"Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Name: Robert S. Repischak Appointed to: Racine County Circuit Court Appointment date: Feb. 23, 2017 (up for election in spring, 2019). Education: Law School – Hamline University Undergrad – University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point High School – Martin Luther High School, Greendale Recent employment: 1998 - present – Racine County assistant district attorney 2001 - present – Town of Norway, municipal prosecutor 2015 - present – Town of Dover, municipal prosecutor Memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin Eastern District of Wisconsin Western District of Wisconsin Racine County Bar Association Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: While in private practice I litigated a number of small and large claim actions. I litigated both on behalf of plaintiffs as well as defendants. I also litigated a number of family court actions. I have also participated in U.S. Bankruptcy Court actions, litigating matters concerning preferential transfers, etc. The vast majority of my litigation experience, however, has occurred as an Assistant District Attorney. In that role, I have litigated between 90 and 100 cases, ranging from simple traffic matters and misdemeanors, to sexual assaults (child and adult victims), robberies, burglaries and homicides. I have also litigated collateral civil actions, such as forfeiture claims that resulted from controlled substance violations. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 90-100; non-jury, approximately six. Cases on appeal: NA List and describe the three most significant cases in which you were involved: 1. State v. Gary Becker – I was the prosecutor for this case. This matter involved the then-mayor of the City of Racine. The defendant was engaging in online chats with what he thought was a 14 year old female. He agreed to meet her for sexual purposes. Upon arriving at the prearranged meeting spot, he was arrested and charged with a number of sexual based offenses, as well as misconduct in public office. He was eventually convicted of attempted second degree sexual assault of a child and child enticement. This case was significant in that the City of Racine lost its sitting mayor. It was also significant that our office vigorously pursued this matter and showed that no citizen, even the mayor, was above the law. 2. State v. Samuel C. Johnson – I was the prosecutor for this case. This case involved the defendant sexually assaulting (a minor girl) over a period of time. The unusual aspect of this case was that the defendant was a well known billionaire business leader in Racine. His family's business endeavors employed hundreds of local citizens and was a leading philanthropic force in the community. While initially cooperative, the victim eventually refused to cooperate with the State and also failed to provide her therapy records which were requested by the defendant. She and her mother also moved to North Carolina and refused to voluntarily return to Wisconsin to testify. In addition, the State sought to obtain the defendant's treatment records from a clinic in Arizona, whereat he confessed to the sexual assaults. This matter was not only litigated in the State of Wisconsin, but it was also litigated through the superior court of the State of Arizona, eventually ending up in the Arizona Supreme Court. The extradiction of the victim and mother were also litigated in the courts of North Carolina. The therapy record issue eventually ended up in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. ... In the end, without the victim's cooperation, the State was forced to settle on two counts of 4th degree sexual assault. The defendant was sentenced to 4 months in the county jail. Again, the dogged prosecution of this matter showed the community that no one was above the law. 3. State v. David Larsen – I was the co-prosecutor for this matter. This case involved the defendant beating his ex-wife nearly to death, kidnapping her and hiding stuffing (sic) her in a large barrel. He transported the barrel/victim to a storage facility in Palatine, Illinios (sic), wherein he locked her inside during sub-freezing weather. During the hours immediately after the crime, I assisted officers at the defendant's house (crime scene) as well and assisting them in drafting and obtaining search warrants. Through excellent police work, the victim was located and rescued. She sustained substantial injury, including the loss of all of her toes as a result of frostbite. She was eventually able to participate in the prosecution of the defendant, which lead (sic) to a conviction for attempted first degree intentional homicide. As a result of this case, the victim Teri Jendusa-Nicolai, has become a nationally known champion for victims of domestic violence and changes in the law geared to protect victims of domestic violence. Involvement in judicial, non-partisan or partisan political campaigns in the last six years: Racine County judicial candidates Michael Nieskes – volunteer and donor. Timothy Boyle – volunteer and donor. Trish Hansen – volunteer and donor. Eugene Gasiorkiewicz – volunteer and donor. Also donated to Milwaukee County judicial campaign for Paul Rifelj. Endorsed all of the above candidates and Racine County judicial candidate Mark Nielsen. 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: Waterford Lions Club St. Peter’s Lutheran Church & Love Inc. meal program Waterford High School mock trial legal coach Describe any pro bono legal work in the last five years: NA Quotes: Why I want to be a judge — … In 1997, I was recruited by the Racine County District Attorney's Office. While I miss the diversity of private practice, I became enthusiastically adept at prosecuting sensitive and violent crimes. The majority of my case load focuses on sexual assaults, child abuse, child pornography, robberies, homicides, etc. As a prosecutor, I have litigated between 90 and 100 cases and 100's of motions. I have removed seriously violent and predatory individuals from our streets. As a result of my experience, I have honed a keen sense of examining the merits of a case. As a prosecutor, I have a heightened responsibility to assess each case with thoroughness, keeping in mind that the impact of my decisions may be great. Consequently, I frequently utilize discretion that is much broader and more significant than most other attorneys. ... I also believe that my litigation experience will be a great addition to our bench. It is interesting to note that many of our current judges do not have an extensive litigation background. I believe my trial experience has equipped me with the skills and knowledge to address a wide variety of issues that may arise in court and will translate into fostering an effective and efficient courtroom setting. The effect of McDonald, coupled with Heller, cannot be overstated. ... The McDonald decision, once and for all, put to bed the argument ... that the Second Amendment only applied to the maintenance of militias. - Racine County Judge Robert S. Repischak Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years — McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
The case I have chosen is the second of a one-two punch combination confirming the Second Amendment's protection of an individual's right to privately keep and bear arms. … In McDonald, the Court addressed loccal (sic) ordinances which effectively banned virtually all handgun possessions by private citizens. Earlier, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), the Court struck down a District of Columbia ordinance which banned the possession of handguns in private homes. The Heller decision affirmatively resolved the question of whether possession of a firearm for self-defense was the "central component" of the Second Amendment, and thus a constitutionally protected right. Heller expanded the protections of the Second Amendment to private citizens. What it did not resolve, however, was the question of whether the Second Amendment was applicable to the States. The McDonald decision completed that which Heller started, by answered (sic) that question in the affirmative; finally applying the Second Amendment to the States, on a level commensurate with that of the other first Eight Amendments. The effect of McDonald, coupled with Heller, cannot be overstated. First, the decision ended a dry spell of Second Amendment jurisprudence. ... The McDonald decision, once and for all, put to bed the argument espoused in Miller that the Second Amendment only applied to the maintenance of militias. McDonald opened up the Second Amendment protections to private citizens and divorced the militia limitation from it. Further, it expanded Heller by finally applying the Second Amendment to the States, via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Secondly, the decision is a wonderful and historical read. Justices Alito and Thomas laid out a clear and informative history of the thoughts and philosophy that fostered the fundamental concept of an individual's right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. The decision recognizes that self-defense is a basic right and is a fundamental component of the Second Amendment. … The majority opinion, together with the concurring opinion of Justice Thomas, are important because they address some of the arguments advanced by those who would continue to limit the Second Amendment to the maintenance of militias and deprive citizens of their right to self-defense by keeping and bearing arms. The historical and philosophical arguments contained in those opinions are a sound counter to the specious argument of those espousing "gun control" and the desire to limit the Second Amendment. Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years The decisions in State v. Lynch 2016 WI 66 (2016) and State v. Johnson, 348 Wis. 2d. 450 (2013) are disappointing; not for what they accomplished, but for what they ultimately failed to accomplish. In each case, the Court had an opportunity to correct the misinterpretation of Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) that tainted the decision of State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600, 499 N.W. 719 (Ct. App. 1993). However, in each case the majority of the Justices failed to agree to affirm, modify or reverse a court of appeals decision dealing with the effects of Shiffra. The Shiffra decision has not only vexed courts, like Lynch and Johnson, it also has deprived many victims of justice. The issues that have caused lingering problems center on an all too acceptable premise that (1) a defendant has a right to demand an in camera review of a victim's private and privileged records, and (2) the only sanction for a victim's refusal to release said privileged records is to prohibit that victim from testifying. These flawed presumptions have led to unwarranted intrusions into individual, non-governmental, privileged records of victims. They have also acted to deprive victims of their ability to seek justice. In Ritchie, the defendant sought confidential files from a state protective agency. The files were deemed confidential by statute, but could be accessed by a court order. Using a Due Process analysis and relying upon Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Court determined that the State was obligated to tum over the records, in part, because they were in its possession. Limiting the Brady obligation to a government entity was appropriate. Had Shiffra limited the defendant's right to privileged records solely in the government's possession, all would have been well. However, Shiffra expanded a defendant's reach and created a new right to access individual victim's privileged information well beyond the intention of Brady. As a result, an individual may no longer feel secure in the privacy of their personal information once they have become a victim of a crime. The Shiffra decision also imposed a draconian sanction upon victims for failing to release privileged records. If imposed, the sanction prohibits victims from testifying. This presents a victim with a difficult choice; either choose between keeping their privileged information private or forego his/her pursuit of justice. This sanction is often fatal to any prosecution in which a victim refuses to release privileged information. Such a sanction does not take into account a defendant's successful attempt to convince, coerce or cajole a victim into refusing to cooperate, as was the case in Johnson. A sanction mechanism by which a defendant can successfully prevent a victim from testifying thwarts the pursuit of justice. The Court could have remedied these issues in Lynch and Johnson, but by failing to reach a majority compromise, the Court has kept in place a means to deprive some victims of justice, at the expense of maintaining their privacy. Judicial philosophy — Applicant says that his judicial philosophy is defined by the following factors: restraint, know your limits, words and actions have meaning, and be respectful. I have developed a certain level of expertise in my field. However, I will be the first to admit that I am not well versed in certain areas of the law. For instance, it has been many years since I have dealt with a UCC financing issue or a condemnation by use of eminent domain. As such, even when addressing an issue within my field of expertise, I remind myself that I am not the smartest person in the room. By doing so, it allows me to keep an open mind and to listen to those who have other ideas and thus expand my fund of knowledge.
0 Comments
"Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Name: Robert F. Dehring Jr. Appointed to: Jefferson County Circuit Court Appointment date: Dec. 14, 2016; up for election spring, 2018 Education: Law School – Marquette University Undergrad – University of Wisconsin-Madison High School – Waukesha North Recent employment: 2013 - present – Waukesha County judicial commissioner 2010 - 2012 – Jefferson County judicial commissioner 2009 - 2013 – Jefferson County assistant corporation counsel Memberships: Waukesha County Bar Association (board member, 2014-15; secretary/treasurer, 2015-16; president-elect, 2016-17) Wisconsin Family Court Commissioner Association The Federalist Society-Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter Office of Lawyer Regulation-District 5 Committee Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Private practice focused on estate planning, tax, and corporate contract work.Limited work in bankruptcy court, probate court, and criminal court (including felony cases). Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 0; non-jury, 30,000; administrative bodies, 2. Cases on appeal: 0 List and describe the three most significant cases in which you were involved: None listed. I am unaware of any cases of mine that were cited in reported decisions. Describe the approximate number and nature of cases you have heard during your judicial or quasi-judicial tenure: Civil court evictions, money claims under $10,000; temporary restraining orders in domestic abuse, harassment, child abuse and other matters; family court cases; criminal court initial appearances, bail hearing, arraignments, felony preliminary hearings and search warrants; juvenile court and probate matters. Describe the two most significant cases you have heard as a judicial officer. Identify the parties, describe the cases, and explain why you believe them to be significant. Provide the trial dates and names of attorneys involved, if possible. One case of mine that I believe to be especially significant is Waukesha County case ... due to a novel family law issue that surely would have reached the appellate level had the parties not eventually reached a stipulation. The parties have an 18 year old child who is developmentally disabled. The child attends public school receiving instruction in "life skills" which may or may not be interpreted as worthy of high school credit. In Wisconsin, child support runs until age 18, unless the child is actively pursuing a high school diploma. The mother, who has primary placement of the child, wants child support to run until age 19 because the child is still in school. The father wants child support to end at age 18 because the course of instruction will not lead to a high school diploma. Another case that I consider significant is one of the first small claims trials that I heard in Jefferson County. ... The plaintiff was an indigent farmer who contracted with a Farmers Market (the defendant) to sell her fruits and vegetables. The farmer had a booth in a prime location, in a more prominent view of shoppers. Defendant told Plaintiff that she would have to move her booth to a less desirable location, even though they had contracted otherwise, so that the Defendant could give the spot to another preferred vendor. When plaintiff resisted, the defendant threatened to harm the plaintiff in an illegal manner. I found that the hostile environment created by the defendant was tantamount to a breach of contract, and awarded damages in the amount of $200.00. This amount represented the profit that the farmer would have earned but for the breach of contract. While the outcome may not be considered significant in terms of dollars and cents, I believe this case to be a victory for the proposition of equal justice under the law, and in particular, for small business owners everywhere. Involvement in judicial, non-partisan or partisan political campaigns in the last six years: In 2010, I ran for City of Cudahy Municipal Judge. I received 17.43% of the vote in the 2/16/10 primary and did not advance to the general election. John Dobogai won the general election in April, 2010. Candidates endorsed in the last six years -- David Wambach, Ronald Sonderhouse, Rebecca Bradley, Timothy Kay. 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: I am an active member of St. Catherine’s Church in Oconomowoc. I have volunteered for several years as Presiding Judge in the Wisconsin High School Mock Trial program. I volunteer from time to time for charities such as the American Cancer Society, Make-A-Wish Foundation, Susan G. Komen Foundation, Big Brothers / Big Sisters, Muscular Dystrophy Association, and the Lake Area Free Clinic. I found that the hostile environment created by the defendant was tantamount to a breach of contract, and awarded damages in the amount of $200.00. - Jefferson County Circuit Judge Robert F. Dehring Jr., describing one of his most significant cases Describe any pro bono legal work in the last five years: None - prohibited due to status as quasi-judicial official.
Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – I want to be a judge because, given my abilities, it is the highest level of service that I can offer to the community. It is a daily honor to take the bench as a commissioner. When on the bench, it is inescapable to realize ones responsibility to society, and to the litigants in particular. It is rewarding to have the chance to positively affect people’s lives (or, all too often, minimize the negative circumstances). The intellectual challenge of applying statutes and case law to a particular fact pattern is often grueling, but always stimulating. Our system of justice is not flawless. But it is the best in the world, and the envy of all other nations. It is both daunting and rewarding to be a critical cog in the system. As a commissioner I am already familiar with the processes of the Jefferson County court system. I have heard thousands of cases in every area of the law. In Waukesha County, I have helped reduce costs to the taxpayers through efficiency initiatives, such as leading the county's transition to paperless filing. I would like to use this experience to take the next step from commissioner to judge. Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years — United States v. Lopez (1995) [This case] halted a decades-long trend of federal encroachment on state sovereignty. In 1990, Congress made it a federal offense for any individual to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. The Act neither regulated a commercial activity nor contained a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. Lopez was convicted in the District Court. Lopez appealed, challenging his conviction based on his claim that the Act exceeded Congress' power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the conviction, holding the Act invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause in light of insufficient congressional findings and legislative history. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. This opinion is remarkable in its patient and deliberative analysis. Chief Justice Rehnquist immediately recognizes that even the precedents which have expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause confirm that this power is subject to outer limits. … In the instant case, there was no evidence that the carrying of handguns affected the economy on a grand scale. To accept the government's "domino effect" argument would be to create a slippery slope where the government could regulate any activity that might lead to violent crime, regardless of its nexus to interstate commerce, due to possible social costs. If Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything. The Constitution created Congress as a body with enumerated powers. Congress may exercise only those powers granted to it. Regulation of criminal law enforcement and education are areas that States have been historically and constitutionally sovereign. Given no evidence that the activity substantially affects interstate commerce, the Court was correct to step in and check the government's authority by defining clearly between state and federal powers. Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years – Kelo v. City of New London (2005) [This case] is an unfortunate assault upon individual property rights. The city of New London used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers for redevelopment. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues, as local planners hoped that the Pfizer Corporation would draw new business to the area. Kelo and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically, the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. ... In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. Such justifications for land takings, the majority argued, should be given deference. … This is a classic example of judicial activism, where the Court contorts the plain text of the Constitution to the point of absurdity, for the benefit of subjective policy preferences. In the takings clause, the words "public use" limit the government's power to the taking of private property only when the land would be used by the general public. The majority misinterprets "public use" as being the equivalent of "public purpose," which displaces the language of the Clause. Moreover, the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment was enacted to prevent the government from infringing on the private property rights of citizens, a right which was fundamental to the American Founding. The Founders could not have intended to benefit the politically powerful at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Judicial philosophy — My judicial philosophy is characterized by restraint, strict constructionism, and accountability. Judges must interpret the law strictly rather than to seek to make new laws. A judge should defer to the intent of the legislature rather than what he or she feels the law should be. This is assuming that the legislature is acting within its enumerated powers. A role of the judiciary is to be a check on the expansion of federal power. The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people. Accordingly, issues that are not explicitly expressed in the U.S. Constitution are the domain of each respective State. If you have previously submitted a questionnaire or application to this or any other judicial nominating commission, please give the name of the commission and the approximate date of submission. I applied for an appointment to Branch 9 in Waukesha County through this commission on 7/23/2014. "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. While typos and grammar goofs happen to everyone, Tolan's application had a particular large number of them. We noted some of them. Name: Daniel J. Tolan Appointed to: Polk County Circuit Court Appointment date: Jan. 3, 2017 (Elected April 4, 2017) Education: Law School – Hamline University Undergrad – University of Wisconsin-Green Bay High School – Luck Public High School, Luck, Wisconsin Recent employment: 2009 - present – Polk County District Attorney 1997 - 2016 – Self as private attorney 2014 - 2016 – Luck village prosecutor Memberships: Wisconsin Over 10 years ago was notified I was 1 epr credit short and rectified the situation within 1 week. Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: More than 18 years experience in criminal and civil law. I have tried to represent my clients by applying the law to our facts and negotating (sic) a fair and reasonable resolution. I have tried the cases that we could not achieve a fair and reasonable resolution (sic). Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, about 22; non-jury, estimated 100+. Cases on appeal: State of Wisconsin v. Albert Linder – I did the Jury Trial on this case as a Special Prosecutor. It was a Second Degree Sexual Assault of a Child. It is signficant to me because I was able to get justice for the victim in terms of a conviction and the resulting sentence was life in prison due to the persistent repeater enhancer. I was able to take a pedofile (sic) off the streets and protect the victim and public from him for life. State of Wisconsin v. Eugene Ferguson – I was involved in this Arson case from it's (sic) inception. I tried this case as a Jury Trial for 4 and a half days. It ended in guilty verdicts on 2 counts of Arson, and 1 Count of Burglary. This case is significant to me because I was able to achieve convictions after a hard fought fight and was able to give the victim some piece (sic) of mind that she did not have to be afraid of him while he is incarcerated. County of Washburn v. Eric D. Smith – I reasearched (sic) and wrote the Appeal brief and the Supreme Court brief. I also did the oral argument in Madison, Wisconsin before the Supreme Court. This case is signficant (sic) to me because the court applied the law of Implied Consent to the facts of our case. The defense was attempting to expand the law by using footnotes in a different Supreme Court case to create new law which would penalize law enforcement if they attempt to provide additional information in answering any questions regarding Implied Consent. Involvement in judicial, non-partisan or partisan political campaigns in the last six years: None Election history: None Involvement in judicial, non-partisan or partisan political campaigns: None 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: I do not belong to an (sic) organizations, but have volunteered for Luck Commercial Club during Lucky Days and have also volunteered for the Luck Gandy Dancer Marathon. Describe any pro bono legal work in the last five years: NA Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – I want to be Judge in my hometown county because I feel that the public has lost faith in the local justice system. I hear local citizens comment about not being treated fairly in the courts. I hear local citizens comment about the system doing nothing about the drug problem. I hear citizens and lawyers comment about the timeliness of their court hearings. I believe that there is a better way to move the cases along in the process in a more timely manner. ... I became a prosecutor because I wanted to play a role in what was happening my community. Over time, I have realized that I want to become a judge for the people of Polk County, Wisconsin because I believe that I am the best choice for this county given the current field. I bring with me experience in the civil and criminal area as well as the fundamental fairness and demeanor that the citizens of Polk County deserve. Over time, I have realized that I want to become a judge for the people of Polk County, Wisconsin because I believe that I am the best choice for this county given the current field. - Polk County Circuit Judge Daniel J. Tolan Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years - State v. O’Brien (2014)
It is a great example of strictly applying the law to the facts of the case. The opinion specifically rejects the invitation of the defendant to do the job of the legislature and modify or limit Wis. Stat. 970.038. This decision is also important for judicial economy reasons as well as the demonstration of the literal application of the law to the facts and comments upon the role of the legislature. However, part of the reason why I selected this case … is because it has directly impacted my role as a prosecutor. … The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in O'brien to allow hearsay consistent with §970.038 has curtailed the use of the Preliminary Hearing as a mini trial, protected the rights of victims, confirmed the summary nature and narrow scope of the Preliminary Hearing as well as upholding (sic) the protection of the defendant from unwarranted prosecution. ... All in all this decision was a win - win for Wisconsin. Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years — Missouri v. McNeely (2013) I believe that this case fails to adequately consider the reasonableness component of the protections of the 4th Amendment. In that particular case, there was more than enough probable cause to obtain a search warrant. … Therefore, the focus of this case is really on the reasonableness of the police conduct … Given the facts of this case, is it really unreasonable to draw blood given the above stated facts, the guaranteed dissipation of alcohol, the natural delay that occurs in obtaining a search warrant, the government’s interest is protecting citizens from drunk driving and implied consent law? … I believe that fits within the exception to the warrant requirement as well as making (sic) the blood draw in this case reasonable. Obviously, the better practice is to try and obtain a warrant as the court decided. Judicial philosophy – My judicial philosophy would be to a combination of a conservative and moderate. . (sic) My belief is that the judges should carefully apply the law to the facts in a fair and impartial manner and should not legislate from the bench. With that said, there will be times, such as sentencing, when a judge is required to use discretion in administering justice. In my humble opinion, I believe that everyone carries their own personal bias as a result of cultural influence from their formative years and upbringing. A judge should fairly apply the McCleaty, Gallion and any guideline sentencing factors, but to say that a judge's inherent bias will not play some role in determining a what they believe to be a just sentence is to ignore reality. For it is their own common core beliefs that will be called upon when executing justice. I am a believer in the following Ronald Reagan quote "We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the law breaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each person is accountable for his own actions." Give any other information you feel would be helpful in evaluating your application: I have practiced law on my own from 1997 until March of 2016, when I left the private practice to be a full time Assistant District Attorney for Polk County. I think that it is a very difficult feat to come from just out of law school to practicing on your own for 18 plus year. During that time, I have had to lean on the local bar for help and advice. I think that gained me some respect as it showed that I was humble, appreciative and wanted to do things the right way. I think my ability to operate of (sic) my own for 18 years is extremely relevant because it highlights one of my strongest character traits. That trait is determination. … "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Name: Michael J. Aprahamian Appointed to: Waukesha County Circuit Court Appointment date: Oct. 17, 2014 Education: Law School – Yale University Undergrad – University of Wisconsin - Madison High School – Brookfield East High School Recent Employment: 2001 - present – Foley & Lardner, partner 1997 - 2001 – Law Office of Anna Becker 1999 - 2006 – Jackson County district attorney (did not seek re-election to a fifth term) Memberships: American Bar Association Seventh Circuit Bar Association Waukesha County Bar Association Milwaukee County Bar Association Wisconsin Bar Association Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association Serjeants' Inn – select professional society comprised of 50 attorneys and judges in the Milwaukee area legal community. Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: 21 years experience as commercial litigator representing plaintiffs and defendants. Acted as appointed counsel in several pro bono criminal appeals. I take pride not only in my ability to assist clients in solving their legal problems, but in the fact that my largest single source of referrals over the years has been opposing counsel." Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 10; non-jury, 5; arbitration, 5. Number of cases on appeal: 20 cases listed, including Libertarian Party of Wisconsin v. State, in which Aprahamian says he “performed primary legal research and assisted in appellate briefing.” (See answer to "best decision" question below.) Involvement in judicial, non-partisan or partisan political campaigns in the last six years: Endorsed Jusge Lisa S. Neubauer and Paul F. Reilly for Wisconsin Court of Appeals. 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: My nephew was born blind and upon my return to Milwaukee after law school, I wanted to volunteer in support of organizations serving the blind and visually impaired. From 1994-2008, I served on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee of the Center for Blind and Visually Impaired Children, Inc., and as its President from 2008-2010. Others roles include facilitating the merger of that group with the Badger Association of the Blind and Visually Improved, serving as Vice President and President on the board, and co-chair of a capital campaign. Also active with the Cross of Life Lutheran Church, Brookfield. ... the (State Supreme) Court and its decisions have become increasingly fractured, particularly in high profile cases, leading to well-publicized tension among the Justices and a lack of collegiality and decorum that threaten public trust in the institution. Describe any pro bono legal work you have done including dates: Worked as appointed counsel in 2009-2010 in a federal criminal appeal; involved in other pro bono appellate appointments, reviewing briefs and preparing associates for argument; participated in guardianship case before Wisconsin Supreme Court in 2013; and was appointed counsel in helping prisoner pursue post-conviction relief in Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – I want to serve my community. I was raised on the belief that public service in the epitome of citizenship and bringing my knowledge, experience and dedication to bear in service of my community would be very fulfilling. Equally important, I have found that the intellectual challenge is the most rewarding aspect of my career in the law. As a judge, I will face new and different legal issues, all in the context of real-world stakes for those presenting them. Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years - Libertarian Party v. State (1996) The case involved a challenge to the Stadium Act, which provided for the formation of local baseball park districts and empowered the districts to build and maintain professional baseball parks. The Libertarian Party argued (among other things) that the Stadium Act was unconstitutional as a private tax law and because it permitted the contracting of state debt without a public purpose. In a unanimous decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court methodically rejected each of the challenges, ultimately paving the way for the building of Miller Park and preventing the Milwaukee Brewers from becoming the second Major League Baseball team to leave Milwaukee for greener fields. … The decision … embodies how the three branches of our government can work together effectively to promote the public good. ... Finally, the Supreme Court's decision was unanimous (with one Justice not participating). Clarity and force in Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions is certainly a desirable objective. In the fifteen years since the Court decided Libertarian Party, however, the Court and its decisions have become increasingly fractured, particularly in high profile cases, leading to well-publicized tension among the Justices and a lack of collegiality and decorum that threaten public trust in the institution. Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years —National Federation of Independent Business et al v. Sebelius (2012) One of the worst opinions in the last thirty years was National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, otherwise known as the Obamacare Case. That case stretches beyond all recognition the idea of a federal government of limited powers. Upholding Obamacare as a “tax” smacks of judicial legislation to achieve a desired end—that is, upholding the act. Judicial philosophy – I am a judicial conservative and will apply the law as written and as interpreted by established precedent, and will do so impartially, without regard to the parties involved. I understand the limited role played by judges in a constitutional democracy, and will not succumb to pressure to broaden my role nor shrink from my responsibility to perform it. "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Name: Anna L. Becker Appointed to: Jackson County Circuit Court Appointment date: Aug. 28, 2014 Education: Law School – Hamline University School of Law Undergrad – University of Minnesota High School - no information provided by applicant Recent Employment: 2007 - present – Jackson County court commissioner, family court commissioner 2007-2013 - Law Office of Anna Becker 1999-2006 - Jackson County district attorney (did not seek re-election to a fifth term) Memberships: State Bar of Minnesota Wisconsin State Bar U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin Wisconsin Family Court Commissioners Association Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Experience in criminal litigation and civil litigation; handled family law, guardian ad litem work, ChIPS cases, guardianships. Worked extensively on a city flodwall project by doing real estate condemnation for levee improvements following a flood. I began my career assisting the City Attorney...Village Attorney who was a partner in my law firm. I tried numerous civil forfeiture cases in that capacity. In addition, I did collections actions for Northern Christmas Tree Growers and Nursery and handled divorces and other civil and criminal cases. ... I was elected District Attorney after a 1998 campaign with two opponents. As District Attorney I spent a great deal of time working with law enforcement agencies prosecuting criminal cases and traffic forfeitures. As one of the two attorneys in our small office I was in the courtroom on a daily basis and gained very valuable experience. I worked as a self employed attorney part time after my children were born. Later appointed family court commissioner. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, more than 13; non-jury, "too many to count." Number of cases on appeal: Most, if not all, of the cases appealed during my tenure as DA were handled through the AG’s office, not ours. We may have handled a very small handful of appeals but I do not recall any of significance. Describe the two most significant cases you have hear as a judicial officer. I really cannot think of any particularly significant cases as most of the matters I preside over are pretty routine. One that stands out as a bit odd is a small claims pro se case (09SC519). The parties were each offered a turn to present evidence to the court. After at least a half hour, I summarized what I thought each party was attempting to prove. Both agreed that I had it correct. When I then asked them what their problem was because it essentially sounded like they were in agreeent with the facts and what they each wanted, they agreed that they had no issue and the case was settled. It was very bizarre. . 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:
Pro bono legal work: As FCC I routinely assist pro se litigants in finding the correct forms to use and the legal process, but I am prohibited from providing them with legal advice. In 1997 I participated as a presenter on estate planning at a program sponsored by a local bank for the community. For numerous years I assisted the judge(s) with presentations at the annual Student Government Day at the Courthouse. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – I was born and raised in Jackson County and we own the farm that has been in our family for nearly a century. I have a strong belief that the community is what you make it. … In a small community like ours, where everyone tends to know everyone else, integrity, work ethic and the ability to apply the law as written can be difficult. Nevertheless, it is critical that the judge uphold the laws and to be able to withstand the scrutiny that may flow from an unpopular but legally mandated decision based on the facts. Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years - Board of Education v. Earls Board of Education v. Earls was a case involving the 4th Amendment privacy rights of public school students involved in extracurricular activities. The school policy required random UA’s (urinalysis) of student in extracurricular activities regardless of whether there was a suspicion of drug activity concerning the students. The US Supreme Court ruled that the UA’s did not violate the 4th Amendment rights of the student because the students had a diminished expectation of privacy and because the policy as a whole furthered the important interest of preventing drug use among students. I agree with the court’s ruling and the rationale behind it. This case strikes a fair balance between individual privacy rights and the public interest of protecting our youth. Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years - Bowers v Hardwick Bowers held that states could imprison homosexuals for having sex with their partners and it facilitated discrimination against gays and lesbians. It is one of the worst civil rights decisions since Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which gave the Supreme Court’s blessing to Jim Crow. … Seventeen years later the Supreme Court directly overruled its decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and held that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. In that case the court chastised itself stating “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.” … This case holding does not just affect homosexuals and lesbians. It goes to the heart of the privacy interests of all Americans and attempts to intrude into the basic privacy rights of American citizens. These types of rights must be zealously protected for this to remain the great country of democracy and freedom for which America is known. There must be a balancing test and this factual scenario clearly did not past that test. This case holding does not just affect homosexuals and lesbians. It goes to the heart of the privacy interests of all Americans and attempts to intrude into the basic privacy rights of American citizens. Judicial philosophy - I believe that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law and apply it to the specific factual scenario set out before the court. To believe otherwise would be to denigrate the separation of powers between the execute, legislative and judiciary branches. Stare decisis is what give the laws and system of justice stability. … The role of the judiciary is to consistently and evenhandly administer justice, maintaining a stable presence in the community that fosters future growth and positive infrastructure.
Other information you feel would be helpful to your application – More than 3 generations of my family have lived in Jackson County and we continue to call it home. As a long term resident, I cherish the lifestyle of living in a rural county and believe it is a terrific place to raise a family, run a business, and grow old. I believe I can make a positive impact on the county and is citizens as a judge. As a parent of elementary school children I also believe the court system can have a positive impact on the youth in the community. I successfully ran for election for District Attorney 4 times and believe that I can do the same again in a judicial race. I would cherish the opportunity to continue to serve and protect my community and its rural values. It would be a great honor to be appointed to this judicial vacancy. "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Name: Nicholas J. Brazeau, Jr. Appointed to: Wood County Circuit Court Appointment date: Sept. 16, 2011; ran unopposed in 2012. Education: Law School – Loyola University Chicago - School of Law Undergrad – University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee (attended 1991-1993) Universit of Wisconsin-Madison (attended 1987-1989) High School - no information provided by applicant Recent Employment: 1997 - present – Partner in Brazeau, Wefel, Kryshak & Nettesheim Memberships: State Bar of Illinois State Bar of Wisconsin Wood County Bar Association Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Experience in criminal litigation, civil litigation and administrative proceedings; handled family law, guardian ad litem work, business cases. When I first started practicing law in Wisconsin Rapids, I accepted public defender cases as a private attorney. That practice brought me to the courtroom for a variety of criminal proceedings for a large part of the start of my career ... It also allowed me to experience a difficult clientele not motivated by the cost of your service. Those clients taught me about the value of treating everyone with equal respect. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 10; non-jury, 100+; administrative bodies, 5+. Number of cases on appeal: Five cases listed. 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:
Fortunately or unfortunately, any appointed judge is going to have to run in an election shortly after the appointment. ... I have also already taken steps to begin to prepare for that election, which I am confident that I will win. -- Wood County Circuit Judge Nicholas J. Brazeau, Jr. Involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: Informally supported two friends, District Attorney Gregory J. Potter and Richard Weymouth, who sought judicial seats, Potter through appointment and Weymouth through election. Pro bono legal work: I have engaged in a large amount of pro bono work in my practice, primarily for previous public defender or otherwise disadvantaged clients who have returned to me with the ability to pay. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – I want to become a judge because I believe I can make a difference to my community and help to guide it in a reasonable and respectful manner. … I am aware that the position of judge requires a tremendous amount of work. I have watched the three judges that currently serve in Wood County, and I am amazed at the tireless work that they put in both in the courtroom and in chambers. All of them are also involved beyond their regular work in Circuit Court... Once I have had a chance to establish myself after the next election, I look forward to serving as a leader in the community and participating in the positive development of the courts. ... Best or worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years - Santosky v. Kramer I cannot say with certainty that it is either the best or worst Supreme Court case in the last thirty years. Santosky v. Kramer is a case that has had a strong impact on me. I believe the case is important because it draws a line between the inalienable rights of a parent and the inalienable right of a child, as they are addressed by our legal system. Santosky stands for the idea that our children are not just a parent's physical property, but something far more important, and entitled to special protection in the courts. -- Brazeau In Santosky, the State of New York sought to terminate the parental rights of the Santosky's. Under New York statutes at the time, a parent's unfitness could be determined by a showing of neglect. The burden of proof for showing that neglect was the preponderance of the evidence. New York courts made such a finding and on appeal found that the burden of proof used was appropriate. The United States Supreme Court accepted the Santosky's appeal and reversed, requiring the New York court to use the "clear and convincing" burden in determining unfitness of a parent for purposes of termination of parental rights.
I believe this case is important because of the tremendous change in the rights afforded to a parent by the use of a different standard regarding the burden of proof. If only required to use the preponderance standard, the Supreme Court pointed out that parental rights would be treated no differently than money sought by one party versus another in any common civil case. The court noted that the right of a parent to enjoy the company and closeness of their children is far greater than any property right. … Santosky upholds the tradition in this country that we tolerate differences and are willing to allow parents to raise their children in a number of different ways. However, it also sets the bar in determining when a state may take the extraordinary step of terminating the parent-child relationship. Santosky stands for the idea that our children are not just a parent's physical property, but something far more important, and entitled to special protection in the courts. Other information you feel would be helpful to your application – While I believe that the appointment process primarily considers the qualifications of the applicants, I know there are times when there are many qualified applicants for the same position. Fortunately or unfortunately, any appointment judge is going to have to run in an election shortly after the appointment. My family has a long history in the State of Wisconsin, the county of Wood and the city of Wisconsin Rapids. I believe that I have good relationships across a wide range of residents in my county. I have also already taken steps to begin to prepare for that election, which I am confident that I will win. "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Name: Timothy G. Dugan Appointed to: Court of Appeals District 1 Appointment date: Oct. 27, 2016 Education: Law School – Marquette University Law School Undergrad – Westminster College High School - no information provided by applicant Recent Employment: 1991 - present – Milwaukee County circuit court judge Memberships: Wisconsin State Bar Association Milwaukee Bar Association Wisconsin Trial Judges Association Milwaukee Trial Judges Association American Bar Association (prioir to 1992) 7th Circuit Bar Association (prior to 1992) Association (of) Trial Lawyers of America (prior to 1992) Wisconsin Academey (sic) of Trial Attorneys (prior to 1992) Wiscosnin School Attorneys Association (prior to 1992) Number of cases heard as a judge: Civil, 10,000; criminal, 15,500; jury trial, 400; court trials, 150. Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: As lawyer with vonBriesen & Purtell, litigation in commercial, municipal, probate and tort areas; municipal and school law; and real estate. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 50; non-jury, 25. Number of cases on appeal: Nine cases listed, including cases representing Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod on tax exemption matters. Most significant cases include Milwaukee Public Schools, et al. v. State of Wisconsin et al.: (Dugan was co-counsel representing seven suburban school districts.) MPS brought the class action lawsuit against the state, the governor, and 24 suburban school districts alleging discrimination in education of MPS students. ... After approximately 3 years of litigation and 65 days of trial the case was settled. MPS sought a remedy from the court creating a single metropolitan school district which would have destroyed the current system of education in the Milwaukee area. The settlement involved the limited expansion of the Chapter 220 program that some of the school districts had voluntarily joined year’s (sic) earlier allowing MPS students to attend school in those districts. 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:
"Courts do not have the authority to attempt to cure what judges perceive as social wrongs or problems that the legislature has chosen not to address. ... Moreover, the judge should not rely on social science studies to justify moving away from established legal precedent. In other words, judges should act as judges, not legislators." -- Court of Appeals Judge Timothy G. Dugan Involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization:
Before becoming judge, distributed campaign literature for candidates in state, and local elections. Since becoming judge, circulated nomination papers for judicial candidates. Pro bono legal work: NA All judicial or non-partisan candidates that you have publically endorsed in the last six years: David Prosser, Rebecca Bradley, and Clare Fiorenza. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – As I mention to jurors after each jury trial, I believe in our system of justice and find it rewarding to be a part of this system. It provides people the opportunity to resolve disputes before an impartial tribunal rather than succumb to disruptive conduct. … Additionally, I believe that it is important that our judiciary include judges who have a background in private practice to ensure that the needs and concerns of private party clients are considered and addressed by our courts. … Additionally, I believe it is important that the Court of Appeals include a trial court perspective. The court should not be an ivory tower that does not consider the environment in which trial judges operation daily. It would not be removed from the factual issues that are presented at trial by those who live those facts such as police officers fulfilling their duties on the street. I believe my experience as a trial judge will enhance my service on the Court of Appeals. Judicial philosophy - Courts do not have the authority to attempt to cure what judges perceive as social wrongs or problems that the legislature has chosen not to address. Those policy decisions rest in the hands of the legislature. In that vein, judges should not be analyzing laws from the perspective whether the laws are good or bad. … Moreover, the judge should not rely on social science studies to justify moving away from established legal precedent. In other words, judges should act as judges, not legislators. Judges are not legislators and should not use their office to change or create laws based upon their personal beliefs or agendas. The judge’s role is to interpret and apply the laws. The judge’s decisions should be legal ones and not political policy judgments. The judge should be interpreting existing laws and determining whether the legislature has acted within its power and authority without violating the constitutional rights of the citizens. Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years State v. St Martin (2011) The issue before the [Wisconsin Supreme] court was the constitutionality of a warrantless search of an apartment attic. The facts involve a defendant who was removed from his apartment in response to a battery complaint by his girlfriend who shared the apartment with him. Police obtained consent from defendant’s girlfriend, who was present in the apartment, to search the attic. They then asked the same question of St. Martin, who was by that point in police custody in a police van parked nearby. He refused. The police proceeded to search the attic and found cocaine and currency. A warrant was subsequently obtained … In St. Martin the court appears to move back to the practice of following U.S. Supreme interpretations of the due process clause. Worst United State or Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years –Thomas v. Mallett (2005) (Dugan was the trial judge ultimately overturned by the State Supreme Court) In Thomas, the [Wisconsin Supreme] Court extended the risk contribution theory that was adopted in Collins v Eli Lilly Co. In Collins the Court held that a claimant whose mother took DES, anti-miscarriage drug could sue any drug company who produced or marketed DES during the 9 months of pregnancy in the geographic market area. … In applying the risk contribution to lead paint manufacturers the Court removed the requirement that the defendant caused injury to plaintiff and places liability on each lead manufacturer merely because they participated in the lead paint industry even though they may not have had any involvement with the plaintiff’s injuries. … What the court did was determine that there was a serious public health problem, conclude that the legislative branch was not taking appropriate action to address the problem and adopt a broad sweeping remedy that in its view was necessary to cure the problem. The Court was interjecting its own social views in its decision and ignoring the balance of power constraints between the legislative and judicial branches. Other information you feel would be helpful to your application – As recent as 2008 I received the confidence of President George Bush when I was nominated to fill the seat of the Hon. Rudolph Randa for his seat on the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. During that process I was approved by the American Bar Associations Judicial Selection Committee and vetted by the FBI background investigation. When I did not receive a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Randa chose not to go to senior status. "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Cynthia M. Davis, appointed by Walker in February, will not face an opponent in the April 4 election. She is the only one who filed nomination papers for her seat. Name: Cynthia M. Davis Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: Feb. 18, 2016 Education: Law School – Marquette University Law School Undergrad – DePauw University High School - Brookfield Academy Recent Employment: 2011 - present – assistant district attorney, Milwaukee County January 2016 - present - Marquette University Law School, adjunct associate professor Memberships: Wisconsin State Bar United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Served as assistant district attorney in drug unit, domestic violence unit, the child protection and advocacy unity of the sensitive crimes unit. At Foley & Lardner, worked in Business Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice group and Commercial Transactions and Business Counseling practice group. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: 27 jury trials, prosecuted about 417 cases total. Number of cases on appeal: None. 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:
Involvement in judicial, non-partisan, or partisan political campaign, committee, or organization: I served as a member of the Advisory Board of the Wisconsin Forum, a non-profit organization that is dedicated to providing a forum for business leaders, educators and students to interact with, and learn from, the leading economic and business scholars of our age. Pro bono legal work: Due to my current position as an Assistant District Attorney, I am unable to perform pro bono legal work. Prior to serving … I engaged in a considerable amount of pro bono work while an associate at Foley & Lardner. Notably, I earned the distinction of being named to the 2010 State Bar of Wisconsin Pro Bono Honor Roll. Describe any business or profession other than the practice of law: I am a part-time yoga instructor. All judicial or non-partisan candidates that you have publically endorsed in the last six years: David Prosser and Rebecca Bradley Quotes: Why I want to be a judge – First, I want to become a judge to uphold and protect both the United States and the Wisconsin Constitutions. Ever since I was a young child, my family, especially my paternal grandparents, instilled in me an appreciation for the ideals and values on which this country was founded, namely freedom and personal responsibility. To continue to enjoy this precious freedom, a stable and reliable judiciary is necessary to uphold the rule of law. ... Secondly, I want to become a judge because I truly love being a scholar of the law. … Finally, I want to help people. Judicial philosophy - A well-ordered society, predicated on freedom and personal responsibility, requires a judicial system in which judges consistently apply the law according to its intent and without distorting the law to comport to their beliefs or senses of justice.... In situations where the law does allow or require the use of discretion, a judge should always seek the truth while carefully balancing the interests of justice and mercy. The most important attributes of a judge are his or her dedication to thoroughly researching and understanding the law, his or her willingness to listen and his or her ability to confidently render a decision without fear of criticism or of being overturned on appeal. Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years – United States v. Lopez (1995) (The US Supreme Court struck down a law making it a federal offense for having a gun in a school zone.) This case is the best United State Supreme Court decision in the last thirty years because it was the first case since the New Deal era to effectively recognize a limit on the scope of Congress’ power to regulate under the Commerce Clause, thus signifying a restoration of certain rights to the States and the people, where they rightly belong. Although the Supreme Court has not always followed in the same direction since Lopez, Lopez at least marked a break to the on-going rubber-stamping of federal laws regulating local activity and provided a meaning check on Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. "A well-ordered society, predicated on freedom and personal responsibility, requires a judicial system in which judges consistently apply the law according to its intent and without distorting the law to comport to their beliefs or senses of justice." -- Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Cynthia M. Davis Worst United State or Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years – Lee v. Weisman (1992) (The US Supreme Court held that a public school may not sponor clerics to conduct prayers.)
In this case, the Court upheld an unconstitutional a public middle school’s sponsoring of a rabbi to give a short invocation following the Pledge of Allegiance at a graduation ceremony. … This case is the worst U.S. Supreme Court decision in the last thirty years because the Court fails to strike the proper balance between the Establishment Clause and the Free exercise Clause contain within the First Amendment…The Court completely eviscerates the Free Exercise Clause…then goes on to completely proscribe religious expression in an effort to protect those who somehow may been offended or isolated by a short prayer and thus compelled to participate by standing or observing silence. Such result is quite contrary to the drafters’ intent. If the Court had properly acknowledged the intent of the Establishment Clause, as noted in the dissent as proscribing “coercion of religious orthodoxy and of financial support by force of law and threat of penalty” … the Court would have struck the property balance between the Establishment Clause and the Free exercise Clause and thus avoided such an affront to a “characteristically American” practice of recognizing and giving gratitude to Divine Providence.” Excerpts from State Supreme Court Justice David T. Prosser's recommendation letter to Walker (Davis clerked for Prosser during the 2006-07 court term): Cindy Davis is a very competitive person who has done outstanding intellectual work at the highest level as well as a lot of necessary grunt work in the trenches. Judge Mary Kuhnmuench is one of her biggest supporters, which will help immensely come election time. In sum, I think Cynthia Davis is a safe but utterly compelling judicial candidate who will benefit tremendously by being on the bench for a year before facing the voters. She will benefit from experience on the bench because she will impress people with the quality of her performance, just as she completely validated her selection as my law clerk. "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Michelle Ackerman Havas, who apparently is the only candidate for Branch 10 of Milwaukee County Circuit Court, was once a Milwaukee County circuit judge. She was appointed by Gov. Scott Walker in August 2015 and lost her bid for election in April 2016. It looks like she will run unopposed in the April 4 election. (Incumbent Judge Timothy Dugan has been appointed by Walker to the District 1 Court of Appeals bench.) Havas filed her nomination papers Dec. 22. Name: Michelle Ackerman Havas Appointed to: Milwaukee County Circuit Court Appointment date: August 24, 2015; defeated by Jean Kies in 2016 April election. Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin Law School Undergrad – Concordia College, Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee Area Technical College Recent Employment: 2016 - present – assistant district attorney, Milwaukee County 2015-2016 - Milwaukee County circuit judge Memberships: Wisconsin State Bar United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin Milwaukee Young Lawyer's Association Milwaukee Bar Association Association for Women Lawyers Previous political involvement: NA. "I believe it speaks well of my ability to communicate my message to a large audience as well as my relatability to the Milwaukee market." -- Michelle Ackerman Havas, on finishing second in a 2005 talk show host contest held by WISN (AM-1130), home of Mark Belling and Sean Hannity. Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: As civil litigator at Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek worked general civil litigation and insurance defense and represented governmental officials against civil rights and liability claims. While I enjoyed the nature of the practice, I yearned for something more suited to my talents of personal interaction and public service and I left WHD in January, 2002 to be a Westlaw accounts manager. She left after nine months. I realized that my yearning was only going to be quenched by a return to the true service of those in Milwaukee County. I joined the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office in November 2002. There she briefly prosecuted misdemeanors before she transferred to Children's Court to handle termination of parental rights cases. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 39; non-jury, 12. Number of cases on appeal: 110 cases associated with her bar number, but the actual number of families involved may be much smaller. 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:
Describe any pro bono legal work you have done including dates - N/A All judicial or non-partisan candidates that you have publically endorsed in the last six years: I enthusiastically endorsed Judge Rebecca Bradley and Judge Christopher Dee and appeared at various functions and fundraisers with them....I may have offered my name to other judicial candidates in the past but I do not specifically recall doing so. Quotes: On competing in the 2005 "Milwaukee's Talk Star" competition held by WISN (AM 1130), home of Mark Belling and Sean Hannity -- I finished second in the final voting. I mention this as I believe it speaks well of my ability to communicate my message to a large audience as well as my relatability to the Milwaukee market. Why I want to be a judge – I am the person who is called to serve the people and to apply the laws that have been passed by the legislature. … I wholeheartedly embrace the separation of powers and believe that it is only through respect for the principles upon which this country was founded that we will be able to protect the judiciary from falling prey to the citizenry’s ever-changing political pressures of the day. Judicial philosophy – The citizens of Milwaukee County deserve a judge who believes, as I do, that the rule of law is not merely a suggestion but a mandate. In my years of service, I have strived to maintain that philosophy, not shying away from enforcing the rules or the laws fairly and impartially without regard to any personal feelings or political preferences I may have.... That is not to say, of course, that I believe being a jurist is a mechanized endeavor. Rather, it is necessary to couple my strong respect for the principles of judicial restraint with the sound discretion that I would be called upon to exercise. As I would exercise such discretion, I would bring to bear my strong moral code and work ethic as well as the sense of civic and personal responsibility of which I am proud. "Ms. Havas is able to articulate a judicial philosphy of adherence to the rule of law, applying the law as it is written, and setting aside her own personal beliefs in doing so....I highly recommend Michelle Havas for appointment to the Milwaukee County Circuit Court Bench." -- Judge Rebecca G. Bradley Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years – Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) The case involved a challenge to an Ohio statutory scheme designed to provide educational choices for parents of children in the Cleveland School District, which had unconscionable failure rates at every level of the public school system. … The Court, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist, found that the Ohio program was one of the true private choice....The parents were able to “exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious....” I was most taken with the refusal of the majority to be baited into an analysis of the merits of the program....they did exactly what the framers intended for them to do: Interpret the laws passed by the Legislature and determine if they are constitutional. Whether or not a statutory scheme is effective is not something that a court should concern itself with. Worst United State or Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in the last 30 years – State of Wisconsin v. Jerrell C.J. (2005) In this case, the Court opted to deviate from its constitutionally granted power to apply the law to delve into the legislative branch by creating a law that requires all juvenile custodial interrogations to be recorded if they occur in a place of detention and where feasible if they occur elsewhere. They additionally veered into the executive branch to dictate how law enforcement should handle their interrogations. None of this was necessary to dispose of the case and protect the rights of Jerrell C.J. but was instead an opportunity for an activist court to legislate by fiat. "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Name: Jeffrey S. Froehlich Appointed to: Calumet County Circuit Judge Appointment date: September 2011; elected in 2012. Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin Law School Undergrad – UW - Stevens Point High School – Fox Valley Lutheran High School Recent Employment: 2001- present – Assistant District Attorney, Calumet County Memberships: Wisconsin State Bar Calumet County Bar Association Previous political involvement: Endorsed Michael J. Gableman for Supreme Court justice. Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: About 13 1/2 years as assistant district attorney, handling juvenile, traffic, forfeiture, misdemeanors, felonies and civil cases; drafting complaints, arguing motions and trying cases. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury: 75-100; non-jury, 200 Number of cases on appeal: 15 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:
Describe any pro bono legal work you have done including dates - None listed List and describe the two most significant cases in which you were involved -- None listed "An independent judiciary is a great asset to a free and democratic society where individual freedoms are protected by the constitution. However, no court should afford itself such an expanded role as to outweigh the majority view." -- Calumet County Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Froehlich Why I want to be a judge – Unfortunately, over the last eighteen months the losses of experience and leadership have been significant....The Calumet County District Attorney's Office has also undergone significant change with the resignation of Ken Kratz last fall. After six months, the appointed District Attorney has yet to try a case in Calumet County and appears to be struggling in her new role....My career goal had been to head the Calumet County District Attorney's Office. When I applied for the position last fall, I had the overwhelming support of officers from every law enforcement agency in the county. Despite my thirteen years of experience as a prosecutor, with nine of those in Calumet County, Governor Doyle appointed a much less experienced candidate....The steady erosion of experience and leadership in Calumet County must end. As a circuit court judge, I believe I would be able to provide the needed stability and continuity to the Calumet County justice system.
Best or Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision -- State v. Klessig, holding that courts must make sure that drunk driving defendants understand what they are doing when they waive their right to counsel. Attempting to designate any one case the worst Supreme Court opinion in the last thirty years is a difficult task. However, judicial activism is a common element that contributes to a poor decision. Judicial activism compromises the integrity of any opinion. Whether that activism takes the form of overturning laws as unconstitutional, overturning judicial precedent, or ruling against a preferred interpretation of the constitution, this philosophy usurps the power of the elected branches of government and can be considered nothing more than "legislating from the bench". An independent judiciary is a great asset to a free and democratic society where individual freedoms are protected by the constitution. However, no court should afford itself such an expanded role as to outweigh the majority view. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|