence Dupris of the American Civil Liberties Union, Kimberly Walker and Mark Grady of Corporation Counsel, Michael Whitcomb on behalf of Sheriff Clarke, Charles Bohl on behalf of certain defendants, Ron Stadler on behalf of Milwaukee County and C. J. Krawczyk on behalf of Roeschen’s Omnicare Pharmacy. I believe that this matter is significant because it established the structure for the resolution of a matter that had been pending in the court system for over seventeen (17) years. This hopefully will have a genuine impact on the community whereby an increase in the efficiency by which medical care is provided to inmates results in a more effective use of taxpayer dollars in this capacity. Previous runs for public office and outcome: Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, elected 2002, 2008, 2014 Village of Fox Point, Wisconsin, trustee, appointed 1998 and elected 1999 and 2001 Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, defeated in election, 1997 Village of Fox Point, Wisconsin, municipal judge, elected 1984-1994 All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last ten years: Justice Prosser Justice Roggensack Hon. Michael Aprahamian Hon. Rebecca Bradley Hon. Christopher Dee David Feiss Hon. Lindsey Grady Hon. Claire Fiorenza Hon. Thomas McAdams Hon. Nelson Phillips Hon. Mark Sanders Hon. Linda Van De Water  Gill "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about former Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench who are still serving as judges. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. We also are posting "Evers' judges." Outagamie Circuit Judge Gregory Gill Jr. now is running for the District III Court of Appeals bench against attorney Rick Cveykus. Election Day is April 6. We posted Cveykus' responses to WJI's judicial candidate questionnaire earlier. Gill did not provide responses. Gill's former law firm, Gill & Gill, generally represented management in "all phases of labor and employment law," according to a firm flyer attached to his judicial application. More recently, during his current campaign, Gill received attention for campaign donations he received from conservative Republican donors Richard Uihlein, and John Menard. He is running as a textualist and judicial conservative. Name: Gregory B. Gill Jr. Appointed to: Outagamie County Circuit Court Appointment date: September 2011 Education: Law School – Marquette University Law School Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – Xavier High School Legal employment: November 2010-December 2010 – Special prosecutor, Calumet County District Attorney's Office 2005-present – attorney, Gill and Gill Memberships: American Bar Association Wisconsin Bar Association Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Worked in the Outagamie County DA's office and clerked for Federal Judge William Griesbach before going into private practice. In my current practice, my litigation efforts have focused on civil matters. I have defended matters at levels ranging from the administrative forum up and through the Federal District Court. In addition, I have also prosecuted matters at the administrative, State and Federal level. The litigations have been primarily employment related, including issues such as contract and discrimination matters. On occasion, I have also been involved in criminal defense work. However, said work has been a very minimal portion of my practice. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: 4; non-jury, 2; arbitration, 4+; administrative bodies, 40+ Cases on appeal: Aside from appeals involving Unemployment Compensation matters, there have been two cases which I played a significant role in the appellate process. Two most significant cases: In 2006, I served as the lead/co-counsel in Barbara Bigalke v. Neenah Foundry,... a case before the Honorable William C. Griesbach. The case involved allegations of a violation of an individual's rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was significant based upon the legal and factual issues, whereas, the argument of my client Neenah Foundry, was that the Plaintiff was an independent contractor as opposed to an employee, and therefore was not subject to the protections afforded by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court agreed with my client. The second case of significance was Kathleen Jawson v. Hoffmaster, Inc....This case involved an individual claiming that her rights had been denied under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result of the Company's denial of her FMLA rights, the Complainant in this case, Kathleen Jawson, was terminated. The significance of this case comes in the fact that through my firm's efforts, we were able to successfully right a wrong that had occurred to an individual. While there were other cases in which I and my firm have been able to assist those who have been aggrieved, in this instance, the case had to go though multiple hearings including an appeal to the Circuit Court for Manitowoc County to reach a favorable result. I was the primary brief writer on this case. All previous runs for office: None Involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last six years: Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, Outagamie Circuit Judges Mark McGinnis, Nance Krueger, Michal Gage, and Mitchell Metropulos. Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application: Make-a-Wish Foundation Valley Kids Foundation – volunteer Wisconsin Mock Trial Competition – volunteer Boys & Girls Clubs of the Fox Valley – volunteer Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – For as long as I can remember, the law has been a part of my life. My father has been practicing lawyer for over 35 years and likewise my grandfather before him was an attorney. It has been instilled in me that the law should be utilized in a fashion to help people. My father once told me that you need to take advantage of opportunities to help people when they come along because such opportunities don't come along every day. Since beginning my practice, I have tried to adhere to those values instilled in me by my father and grandfather. In this instance through my experience in the legal profession and the ability to surround myself with quality attorneys and judges, I have seen the good that can come from being part of the judiciary. While I feel very blessed and fortunate to be able to work in a practice with my family, I have also had a desire to maximize the amount of good I can do with my law degree. I believe that as a circuit court judge, I will have the opportunity to serve my community, the State of Wisconsin and to help individuals and positively influence lives, Thus, I feel that the opportunity to be able to help serve my community on a broader basis compels me to seek this appointment. "I believe the worst conduct of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court is to engage in judicial activism." – Outagamie Circuit Judge Gregory Gill Jr. Best or Worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years
To label a single case as "the worst" is a near impossibility. What is an easier task, however, is to identify what I feel is the worst action of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court: I believe the worst conduct of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court is to engage in judicial activism. -Perhaps one case that exemplifies such conduct, as well as any other case in recent history, is that of Crystal Lake Cheese Factory v. The Labor and Industry Review Commission.... In this case, an individual was terminated based upon a Company's inability to accommodate a disability, which consisted of, among other things, the employee being resigned to a wheelchair. Prior to the injury, amongst other things, the employee was required to gather orders, perform administrative duties, weigh, label and box cheese, as well as other various assignments....Subsequent to the injury, the Plaintiff was rendered unable to perform several duties of her job which included lifting heavy boxes of cheese, or reaching cheese stored on a high shelf. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to perform many functions of the job, the Supreme Court nonetheless concluded that the Company was wrong in failing to accommodate the Plaintiff. The Court then went one step further and indicated that a reasonable accommodation would be to have job assignments shifted amongst other employees as a means to accommodate the employee. The Court then justified this position by manipulating previous decisions issued by LIRC. The net effect of the decision of the Supreme Court was to expand the law and create a new means of accommodating an individual with a disability. The accommodation necessitates that employers consider significantly modify job descriptions for injured and non-injured individuals. As noted by Justice Prosser in his dissent, "In all, LIRC' s interpretation of Sec. 111.34, as adopted by the majority, is highly questionable and imposes an unreasonable burden on Wisconsin businesses. Section 111.34 cannot be read to require that an applicant or an employee only be able to perform "some" or "most" of the necessary responsibilities of the job." It is decisions like this that usurp the function of the Legislature and reform acceptable statutory law. While this is certainly not the only example of judicial activism, this is clearly a case which exemplifies the types of judicial decisions which I believe represent the worst decisions issued by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about former Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench who are still serving as judges. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. We also are posting "Evers' judges." Racine County Circuit Judge Jon Fredrickson was in the news recently when he overturned Racine's coronavirus rules. During the litigation over the matter, Fredrickson said Racine’s public health administrator, Dottie-Kay Bowersox, was indulging in "despotic power." The State Court of Appeals, however, granted the city an emergency stay that keeps the city's coronavirus rules in place pending a full appeal of the case, which could take months.  Fredrickson Name: Jon E. Fredrickson
Appointed to: Racine County Circuit Court Appointment date: Sept. 28, 2018, elected in April 2019. Education: Law School – Marquette University Law School Undergraduate – University of Southern California High School – Homestead High School, Mequon Legal employment: 2001-present – Kravit Hovel & Krawczyk 1997-2001 – Crivello Carlson Memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin Eastern District of Wisconsin Western District of Wisconsin Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals None Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: My practice focuses on representing Wisconsin businesses, individuals, and Fortune 500 companies in high-exposure business, insurance coverage, and professional liability cases. Over the years, I have litigated cases touching upon many aspects of Wisconsin law. As an attorney's attorney, I have defended over twenty-five legal malpractice claims.... Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: 2; non-jury, NA; arbitration, NA; administrative bodies, NA. Cases on appeal: 7 Three most significant cases: Land O'Lakes, Inc. v. Ratajczak – I was lead counsel. Researched, drafted, litigated, and argued the case. This case was significant because of the stakes involved for my clients, the Ratajczaks. Land O'Lakes sued them individually, as the former owners of a feed business, under fraud and federal and state racketeering theories. Land O'Lakes sought roughly $10 million dollars in compensatory damages, trebled under the racketeering statutes to $30 million. My clients had everything they owned at stake in this litigation. It was either win, or complete financial ruin, which is exactly how Land O'Lakes positioned it. I analyzed the racketeering laws, and determined that if I could get Land O'Lakes to admit it hadn't lost any profits, or passed on any damage to a third-party, that we could win the case on summary judgment. One of my partners and an associate stridently objected to my legal analysis and passionately argued that my legal analysis was incorrect, and that I was wrong. I wasn't. I filed the summary judgment motion, and won the argument at both the federal district court, and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals level. The win was a completely life-altering event for my clients. Marks v. Houston Cas. Co. – I was lead counsel. Researched, drafted, litigated, and argued the case. This case was significant because it sought to expand insurance protections for Wisconsin businesses and individuals to coincide with the protections available in many other states. It was tactically positioned to force the Supreme Court of Wisconsin to finally deal with three Court of Appeals decisions that were binding precedent on the Court of Appeals and the circuit courts, but that were being sporadically ignored by both, depending on the district panel or circuit court judge involved. While it wasn't a victory for my clients, it did serve to clean up Wisconsin's duty to defend law, and has become a widely cited insurance precedent. Murray v. Travelers Ins. Co. – I completed this work while I was a law clerk, before graduation. My appellate briefing in this case was signed by the partner in charge of the case without any edits or changes. The case was significant on two fronts. As an aspiring young lawyer, it gave me the self-affirmation that I was ready for the big fights. But more importantly, it was a significant decision for Wisconsin workers, as it expanded the scope their employment protections. All previous runs for office: None Involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: None All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last six years: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Paul Rifelj  Dedinsky "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about former Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. While Walker has left office, WJI will continue to profile his appointees who are still in office. We also are profiling Gov. Tony Evers' judicial appointees.
Walker appointee Paul C. Dedinsky, profiled below, has been in the news because of questions about his residency. Name: Paul C. Dedinsky Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: Dec. 26, 2018 (Up for election in April 2020) Education: Graduate School (Ph.D.) – Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee Law School – University of Wisconsin Law School Undergraduate – Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska High School – Marquette University High School, Milwaukee Recent legal employment: 2017 - present – Chief legal counsel, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection 1997-2017 – Assistant district attorney, Milwaukee County Memberships: State Bar Association American Bar Association St. Thomas More Society Federalist Society Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: As chief legal counsel for DATCP, experience in ethics, human resources, contracts, board governance, agency regulations, administrative rule-making; as assistant district attorney, experience in restorative justice, violence prevention, Children's Court, domestic violence prosecutions, drug treatment court, sensitive crimes, and misdemeanors; in private practice, experience in criminal defense, appellate, civil, and family matters. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 50; non-jury, 100; arbitration, no answer; administrative bodies, 10. Cases on appeal: 50 in private practice. Three most significant cases: (Dedinsky listed four) State v. Joseph Hoeller - The case…originally surfaced as a disorderly conduct charge. We transformed the investigation of the matter which led to felony stalking charges, representing one of the first uses of the revised felony stalking statute by our office. The evidence encompassed a range of stalking of the victim at home and work. The stalker threatened violence towards the victim and her family members, utilizing a variety of means to stalk her: Property damage, the internet, text messaging, e-mail, phone calls, voicemail messages, and manipulation of their child. This case entailed leadership during the investigative stages, patience with the victim and her family, an understanding of stalker typology research and power/control dynamics, and an ability to effectively assess the lethality of the stalker in order to plan the victim’s future safety. After preparing a powerpoint (sic) for courtroom presentation during discovery / pre-trial strategy, the defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to prison. For many years, the powerpoint presentation has been used to train law enforcement in stalking and domestic abuse relationship dynamics. State v. Jon A. York - In 2002, I charged two parents with approximately 29 counts of child sexual abuse to their 8-year old daughter, drug manufacturing, possession of electric weapons, causing mental harm to a child, and possession of child pornography. The case involved lots of additional investigation and many complex legal challenges from lawyers relating to issues such as the legality of the search warrant and the defendant’s statement/confession law. State v. Matthew Tyler – A child predator had worked or volunteered as a youth counselor at a boys’ residential treatment center, a church minister and Boy Scout troop leader, a college professor, and an underprivileged minority youth counselor at the Medical College of Wisconsin and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Piecing together decades of un-prosecuted sexual abuse allegations from aforementioned states across the country proved challenging. After over 100 phone calls and many hours of investigation, I secured the cooperation of several male sexual assault victims from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, whose patterns of victimization by the defendant were remarkably similar. Following the trial court’s approval of this compelling “other acts” evidence, the defendant pled guilty to his first felony sexual assault. A SUCCESS STORY IN A CIVIL CONTEXT. In private practice in 1996, I successfully defended a father through a 3-day Termination of Parental Rights jury trial with many complicated factual and legal issues, as well as a complicated trial strategy. The prosecutor and guardian ad litem zealously sought the termination to no avail. I persuaded the jury to correctly decide the case in favor of the father, who had markedly turned around his life and closely bonded with his children. After the jury trial, an experienced prosecutor who observed the jury trial approached me and asked me if I would be willing to apply to the Milwaukee District Attorney’s office. Shortly thereafter, I decided to apply and was offered a position. All previous runs for office: None Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: My wife and I are current volunteers at the Waukesha headquarters on Pearl Street from August 2018 to present. All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last six years: Mark Gundrum, Brian Hagedorn, T. Christopher Dee, Thomas McAdams, and Robert Dehring. Publications: Dedinsky listed five. The two most significant writing pieces, in terms of sheer volume, include my published 500-page dissertation, entitled: "Experiencing Restorative Justice Practices in the Context of an Academic Course – A Phenomenological Mixed Methods Study (2012)" and the 575-page "Wisconsin Domestic Violence Prosecution Manual, 2004" for which I served as the editor and main author.... Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application: St. Thomas More Society, Milwaukee, WI, Board of Directors, 2013-present. Organizer of the annual Youth Law Day at MU law school, 2009-present. SOFA, Inc. (Saving Others For Archie), Board member, 2016-present. St. Charles Parish (Hartland), parish members, 2000-present. St. Joan of Arc Parish (Nashotah), parish members, 2002-present. Lake Country Youth Baseball League, head coach for…7th / 8th grade boys baseball team, summer 2015. Served in an assistant capacity in prior years. St. Clare Center for Catholic Life, Cardinal Stritch University 2015-present Schoenstatt International Province & Retreat Center, Waukesha, WI, 2009-present. Healing Ministry in the Roman Catholic Tradition, Inc., Board of Directors, 2011-2016. St. Catherine’s Residence for Women, Milwaukee, committee member, 1994-1998 St. Aemilian’s Pre-School, Milwaukee, WI, non-profit board member, 1996-1999. Big Brothers/ Big Sisters of Greater Milwaukee, big brother, 1995-1997. Describe any significant pro bono legal work in the last five years: Helped develop restorative justice program for Oconomowoc High School. Helped organization achieve non-profit status. Helped unnamed southeastern Wisconsin school district deal with internal conflict. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – I wish to serve as a circuit court judge because of the immense opportunity to influence and help litigants. I wish to act with firmness, intelligence, and fairness -- exercising caution and restraint, ever mindful and respectful of our legislative and executive branches of government. I once worked for a leader of immense integrity and purpose, a man who inspired a deeper sense of purpose, vision, and mission within me. He advocated eloquently for justice. Years later, this same powerful message resonates within me. To me, an attorney is of limited value without adherence to a high moral purpose and mission.… Best United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in the last thirty years – Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation v. Burwell (2014) The case addresses the tension between reproductive rights (pro-abortion) and proponents of religious liberty. However, most significantly, the decision also stands out as an example of the judicial branch of government restraining the executive branch's powers in favor of granting people owning for-profit entities the right to object to provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) based upon sincerely held religious beliefs. In these cases, both business owners believed that life begins at conception and that any birth control method that could lead to the destruction of embryos would be morally wrong. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) mandated that employers provide insurance coverage with its set of pre-determined provisions. It also required employers to pay for the services. Failure to pay would result in exorbitant penalties, according to the opinion (a major factor in the "substantial burden" standard analysis). From the perspective of the business owners, the course of events presented a troubling set of circumstances. First, the government mandated that employers must provide insurance (which both companies already offered). Next, the government set the parameters for what the insurance policies must cover, including a full breadth of contraceptives. This position presents a major dilemma for many citizens across the country, morally offensive to some and violative of their religious beliefs. The government opted out religious groups and non-profits, ceding the moral and religious ground. However, HHS did not provide accomodations (sic) in the case of for-profit businesses. Failure to comply with its provisions would result in multi-million dollar penalties to the companies. So, the court's action effectively curtailed and restrained an ambitious piece of legislation and the executive branch's exercise over personally held moral and religious beliefs. There is an additional reason why I find this decision to be significant. HHS went so far as to argue that the business owners' position was flawed. Even though HHS already had acknowledged the moral position for religious groups and non-profits, HHS argued that the business owners actually bore no moral culpability in paying for coverage. Instead, HHS maintained that the moral culpability fell upon the shoulders of those who actually decide to destroy their embryos. Justice Alito noted the inappropriateness of courts presuming to determine the plausibility of a given religious claim. In determining that HHS' regulations imposing an obligation upon for-profit business owners violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the high court determined that the federal government must be considerate of the sincerely held religious beliefs of our citizenry. The case represents a major victory for proponents of religious freedom.  Martinez "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about former Gov. Scott Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. While Walker has left office, WJI will continue to profile his appointees who are still in office. We also will profile Gov. Tony Evers' judicial appointees. Name: Maureen Morris Martinez Appointed to: Racine County Circuit Court Appointment date: Dec. 4, 2018, elected to a six-year term in April 2019 Education: Law School – Marquette University Law School Graduate School – University of Illinois – Urbana Undergraduate – St. Mary's College of Notre Dame Marshall University, Huntington, W.V. Recent legal employment: January 2017 - present – Deputy district attorney, Racine County District Attorney's Office February 1997 - January 2017 – Assistant district attorney, Racine County District Attorney's Office Memberships: State of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Racine County Bar Association Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Assigned to a sensitive crime caseload that includes homicides and sexual assaults. Previously directed children in need of protective services for 15 years. Involved in administrative and personnel matters. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 300; non-jury, no answer; arbitration, no answer; administrative bodies, no answer. Cases on appeal: I have litigated a number of cases on appeal. The application asks for the names and case numbers of the appeals and Martinez listed three. Three most significant cases: Martinez did not list specific cases and did not give the requested case numbers and citations. By far the most important cases that I have litigated have been the termination of parent rights cases. They are not important as to the legal issues, but more so for the individual children and families that are affected.... I have conducted countless termination of parental rights trials and was successful in them all. My work with the Veteran's Court Treatment Team is also very significant. Through this court's work and the very hard work put in by the veterans, we have literally brought veterans back from the brink of despair. Previous runs for political office: None. Position or involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Supported Racine County District Attorney Patricia Hanson in two campaigns. Both times I was on her campaign committee and participated in the "boots on the ground" duties of campaigning. During her campaign for district attorney I coordinated the letters to the editor campaign. I also spent countless hours with and on behalf of Tricia "working the room" for her. All judicial or non-partisan candidates endorsed in the last six years: Judge Wynne Laufenberg Judge Robert Repischak District Attorney Patricia Hanson Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application: Caledonia Conservancy Tutor for middle school students at John Paul Academy Former Board president and Board member, YWCA in Racine Member, Racine County Child Death Review Team Member, Multidisciplinary Child Abuse Investigation Team, Racine County Member, Drug Endangered Child team for Racine County Former member of All Saints Health Care Systems, member of the Physicians Activities Committee Previous member and co-chair of the Racine County Family Violence Community Coalition. President of the PTA for Holy Name School Describe any significant pro bono legal work in the last five years: Pro bono work not allowed due to her position. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – My ambition within my law career has been a slow progression. When I began law school in the fall of 1992,1 had (redacted) and a (redacted). My husband had a demanding career as an (redacted) and I was leaving a career that I loved, school social work. I felt a calling however and I always had in the back of my mind that I wanted to be a lawyer. I studied at my kitchen table and took the entrance exam and was accepted by Marquette University Law' School. With (redacted) children at home, Marquette was the only school I could attend and I started law school. As hard as it was I LOVED THE LAW. I loved everything about law school, I had previously set as a goal for myself to be an autonomous life-long learner; what better way to do that then be a lawyer as the law is ever-changing. I also went to law school with the ambition to become a prosecutor.... I absolutely love litigation; one of my favorite places is the courtroom. In my efforts to be an autonomous life-long learner, as comfortable as I am as a prosecutor, I believe I am ready to take the next step and explore new areas of the law as a judge. I know I have the knowledge, skills and judgment to be a fair and impartial judge. I think I have an excellent reputation within the legal community as an honest, ethical, hard-working and talented attorney. I am always ready to listen, however, I never waiver from my cannon (sic) of holding people accountable for what they do. The fact that this father was unaware of the existence of this child until the government informed him is not a reason to excuse his lack of concern for his child. ... – Racine County Circuit Judge Maureen Morris Martinez  Nordstrand "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about former Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. While Walker has left office, WJI will continue to profile his appointees who are still in office. We also will profile Gov. Tony Evers' judicial appointees.
Name: Scott J. Nordstrand Appointed to: St. Croix County Circuit Court Appointment date: Jan. 2, 2019 Education: Law School – University of North Dakota School of Law Undergraduate – University of Wisconsin – River Falls High School – Hudson High School Recent legal employment: 2014 - present – General counsel and special projects, Solutran, Inc. 2007-2014 – Director of administration and legal counsel, SSG Corp. 2005-2006 – Commissioner, Alaska Department of Administration 2005 – Alaska acting attorney general Memberships: State Bar Association Alaska Bar Association Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: First worked at two private firms in Anchorage, Alaska. Practice included employment, commercial and personal injury law. Accepted position as deputy attorney general for Alaska in 2003. In this role, I served as the Chief Deputy to the Attorney General and supervised 140 attorneys. The breadth, complexity and diversity of the civil legal matters facing the State of Alaska were extraordinary. Unlike most states, Alaska statutorily prohibited other departments of government from employing attorneys, so the civil lawyers I supervised addressed every non-criminal matter in state government. No representation of clients in court or administrative hearings since becoming corporate lawyer. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, <5; non-jury, <10; arbitration, <10; administrative bodies, <10. Cases on appeal: 10 Three most significant cases: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1547 v. Alaska Utility Construction, Inc – This case concerned union harassment against a small non-union electrical contractor. It had a contentious and lengthy pre-trial and trial process, culminating in this appeal successfully defending our punitive damage award. We experienced periodic threats of violence directed at our client and firm. At the time, the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) was the most formidable and aggressive union in Alaska and this case was considered to be a true case of David defeating Goliath. Petro Star, Inc. v. Northland Alaska, Inc. – In this case, I brought a negligence action on behalf of Petro Star regarding a fuel truck accident at a construction site on the North Slope near the Prudhoe Bay oil fields. The jury trial was set in Barrow—the closest venue to the site of the incident. The judge, attorneys and witnesses all flew into Barrow and stayed together at a hotel on the Arctic Ocean near the courthouse. It was dark nearly every hour of the day and the walk to the courthouse— less than a block—was quite a challenge at 45 degrees below. My client representatives were Alaska natives, as Petro Star was a subsidiary of an Alaska Native Corporation. They joined me at the plaintiff’s table for the first few days of trial. Surprisingly, one day they came to court and told me that they could no longer attend trial as they needed to begin preparations for the whaling season. I continued without them. Unfortunately, the jury did not find in favor of my client, but it was a memorable week trying a case in the northern most city in the world. And it tested my ability to adapt to extraordinary circumstances. Taranto v. North Slope Borough – Concerned Barrow (Alaska) residents, including the NSB (North Slope Borough) clerk, believed that Sheila Taranto, a local taxicab operator, was providing illegal alcohol and drugs to local residents from her cab. So, they prepared a petition seeking the names of those with information regarding Taranto’s illegal activities and put it at the front desk of the NSB clerk’s office. Taranto brought a defamation suit against NSB. NSB retained me after a failed attempt to dismiss the case before the Alaska Supreme Court. On remand, I brought a motion before the trial court seeking to establish the law of the case that government speech concerning matters of public safety were entitled to constitutional or common law protection thus requiring Taranto to prove “actual malice” to prevail on her defamation claim and seeking summary judgment. The trial court agreed with my analysis, as did the Alaska Supreme Court in the case cited above. Ultimately, Taranto filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. One of my writing samples is the brief I filed on behalf of NSB in opposition, so more details about the case can be found there. The petition was denied and NSB prevailed. The process of developing and presenting a constitutional defense for NSB, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, was a satisfying professional challenge. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed