"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: Gary L. Bendix Appointed to: Manitowoc County Circuit Court Appointment date: December 2011; elected in 2012. Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin Law School (First attended University of Arizona Law School) Undergrad – UW - Parkside High School – William Horlic High School, Racine Recent Employment: 2009 - present - Bendix Law Office 2006 - present - Manitowoc County Circuit Court, supplemental court commissioner 1999-2009 - Whyte Hirscboeck Dudek, S.C., shareholder Memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin Manitowoc County Bar Association American Bar Association (past) Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers (past) Association of Trial Lawyers (past) Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Appeared in about 20 Wisconsin counties and in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Experience in many areas including condemnation, personal injury, contracts, fair dealership, anti-trust, defamation, divorce, custody disputes, specific performance, quiet title actions, assault, wrongful death, adoptions, termination of parental rights and breach of fiduciary duty litigation. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: More than 200, mostly non-jury, and eight jury cases. Number of cases on appeal: 13 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:
Quotes: Describe any pro bono legal work you have done including dates - My pro bono work has consisted primarily of performing free services for clients referred to me by existing clients who were unable to pay for my services. Give any other information you feel would be helpful in evaluating your application: The supportive feedback I have received has encouraged me to follow up my commitment to move in a different direction to further my desire to serve the citizens of Manitowoc County by applying my experience and education to decide legal matters brought before the Circuit Court.* Why I want to be a judge – My broad range of practical experience, education and training will allow me to control the full presentation of matters for efficient use of judicial resources within the practical fiscal limits available. The most important reason I wish to become a judge at this time is to use the experience I have gained in the most productive fashion to contribute back to the people of the county who have allowed me to serve them as their legal counsel for 35 years. "My pro bono work has consisted primarily of performing free services for clients referred to me by existing clients who were unable to pay for my services." -- Manitowoc County Circuit Judge Gary L Bendix Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision -- City of Edgerton v. Geberak Casualty Co. of Wisconsin
The City of Edgerton decision I believe was the worst decision. In attempting to apply the previous decisions of the court, the Supreme Court took an extremely limited view of the term "damages" in applying it to the new expanding area of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA) when a party was sent a potentially responsible party letter. I believe that the business community and the many individuals who operated businesses prior to the enactment of CERCLA had a reasonable belief that the types of claims set forth in a potentially responsible party letter gave rise to "damages" that they would have expected to be covered by their insurance, particularly in light of a lay person's belief that the activities and actions that they undertook were in most cases completely legal at the time they were taken. The incorrect analysis in applying the existing definitions of "damages" to the new expanding arena of CERCLA deprived the individuals' insured and the business community of the certainty to which they should have been entitled. It resulted in substantial adverse economic effects upon businesses that were forced to either give up protection under their policies or take substantially diminished recoveries from their insurers. This had a much broader reaching effect than had been anticipated and for approximately eight years I believe it had an adverse effect on the economy. Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision -- Johnson Controls v. Employers Insurance of Wausau I believe, however, on the other hand, the reversal of the decision in the City of Edgerton case that came about through the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson Controls helped to reestablish the required equity between the insurance companies and the insureds and particularly the insured business community. It recognized that the governmental action taken by the potentially responsible party letters did create an adversarial arena in which an insured should be protected to the full extent that its policies allowed protection, after consideration of policy exclusions. *Yes, we can be grateful that circuit court judges do not write much.
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: Jennifer R. Dorow Appointed to: Waukesha County Circuit Court Appointment date: December 2011; ran unopposed in 2012. Education: Law School – Regent University School of Law* Undergrad – Marquette University; first attended Drake University High School – Waukesha South Recent Employment: 2010 - present - Huppertz & Dorow, partner 2004-2009 - Matthew H. Huppertz, associate attorney Memberships: State Bar of Wisconsin Waukesha County Bar Association Wisconsin Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Justinian Lawyers Association Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Served as Waukesha County assistant district attorney from March 2000 to July 2004. Worked as defense lawyer since September 2004. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 15-20; non-jury, 50-100; arbitration, 5-10; administrative bodies, 25-30. Number of cases on appeal: 19, mostly as as research assistant for the lead attorney. 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 polictical campaign, committee, or organization:
"I hold strong conservative values that will guide me as a judge and ensure that all litigants are treated fairly under the law." -- Waukesha County Circuit Judge Jennifer R. Dorow Quotes:
Why I want to be a judge – I want to be a judge at the trial court level for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to attain a career goal. I became intrigued with the role of judge and the third branch of government in law school. I have now practiced as a litigator for 15 years. I see first hand the importance of having judges who are knowledgeable, fair, predictable, and who honor their role in the third branch of government. I want to serve the citizens of Waukesha County in this capacity, and I will do it well, as I have the temperament, experience, intellect and dedication that is required. Judicial philosophy – The words of Chief Justice John Roberts...sum up the proper role of a judge: "[j]udges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them ...." ...in matters of statutory interpretation, a judge should first and foremost look to the text itself for the plain meaning of the statute. There is no need to examine the policy considerations behind a statute, especially in those circumstances where the constitutionality of the statute is at issue...a judge should not consider the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the policy considerations the legislature relied upon in enacting the statute. On the contrary, a judge should give deference to the legislative policy considerations so long as the policy makers have stayed within their limits as defined by the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions. In the words of Justice Antonin Scalia, a judge should interpret the text "reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means.” From a letter to Gov. Walker - I hold strong conservative values that will guide me as a judge and ensure that all litigants are treated fairly under the law. I do not believe in legislating from the bench, and subscribe to the principle of judicial restraint. Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision -- Ozanne v. Fitzgerald The decision in this case is rightly based on the doctrine of separation of powers, and serves as an excellent example on the limits of the judiciary. A judge should not impose her will on matters of legislative policy. In this case, the trial court did just that by blocking publication of the Governor's budget repair bill. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court, thereby allowing publication of the bill and the legislative process to continue. Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision -- Lawrence v. Texas ...a prime example of judicial activisim at its worst. In Lawrence, a majority of the court went well beyond the four corners of the U.S. Constitution to declare a new constitutional right. The decision cites to the European Convention on Human Rights and an advisory committee to the British Parliament as legal justification for establishing the right to extramarital sexual acts – a right found no where in the text of the U.S. Constitution. This decision was then used by the Massachusetts Supreme Court as legal justification in mandating the issuance of same sex marriage licenses under the Massachusetts Constitution. *Regent University was founded by televangelist Pat Robertson in 1977, first using the name Christian Broadcasting Network University, according to multiple sources. The university’s website states that “CBN University” began its law school in 1986, and changed to the name Regent University in 1990. A "regent" is defined as one who represents a king in his absence. For Regent University, a regent is one who represents Christ, our Sovereign, in whatever sphere of life he or she may be called to serve Him. According to the school's mission statement: Regent University serves as a center of Christian thought and action to provide excellent education through a biblical perspective and global context, equipping Christian leaders to change the world. These values permeate the law school. Our mission is to provide an excellent legal education from a Christian perspective, to nurture and encourage our students toward spiritual maturity, and to engage the world through Christian legal though and practice. Regent School Song - Regent, Host of Faith and Learning by John Ashcroft Regent host of faith and reason Framed in God's own law and grace. As we meditate and study He instructs us for life's race; Vision of God's pure intention Sacrifice to make it live. Fellowship in His creation God inspires our hearts to give. As we turn our face toward heaven God directs our hands to need. When we keel to make petition He endows so we can lead. Integrating faith and learning Spirit, body, mind for Thee Regent working for the Kingdom Now and for eternity "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: December 2011 (Defeated in April 2012 election by Assistant State Public Defender Ellen Berz; after his defeat, Allen quit his judge's post early) Education: Law School – University of Wisconsin Law School Undergrad – University of Wisconsin-Platteville (Criminal Justice and Psychology major) High School – NA Recent Employment: May 1996 - present – Assistant City Attorney, Madison, WI Memberships: The State Bar of Wisconsin Dane County Bar Association Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Reports both having criminal court experience and that his criminal court experience totals 0%. Also says he took two jury and three non-jury trials to judgment and that he conducted “several criminal trials and two personal injury trials.” Litigated “hundreds of municipal ordinance violations.” Significant experience in administrative, labor, and open records law. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Jury, 2; non-jury, 3; arbitration, 15; administrative bodies, 60 Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application:
1. Boy Scouts of America 2. American Legion 3. Reserve Officer's Association 4. West Point Parent's Association 5. St. Dennis Catholic Church 6. Youth soccer coach 7. Moot court trial judge 8. Advisor to Operation Hometown Gratitude (sends care packages to deployed military members and Peace Corps volunteers) 9. Host parent for foreign exchange students. Pro bono work: In private practice, participated in the State Bar's pro bono program primarily drafting wills for indigent persons and providing legal advice to non-profit organizations. Currently registered with the American Bar Association's Home Front, a pro bono program that provides legal advice and representation to military members and their families. Quotes: Why I Want to Be a Judge - I want to become a judge because I derive a great deal of personal satisfaction from serving the public good. As Theodore Roosevelt observed, "This country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in." I have also found that the greater the challenge, the greater the responsibility, the greater the satisfaction I derive from the endeavor....I possess an abiding commitment to defending the rights of both individual members of society and those of society itself. This is undoubtably the core function of the judiciary–balancing and enforcing the rights of the parties before them.… Judicial philosophy - Today, our courts are facing a crisis of public confidence brought on not so much by recent events, but rather, from a slow erosion of the court’s respect for the limits of judicial authority in a government founded up on the separation of powers. The public trust can only be restored by the investiture of judges whose past professional lives demonstrate an unwavering dedication to the rule of law uninfluenced by personal philosophies or party affiliations. My professional background establishes that I meet this standard. Best or worst United States or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion in the last 30 years - Interest of Jerrell C.J. The Supreme Court announced a new rule of evidence: police interviews of juvenile defendants would be inadmissible unless they had been electronically recorded. The decision is unremarkable for the rule that it created. Indeed, the Wisconsin legislature subsequently codified the rule into law. What is remarkable and equally as troubling, is that in creating this rule the Court jettisoned decades of jurisprudence concerning the admissibility of statements and confessions, exceeded its authority by invading the prerogative of the legislature and assumed the worst of law enforcement officers all across the state. "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Name: Clayton P. Kawski Appointed to: Dane County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 15, 2016 Education: Law School – Northern Illinois University of Law Undergrad – University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh High School – Stevens Point Area Senior High School Recent Employment: June 2010 - present - Wisconsin Department of Justice September 2008 - June 2010 Michael Best & Friedrich Memberships: The State Bar of Wisconsin Young Lawyers Division Board (July 2013 - present) Professionalism Committee (July 2009 - June 2013) Challenges Facing New Lawyers Implementation Committee (2015) Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Extensive civil trial and appellate litigation experience. “My practice at DOJ has involved representing the State of Wisconsin, the Office of the Governor, the State agencies and numerous state actors in some of the most contentious and high-profile cases of the last five years.” Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Approximately 35 non-jury cases. Number of cases litigated on appeal: More than 35 Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application: None Pro bono work in last five years: None Quotes: Why I Want to Be a Judge - The work of a circuit court judge is extremely important to citizens, businesses, and the State of Wisconsin. My experience handling high-profile, complex litigation like the voter photo identification cases, challenges to Wisconsin's campaign finance laws, and numerous trial-level and appellate matters involving administrative law makes me uniquely qualified for this appointment. ... Judicial philosophy - The job of judging is not always simple and straightforward. It involves real people, real emotions, real dollars, and real liberty at stake. A judge cannot forget that. A judge must have basic humility, but that humility must be tempered and forged by the rule of law....Without an abiding respect for the law, as it is written, a judge becomes nothing more than a king in a black robe. The challenge of judging is to exercise sound judgment while applying the law itself, not personal preferences. Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision – District of Columbia v Heller (Second Amendment) I will always remember reading the decision in chambers when it came down on June 26, 2008. It is an important landmark in constitutional law that should find a special place in the minds of gun-owning Wisconsinites. "It is an important landmark in constitutional law that should find a special place in the minds of gun-owning Wisconsinites." Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision -- King v Burwell (upholding Obamacare)
Statutory words should not be ignored, avoided, or glazed over by a judge or court. This decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, arguably ignored the plain meaning of the words of the law at issue and engaged in a tortured statutory analysis in the name of finding Congress’ “true” intentions....What Justice Diane Sykes accomplished for conservative, principled statutory interpretation in Kalal, Chief Justice Roberts seems to have taken a step in the exact opposite direction in King v. Burwell. "Walker's judges" is our effort to present information about Gov. Walker's appointees to the bench. The information is taken from the appointees' own judgeship applications. Name: Martin J. De Vries Appointed to: Dodge County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 1, 2016 Education: Law School – Valparaiso University School of Law (a Tier 4 law school) Undergrad – Dordt College* High School – Central Wisconsin Christian High School** Recent Employment: 1999 - present - Sager & Colwin, SC Memberships: The State Bar of Wisconsin Fond du Lac County Bar Association Defense Research Institute Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Primarily civil litigation, which includes some administrative proceedings. Limited criminal litigation. Primarily represents municipalities, school districts, and their employees in civil litigation. Other areas of practice include insurance defense and real estate. Significant experience defending health care providers in medical malpractice cases. Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Approximately 30-40. Number of cases litigated on appeal: At least 20. Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application: Served on church council and on the boards of Central Wisconsin Christian School and Faith Christian School. Elected Town of Fox Lake municipal judge in 2015. Quotes: Why I want to be a judge - As I progressed through my legal career, I did not consider becoming a judge until about 5 years ago. I have always enjoyed my litigation practice and have been very busy. However, as I got older and litigation seemed to involve fewer trials, I began to consider a judgeship. I realized that I have substantial experience and enjoy the courtroom. Throughout my 25 years as a lawyer, I have tried many cases to a jury and the court. A primary focus of my practice is representing law enforcement in Federal Court. Consequently, I have analyzed and litigated many Constitutional claims, including Fourth Amendment issues in law enforcement activities. I have also litigated a fair amount of medical malpractice cases. Medical malpractice is complex and intensive litigation. Thus, I believe my experience to this point in my career has equipped me to be a Circuit Court judge. After concluding that I had the experience to handle a judge position, I considered why I would actually want to be a judge. I grew up outside the village of Randolph in Dodge County. After living in California for a number of years, my wife and I moved back to this area in 1999 in order to raise our family here. I have a sense of concern and care for not only my community, but for the entire county. It is my desire to serve in the judiciary and instill my sense of respect and dignity to the court, which I believe is a tradition in Dodge County worthy of continuing. In 2015 I successfully ran for Municipal Judge for the Town of Fox Lake. Although the judicial experience at the town court is limited, I have come to understand some of the issues and challenges facing our courts. The abuse of drugs in our communities has become a serious issue. As a Circuit Court judge, I would be committed to working with other agencies and organizations to address this matter. Additionally, I believe that if I were to be a judge in the community where I was raised, this would honor my parents for the hard work and dedication they provided to our family. II would be honored and privileged to serve as a Circuit Court judge. "If it has not already started, I believe Obergefell, as promoted by some sections of the media and other organizations, will be used against religious freedoms and tax exemptions for religious organizations." -- Dodge County Circuit Judge Martin J. De Vries Judicial philosophy - In general terms, I favor a philosophy of judicial restraint. Our laws were created by the legislature and the courts are to follow these laws in an impartial manner. Our Constitution provides that the judiciary should apply the law with deference to the legislature. I would also strictly follow and respect the Constitution. In more specific terms, my philosophy would be to impartially apply the law after giving full consideration to both sides. An unbiased an impartial attitude is crucial for a Circuit Court judge. As a trial attorney, I appreciate and understand the difficulties a judge faces. I would be committed to efficient and timely resolution to all matters. I also would value the judicial role in evidentiary decision making. There is no substitute for jury trial experience in preparing a judge to make evidentiary decisions. In summary, I believe a Circuit Court judge has been provided with the law. Using his or her experience and knowledge, a judge should work within the confines of existing law and treat all parties equally.
Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision – Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Burwell was a case that pitted the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) against Hobby Lobby and its owners, the Green family. At issue were regulations enacted by HHS to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Specifically, some of these regulations mandated coverage for numerous types of contraceptives. Although Hobby Lobby did not object to providing coverage for most of these contraceptives, there were four types of contraceptives which can or might cause death to a developing fetus if there were conception. The Greens, as Christians, believed that mandated coverage for abortion-inducing drugs violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Department of Health and Human Services took the position that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act protected only religious organizations, not for-profit businesses. The Supreme Court held that Hobby Lobby and its owners were not required to provide this coverage or pay severe fines. Importantly, for-profit corporations were considered “persons” protected under the RFRA. Thus, Hobby Lobby and other corporations are capable of engaging in an exercise of religion protected by the RFRA. The objectionable HHS mandates substantially burdened the exercise of religion protected by the RFRA. This ruling is important to all people of religious faith. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that it was not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the corporation or its owners were mistaken our unreasonable. Without discussing whether the Burwell opinion went far enough or the potential responses by those opposed to this decision, I do believe that Burwell is an encouragement and provides some assurance to businesses and their owners who are concerned about the government mandating religiously objectionable actions that could put them out of business. A particularly encouraging portion of this opinion is the majority’s refusal to substitute their religious beliefs for that of Hobby Lobby’s owners. The Court appeared to simply compare the Green family’s stated religious objections to the HHS regulations and analyzed them under the RFRA. Not only does Burwell provide some level of protection to businesses owned by religious persons, it is an example of judicial restraint which is sadly lacking in many of today’s courts. Although Burwell might have a limited direct effect on Circuit Court cases in Dodge County, the question was directed at Supreme Court opinions which are crucial to our nation and this case reflects my judicial philosophy. Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision – Obergefell v. Hodges Simply put, in Obergefell the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment requires all states to license marriages and recognize marriages between people of the same sex. The opinion is long on personal viewpoints of the majority and lacking in any legitimate Constitutional analysis. The majority opinion, which is actually quite brief, is dominated by Justice Kennedy’s personal opinions. Justice Kennedy reviews his interpretation of marriage and how cultural and political developments have evolved to the point where same sex couples have suffered enough and the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment must now require all states to recognize same sex marriages. Justice Scalia’s strongly worded dissent is clear and to the point. Justice Scalia explains that the majority created liberties that the Constitution does not provide. He categorizes the decision as “an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.” In his own way, Justice Scalia describes how the Court substituted its own beliefs for that of the people, something no court should have the right to do. The Obergefell decision runs contrary to the principles set forth by the framers of our Constitution. This is a dangerous precedent. The people’s freedom to govern themselves has been removed by this opinion. The decision does not respect or analyze the liberty of the people, but rather focuses on the majority’s personal view on the “principles and traditions” of marriage. Obergefell also has ominous implications for religious liberty. If it has not already started, I believe Obergefell, as promoted by some sections of the media and other organizations, will be used against religious freedoms and tax exemptions for religious organizations. One can also envision courts in the future going beyond using this case against religious freedom and using this case as a vehicle to mandate a court’s personal agenda. One need not be opposed to same sex marriage in order to appreciate the degree to which Obergefell has extended the concept of judicial supremacy in areas where the judicial branch should not be. I believe this case has the potential to divide our country. The people of each state have been denied the right to govern themselves by the personal beliefs of five justices, who may well have been driven to their conclusions by the media and various special interest groups. This is contrary to my philosophy of judicial restraint. *From the college's website: "Associated with the Christian Reformed Church, Dordt College was founded in 1955 and welcomes all students who are interested in a biblical, Christ-centered education." **From the school's website: "...where Christ is central! Our school is a very special place where faith and learning combine to prepare students for life. CWC offers you a dynamic learning atmosphere where caring Christian teachers connect each and every subject in a perspective that helps see today's world through God's eyes. When you come to Central Wisconsin Christian, you become a part of our family - an interconnected group of Christian families who want their kids to grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ. Our academic program is one that will challenge each and every student to achieve the potential God has placed in them, while the individual attention we give to God's kids highlights the essence of the body of Christ." "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: Gregory J. Strasser Appointed to: Marathon County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 1, 2016 Education: Law School – Hamline University School of Law* Undergrad – University of Wisconsin - Madison High School – Wausau West High School Recent Employment: 1997 - present - Partner with Strasser & Yde law firm Memberships: Marathon County Bar Association, 1988-present The State Bar of Wisconsin, 1988-present Civil Trail Counsel of Wisconsin, 1988-present State Bar of Wisconsin Fee Arbitration Panel (District 5 chairman) State Bar of Wisconsin Local Bar Relations Committee (2007-2010) Vice president, Marathon County Bar Association (2005-2006) President, Marathon County Bar Association (2006-07) Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Extensive civil litigation experience in many venues since 1988. General civil insurance defense work, for the most part, but also business and real estate litigation. Also litigated some criminal law cases from 1997 to 2010 Number of cases tried to verdict or judgment: Since 1988 I have had jury trials in many venues including; Chippewa, Menominee, Sawyer, Wood, Portage, Marathon, Vilas, Price, Brown and Outagamie counties. I have had many more court trials in some of the same or other counties including; Lincoln, Langlade, Oneida and Clark counties. Number of cases litigated on appeal: Involved in at least 30 since 1994 "As a Wisconsin Concealed Carry License holder since 2012, I feel I understand the great responsibilities of gun ownership and the rights afforded by the Second Amendment." -- Gregory J. Strasser Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application:
1. Director - Abby Bank (2012-present) 2. President - From Brothers Historical Preservation Society (2011 to present) 3. Board member - Wilderness Veterans Memorial Flame Foundation (2015 to present) 4. Coach - D.C. Everest Mock Trial Team (2004 to present) 5. Honor Flight guardian (May 2015) 6. State Bar of Wisconsin Wills for Veterans volunteer (2014 to present) 7. Wisconsin Special Olympics Polar Plunge Firm Team Captain (multiple years) Quotes: Why I Want to Be a Judge - I was raised in Wausau, graduating from Wausau West High School in 1981. I immediately returned to Wausau, after graduating from law school in 1988, to start my legal career and raise my family. My partner and I started our own firm in 1997. We established a scholarship program to support local student athletes. Our firm supports community volunteer efforts in many ways. In addition to my individual community involvement and service, I take great pride in my legal reputation and believe I have significant support from bench and bar for my appointment to a judgeship. I believe I am qualified for the position and it would be an honor to be able to serve my community, as a judge. Judicial philosophy - Judges call balls and strikes. They don’t bend the rules, or make up new ones, to justify a desired result. Judges also have to have the temperament necessary to deal with difficult situations, emotional litigants and frustrating attorneys. The public wants to know that the judicial branch of our government is strong, fair and impartial. This is what a good judge embodies. A good judge never forgets that the people who come before him are entitled to justice but may also require a moment of direction, compassion or attention from the court. Such a moment can make a great difference. Lastly, a circuit court judge is the most visible representation society has, when is comes to the judicial branch of government. A judge must never forget the responsibility that comes with the position. Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision – District of Columbia v. Heller In this 2008 case, the court held that the ban on registering handguns and a requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock violated the Second Amendment. The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. The case is important because it, in my mind, the most pervasive attack on the Second Amendment, to that point, was the “militia requirement” argument. In this respect, the court’s focus was correctly placed, not on the prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia…” as an announcement of purpose, but on the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” in affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms. As a Wisconsin Concealed Carry License holder since 2012, I feel I understand the great responsibilities of gun ownership and the rights afforded by the Second Amendment. The Heller case makes clear the viability and power of the Second Amendment. It is up to me to live up to the responsibilities I assume in exercising those rights. Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision – King v. Burwell In this 2015 case, the court addressed the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The court essentially validated the authority of the ACA by upholding the tax credits provided in the ACA. As such, it was proper for the Internal Revenue Service to create a regulation that extended the tax credits the Affordable Care Act authorized to federal exchanges as well as those created by the states. I was struck by how the ruling of the case seemed to ignore he plain language of the statute limiting the tax credits to state-created exchanges. This is an example, in my mind, of the danger of applying a more expansive reading of the language presented, in a way that, essentially, re-writes the language to make it fit the conclusion. *(According to Wikipedia, "For its 2014 rankings, U.S. News & World Report's 'Best Law Schools' placed Hamline's overall law school program in a six-way tie at #126 among the 144 law schools it ranked." "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: David L. Weber Appointed to: Door County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 1, 2016 Education: Law School – Drake University Law School Undergrad – Lawrence University High School – Sturgeon Bay High School Recent Employment: 1992 - present - Associate / partner with Pinkert Law Firm Memberships: The Iowa State Bar Association, 1986-present The State Bar of Wisconsin, 1986-present Wisconsin Defense Counsel, Approx. 1990--present. Board Certified Civil Trial Specialist, National Board of Trial Advocacy, 2007-present. St. Thomas More Society of the Diocese of Green Bay, 2009-present; life member, 2015--present. The Federalist Society, 2016 Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings: Very limited criminal law experience, but extensive civil experience. Cases tried: 40+ trials to verdict, about half bench trials and half jury trials. Significant worker’s compensation experience. Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application. 1. Allouez Optimist Club (1988-1992). 2. WI State Bar Mock Trial Judge/Coach (1988-1996). 3. Sturgeon Bay Lions Club, 1993-1997; Board of Directors (1995-1997). 4. Sturgeon Bay Legal Aid Society, Board of Directors (1997-2000). 5. St. Joseph Catholic Church, Finance Council (1997-2003). 6. Door County Economic Development Corporation, Board of Directors (2000-2005; Chair, 2005). 7. Sturgeon Bay Yacht Club, Judge Advocate (2003-2008). 8. Bordui Scholarship Foundation, Board of Directors (2003-2011). 9. St. John Bosco Catholic School, Board of Trustees (2011-present; Chair, 2015-present). 10. Member, St. Joseph Catholic Church (lifetime). 11. Member, St. Thomas More Society of the Diocese of Green Bay (2009- present; life member, 2015--present).* Worst US Supreme Court decision – Obergefall v. Hodges Quotes:
Why I Want to Be a Judge - I want to be judge to serve the community in which I was born and raised. I feel my life has been blessed.... I am not trying to escape any unpleasant situation. I have great law partners who I get along with. I know it would be difficult in some ways for me to leave my firm. Yet, I feel my experience and temperament would enable me to be a good judge. I feel it is time for me to give back for the many blessings that have been bestowed on me. Judicial philosophy - I believe a judge should first and foremost follow the law as written by the legislature. It is not a circuit court judge’s job, in my opinion, to create new law or to change the law as written. I believe, therefore, in a strict separation of legislative and judicial powers. If the law is ambiguous, a judge should make every effort to determine, to the extent possible, the intent of the legislature and apply the law consistent with that intent. In matters involving case law, the doctrine of stare decisis demands that a judge follow precedent at all times. When case law is ambiguous, a judge should use those principles which are most consistent with established precedent to resolve the dispute. Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision – United States v. Lopez The U. S. Supreme Court held in this decision that the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 was unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause did not extend to regulating the possession of firearms in public schools. The Court essentially held that the statute’s affect on interstate commerce was too attenuated for the statute to be valid. “To uphold the Government’s contentions here,” wrote Justice Rehnquist, “we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would…convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.” Rehnquist admitted that the court’s prior decisions could be taken as long steps down that road, but he noted that Court declined to proceed further. This is a good decision for the simple reason that it stopped a trend of the Supreme Court to continually expand congressional power through the Commerce Clause. While the court did not overrule any of its previous decisions interpreting the Commerce Clause, it did finally take a stand in this case and set some outer boundaries of Congress’s power. Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision – Obergefall v. Hodges The U. S. Supreme Court held in this decision that the fundamental right to marry extends to same-sex couples....the decision is a bad one for at least three reasons. First, it creates a new right not included in the constitution. The framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend same-sex marriage to be safeguarded in the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. Same-sex marriage was unheard of then and is not rooted in the nation’s history or traditions. Second, it redefines marriage when this is a question that should be left to the states. I express no opinion about what marriage is or what it should be. I do express an opinion about who should decide these questions. “Understand well what this dissent is about,” states Justice John Roberts in his dissent. “It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law.” The Supreme Court’s job is not to give its approval to popular notions of social policy and fairness; it is rather to decide legal disputes within its constitutional limitations. The majority bases its decision on weak legal precedent. It seems to have wanted to do what is politically correct rather than what is legally correct. Finally, the decision raises troublesome 1st Amendment questions involving freedom of religion. It appears inevitable that certain people who exercise their explicitly-granted religious freedom will come into conflict with those who exercise the newly-created right established in this decision. *The purposes of the St. Thomas More Society, according to its website, are, in part: To inculcate in the Society and in the public generally a deeper understanding of their dependence upon Almighty God as the source of all human rights; to promote the study and application of theology, philosophy and jurisprudence to the end that the system of law may better apply eternal truths to the solution of everyday legal problems; and to sponsor the annual Lawyers' Red Mass and other Masses throughout the year and otherwise to invoke God's blessing upon the legal profession and persons in government. "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: Charles V. Feltes Appointed to: Trempealeau County Circuit Court Appointment date: July 11, 2016 Education: Law School – University of Illinois College of Law, class of 1973 Undergrad – Wisconsin State University – River Falls High School – West Chicago Community High School Recent Employment: 1995 - present - Charles V. Feltes, sole practicioner law firm 2009 – present – Trempeauleau County court commissioner Memberships: College (River Falls) – Student Senate, Student Foundation Committee, Legal Action Committee, Young Republicans, Theta Chi Fraternity Law School – None Age: 69 Best US Supreme Court Decision: Citizens United v. FEC Legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, administrative proceedings:
Court-appointed criminal work for the indigent - "The Judge at the time liked to refer the sexual offenders to me. (I have no explanation for this)" - personal injury, real estate litigation, workers comp litigation representing employees, traffic and ordinance litigation for municipalities. Cases tried: 20+ jury trials verdict, prosecuted hundreds of traffic and municipal violations in bench trials. I have probably handled 300-400 civil cases to verdict. This does not include small claims cases. Professional or civic organizations, volunteer activities, service in a church or synagogue, or any other activities or hobbies that could be relevant or helpful to consideration of the application. 1. Osseo Area Economic Development Corporation (Director since its inception in 1988 and Secretary since 1995). 2. Osseo Community Foundation, Inc. (Director and Secretary since its inception since 2004). 3. Osseo Commercial Club (Member from 1976 to 1995, President in about 1990). 4. Knights of Columbus (Member since 1996). 5. St. Raymond’s Parish Building Committee (2001-2003). 6. St. Raymond’s Parish Council (2012 to 2015). 7. The Federalist Society (2015 to date). 8. Trempealeau County Interdisciplinary Team (2016). 9. St. Raymond’s Parish Cemetery Committee (2016). Quotes: Other businesses or professions - In 1990’s my wife, children and I operated the roasted sweet corn concession at Sonny Acres’ “Fall Festival”. The business was called “We’re All Ears”. Why he wants to be a judge - For the most part, the people who appear in Court are good people who have found themselves in a bad situation or who have made bad decisions. A judge often needs to do more than just apply the law to the facts as he or she may find them. There is often a human element which needs to be addressed. In order to make our society and economy work, people need to respect the law, law enforcement, the court system and its judges. Judges need to respect those who appear before them. Not everyone will win in court, but everyone is entitled to leave court feeling that they have been treated fairly. I want to be a judge because I believe I could be very good at it. It’s that simple. Best Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision – Citizens United v FEC Should individuals who possess the right to free speech be deprived of this right when they form a group, an association or even a corporation? The U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v FEC…answered the foregoing question “No!”. The Court further ruled that to the extent it may have in prior decisions allowed the First Amendment rights of corporations to be regulated, it was wrong and those contrary decisions were overruled. In Citizens United, the Court rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not “natural persons”. Political speech is protected speech under the First Amendment, regardless of its source or content…. The trend in our society is to suppress and control free speech. Certain terms cannot be used by our government officials. Certain non profits cannot get IRS certification. Universities and colleges have speech codes. Language which some people may find offensive or disturbing becomes hate speech or marginalized as “controversial”. The criminalization and regulation of free speech is something to be avoided and condemned. The Supreme Court in Citizens United got it right. Worst Wisconsin or US Supreme Court decision – Kelo v. City of New London The case demonstrates that, on occasion, judges can’t read…. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority in that case rewrote the Fifth Amendment to read “ . . nor shall private property be taken for a public purpose without just compensation”. In Kelo the State of Connecticut organized a private non-profit development corporation to assist the City of New London in its economic development. This corporation’s development project was to be anchored by a research facility of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Inc. (Maker of Viagra and other wonderful drugs). The development would include water front development, hotel, restaurants and shops. The Supreme Court eventually upheld the use of eminent domain to take property for the development. This case was one of the worst U.S. Supreme Court cases decided. Not only was the language of the Constitution ignored, the majority opinion rewrote the Fifth Amendment substituting the term “public purpose” for “public use”. It justified the use of eminent domain take property from one private party so it can be used by another private party for private gain. The “public purpose” of increased tax base and jobs should never be the sole justification for a taking under the Fifth Amendment. This logic would justify any governmental taking of private property for any reason so long as the tax base was benefitted. The tragic end to this case is what happened after this “landmark” decision. Pfizer, Inc. pulled out of the project and left New London altogether. The development never occurred, the condemned land lies unused…. The consent of the governed? Not always needed, wrote Daniel Kelly, Gov. Walker's newest appointee to the Supreme Court. God's laws trumped everybody else's. "There is a law pre-existing governments that does not depend on any man's volitional action or decision," Kelly wrote, channeling John Quincy Adams, in the 1991 inaugural issue of the Regent University Law Review. "This law has a determinate content, separating right from wrong, and defining justice, and most importantly...this law is binding upon man-it does not require his agreement or consent." (Emphasis added.) Kelly, the founding editor of the the law review, was a little vague about what all was included in the "determinate content," citing only the most obvious crime. "Both God and nature stand in witness that murder is wrong," he wrote. But ordinary mortals can make some choices, Kelly argued. "Neither Scripture nor nature, however, directly addresses whether import tariffs should be imposed, what the personal income tax rate ought to be, or how appeals should be prosecuted in the federal court system. In matters such as these, we are left to our discretion and mutual agreement," he wrote. Regent University was formerly was known as Christian Broadcasting Network University, was founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, and was considered a mediocrity under both names. Here is a bit more of Kelly's introductory piece to the first issue of the law review. The overarching mission of the Regent University Law Review is the same as that of Regent University, that is, to bring glory to God and to His Son, Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit... We believe that God's law has something to say about every area of law. To the inevitable objection that the law of nature and nature's God could not possibly have anticipated such topics as corporate taxation, antitrust suits, or the constitutional incorporation doctrine, I answer: Every legal question must rest on some foundational premise, and that premise must stand the test of measurement against the law of nature and nature's God. Jesus illustrated the importance of foundations with relation to our faith... Kelly wrote about the unchanging nature of scientific laws and compared it the laws of society. He cited that great thinker, Calvin Coolidge who observed that "[m]en do not make laws. They do but discover them. Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority. They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness."
In another section of his essay, Kelly wrote, The law revealed in Scripture, with which the law of nature is in all points consistent, both having the same Author, is our ultimate recourse for truth....We are, and must be, subject to the principles contained in Scripture. Just as we do not choose to submit to the general theory of relativity, so is consent unnecessary with regard to the general principles of Scripture, though when considered carefully, reason will show that it is only logical that we are subject to them. And he concludes by quoting James 1:22: Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in the mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it-he will be blessed in what he does. Jon M. Theisen was appointed to an Eau Claire Circuit Court judgeship by Gov. Walker in October 2011 and has not had to work hard to keep his job since then. Theisen, who was Chippewa County district attorney as the time of his appointment, ran unopposed in 2012. He is up for re-election in 2018. Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman attended Theisen's 2011 swearing-in ceremony.
Theisen's decisions have been challenged 17 times in District 2 of the State Court of Appeals. Three decisions were reversed; 14 were upheld. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|