Meet the candidates for Door County Circuit Court

In Door County, Brett Reetz and Jennifer Moeller vie for an open seat after Judge D. Todd Ehlers chose not to run for reelection.

Reetz has been a self-employed trial lawyer since graduation from DePaul University Law School in 1992. His CV is here.

Moeller has been a Door County court commissioner since 2011 and before then worked in private practice. She received her law degree from Marquette University Law School in 1994. Her bio is here. 

WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments. 

The candidates' answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors.

Moeller

​Jennifer Moeller

Why do you want to become a judge?

I care about my community and who will serve in this vital role. I have 29 years of legal experience in a variety of practice areas including real estate, criminal defense, probate, guardianship, divorce, mental commitments, business, small claims, juvenile matters, school law, municipal law, and contracts. I represented businesses, municipalities, and individuals in court hearings, trials, negotiations, conflict resolution, document preparation, and legal counsel. The breadth of my experience will be invaluable on the bench in a small county where the two judges hear every type of case.
 
For the last 13 years, I have served as a Circuit Court Commissioner making tough decisions that impact people’s lives. Early on, I came to know that I was well suited to this job. It is much like that of a judge. I have the temperament and demeanor required to respectfully listen to everyone involved in a case, thoughtfully make well informed decisions, and communicate those decisions. I strive for a courtroom that is a place of respect for the law and for all people. 
 
Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way.

I am hesitant to label opinions of either Supreme Court as the best or worst. That may be for time and historians to decide. It could also be for legislatures to decide by re-writing laws.

I do not like commenting on decisions of other courts. I do not have access to everything the justices examined. Well written decisions cite only portions of the court record and oral argument. Importantly, I am not privy to deliberations among the justices. Such discussion can prove valuable to decision making.

My opinion about the highest Courts's decisions is based on my respect for the rule of law described at length in my answer to the following question about my judicial philosophy. 
 
Describe your judicial philosophy.

My judicial philosophy is based on respect and adherence to the “rule of law.” I have heard it referred to as a North Star to guide us, an unwavering beacon. The rule of law is a solid foundation of our government. It stands for accountability under the law; just law that is clear, applied evenly, ensuring human rights and property, contract and procedural rights; openness in government that is fair and efficient; and accessibility to impartial justice.

Applied to the daily work of a circuit court judge, the rule of law means we interpret and apply the laws that govern us. We do not set public policy. Resources are available when the written law is unclear. Guidance may come from the Court of Appeals, State Supreme Court, and legislative history. Judicial activism is inappropriate for circuit court judges.
 
Respect for all people is integral in my approach to the bench. I value the variation of human experience and strive to be empathetic. Everyone who comes to court wants to be heard and understood. I want that for all people. Respect for people and the law is vital for an effectual circuit court. I am known for my fairness, honesty, and ethics. These traits support confidence in the judicial system.
 
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

The overwhelming majority of the cases in which I was involved as an attorney did not have significance for the public at large. However, these cases were significant to my clients and therefore important to me. I enjoyed my legal practice for my ability to help people solve problems or attempt to prevent them. In my current role as Family Court Commissioner and Register in Probate, I make decisions enabling people to move forward. As a Register, I am a resource about the court system to people without attorneys. In addition, I note the challenge in identifying my “most significant” cases.

As an attorney, I was hired by the City of Sturgeon Bay, where I live, to advise on select matters related to financial issues. Each client has unique needs. Among the challenges of advising a city is that while cities have budgets to maintain, a city serves the businesses and individuals within it. My experience as an alderperson in that city provided insight for me to best assist my client in a series of related cases. The city had extended loans to local businesses from different grant funds. The businesses faltered and one closed. The loans to the city were not being paid. The challenge was to determine which loans to pursue recovery, promissory notes to pursue, and effect to the local economy as well as the businesses involved. I am proud of our thoughtful approach that protected the city and its taxpayers while also supporting the long-term health of the local economy.  

As Family Court Commissioner, most of my work is in divorce and paternity cases concerning custody, placement, financial support, use of property, responsibility for debt, among other matters. In our small county, I assist the judges when their calendars are tight. In criminal court, I hear bail and bond hearings, preliminary hearings, and review search warrants. Also, I review and hear restraining orders at times.
 
Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

Criminal litigation:
From 1997 to 1999, I worked for a Milwaukee law firm with a contract with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Our small office was assigned numerous misdemeanor criminal cases. I was one of the attorneys responsible for them. We often received one to two days' notice of hearings and basic information about our clients’ cases. Each attorney working on the contract typically had several cases and clients on any given day, moving among the 12 courtrooms hearing misdemeanor cases. This was a terrific experience for a young attorney to appear before a variety of judges. I filed and argued pretrial motions. I was successful in motions to dismiss charges and cases against my clients. I represented my clients in jury and bench trials. Most of my clients accepted responsibility for their actions, pleading guilty or no contest. For these clients, I negotiated the best settlement possible.

In 1999, I moved to Door County and took cases assigned by the State Public Defender and by the county judges. My experience was like my experience in Milwaukee County except Door has two branches, and I also handled felony offenses. Additionally, I accepted appointments to defend people in mental commitment cases and guardianship cases.
 
Civil litigation:
My first court appearances as a new attorney were in small claims court handling replevin actions for the group of auto dealers I worked for. I also handled contract and employment litigation in small claims court. I co-chaired my first jury trial against the City of Milwaukee.

After the auto dealers, I joined a small firm in Milwaukee that took me to civil court for probate, guardianship, divorce, and restraining orders. I continued handling these types of cases when I moved to Door County in 1999. For the next 12 years at a general practice firm the individuals and businesses I worked for also necessitated civil litigation in probate, guardianship, divorce, restraining orders, landlord tenant matters, and contractual disputes.

In the last 13 years as a Circuit Court Commissioner, I hear civil matters in divorce, paternity, and restraining orders. 
 
Administrative proceedings:
I worked for a firm who represented the Milwaukee County Employment Commission. I represented the Commission at their meetings as well as in civil court. I represented clients for unemployment compensation hearings. Some of my criminal and traffic clients contested the administrative suspension of the driving privileges related to operating while intoxicated and revocation based on refusal of a blood draw. While I was President of the Sturgeon Bay Police and Fire Commission, I presided over disciplinary hearings in which the Chief of Police brought charges against an officer.
 
Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation.

I served on the Sturgeon Bay city council during years of debate concerning the bridges that connect our city. There were two at the time, and the older “downtown” bridge needed repairs. The decisions involved the city, county, and state. Businesses and individuals had strong opinions and concerns related to down time for construction and repairs that could cut off businesses from daily traffic for extended periods. Everyone worried about who would be responsible for construction and maintenance costs.

In my first year on city council, we organized listening sessions and discussion groups made up of citizens and businesspeople. Public comment at council meetings often included statements about the bridge. People wrote letters to the editor and called in to local radio shows. Council meetings were broadcast on cable access channel watched by many residents. People were regularly approaching alderpersons and city employees to discuss this heated topic.

In my second year on the council, my fellow alderpersons elected me to Chair of the Board of Public Works, the committee to finally decide the path forward. It was a committee of the whole consisting of the mayor and 7 alderpersons. In just one year, we had a new mayor and 3 new alderpersons. There was tension among some of these people on other matters, not just the bridge issue.

Our public works meetings were usually the same evening as the council meetings. To work on our decision, I scheduled a meeting on a Saturday giving us ample time to talk. Instead of the large council meeting arrangement, we sat in a circle at a smaller table to facilitate conversation. I began the meeting with a summary of the history of the bridge issues, the status, and what we hoped to accomplish that day. I tried to set the tone and model careful, calm, thoughtful language. Within the first hour, we went around the table for each person to make a statement. We discussed the proposals, pros and cons of each, and what made most sense for the city’s future. I had expected a few meetings like this to follow, but we came to a consensus within a few hours.

As a united group, it was easier to face opponents to our proposal. Our decisiveness helped us in our discussions with the state regarding construction and costs. With a decision made, anxiety in the community decreased. It disappeared by the time the older bridge was repaired, and a second downtown bridge was built.   
 
Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

The Code of Judicial Conduct does not require a judge to recuse himself or herself in a proceeding based solely on receipt of a lawful campaign contribution, including a campaign contribution from an individual or entity involved in the proceeding. I support the Code and reject the notion that campaign support automatically creates bias. The Code provides additional guidance with respect to recusal and maintaining an independent and fair judiciary. Recusal should be assessed on a case by case basis. 
 
What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?

Bias can be a significant obstacle to delivering justice if a judge does not accept that we all have biases. One must be vigilant against bias. Education and practice can assist in minimizing bias. It helps to recognize and appreciate the variation of human experience. We serve others best when we consider the life and experiences of the people before us. We limit ourselves if we view things only from our experiences. Judges are in positions of power and privilege; our experiences may be quite different from those before us.
 
Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

In 2000, I was elected to the City of Sturgeon Bay Common Council. I served one two-year term. I was appointed to the Sturgeon Bay Police and Fire Commission serving nine years, seven as President elected by my fellow commissioners. 
 
I have volunteered for numerous not-for-profit organizations including Sunshine Resources, JAK’s Place, Legal Aid Society of Door County, Women’s Fund of Door County, Sturgeon Bay Mock Trial Team, Family Services, Destination Sturgeon Bay, HELP of Door County, and United Way. I was elected chair of the board for Sunshine Resources and for the Women’s Fund. 

Reetz

Brett Reetz

Why do you want to become a judge?

I am running to be a Door County Circuit Court Judge because I want to give back to a community that has been so good to me and my family. I am the most credentialed candidate running for judge.  I’m licensed in both Wisconsin and Illinois. I’ve tried over fifty jury trials in my career. I’ve argued before appellate courts and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I have litigated criminal cases, juvenile cases, personal injury cases, partnership disputes, contract cases, real estate disputes, divorce, custody, civil rights cases, and even cases of equity in the Chancery Division in Cook County, Illinois. I have pretty much checked off all the boxes as a trial lawyer. My experience is wide ranging and diverse. I have more trial experience than any other private lawyer with an office in Door County. I have the courtroom experience that nobody else has that is running against me, by leaps and bounds I have it.

Yet, being a good judge requires more than legal experience. It requires a genuine understanding of everyday life, everyday problems and challenges. Like most everybody else, I have lived life, with its ups and downs, good times and bad times  At nineteen, my father went bankrupt. After that, my sisters and I were on our own. So, until my last semester of law school, I worked construction during the day and went to college at night. I paid my own way. I’ve sweated on roof tops while pounding nails in August and I’ve froze on roof tops in January. I have dug ditches, operated heavy equipment, and worked steel. I’ve worked eighteen-hour days to finish projects, both blue-collar and white-collar projects. I’ve worked with and respected people who are craftsmen, medical doctors, PHD.’s, rich entrepreneurs, high-school drop outs, alcoholics, drug addicts, people who are impoverished, struggling entrepreneurs, factory workers, down right bums, the whole gambit. I am a family man, having raised three children. All of this provides me with a broad foundation to understand people and their lives.

And I have compassion for people. I have helped people through immensely tough times. I’ve taken hundreds of calls late at night from people in dire need of help. I do not condemn people for failing. I have faith that in every individual lies a bright future, regardless of their current circumstances - if they are willing to do the work and face their challenges. I am an optimist, not just for me, but for most everybody. I would not be running if I did not sincerely know and believe that I am the best person for the job to serve the Door County community. 

Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) is a concise interpretation of the U.S. Constitution which holds that private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful purposes, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a militia. Heller reconciles with freedom and liberty. Our founders understood the import of citizens having the right to bear arms. It is perplexing to me that politicians continue to talk about “not taking hunting rifles away.” The Second Amendment is not about protecting hunting rights, it is about protecting oneself and self-defense.

On a State level, Carke v. Wisconsin Election Commission was ruled upon correctly by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Political gerrymandering, the setting up of the boundaries of districts to afford one party an advantage over the other, is unacceptable. Both parties are guilty of considering race and socio-economic status to determine boundaries. It is wholly unacceptable to set district boundaries based upon maximizing the likelihood of one party prevailing over the other. The process has inherent racism and stereotyping imbedded within it. Clarke v. WEC, to some extent, reeled in the politics, policies and strategies of gerrymandering in the State of Wisconsin. 
 
Describe your judicial philosophy.

I believe justice should be blind and uninfluenced by bias, race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, or gender preference. I do not believe in judicial activism. It is a judge’s role to apply the law as it is meant to be applied by the legislature. It is imperative to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, favoritism, bias or prejudice. A judge must apply the law equally without deference to trends, fashionable opinions, or politics. A judge should show respect for all persons in the courtroom and maintain a decorum of professionalism, compassion and justice. It is also imperative for a judge to be timely in decisions, rulings and scheduling. I believe the best judges have broad life experiences outside of the courtroom. Like the better lawyers, the best judges have diverse backgrounds and have lived the common American life, raising children, being married, working with their hands, even struggling to pay bills at one time or another.

Philisophically, I am a fan of Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 U.S. Supreme Court Decision that declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the foundational principle that both the legislative and executive branch of government are constrained by the U.S. Constitution. A judge by applying the U.S. Constitution is a shepherd or gate keeper of sorts, a check on the balance of power in government.  A Judge should never be a rubber stamp for the other branches of government.
​
Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were involved as either an attorney or a judicial officer.

Juanita Rivera, et.al. v. Ford Motor Company. Myself and Attorney Uche Asonye sued Ford Motor Company on behalf of thirty-two minority women who were being discriminated against and sexually harassed by Ford Motor Company at the Chicago Heights Stamping Plant. The case proceeded in the Seventh Circuit of the Federal Court System. We were up against a monolith in all respects. Opposing attorneys, gangly possies of them, arrived at court in mini-vans. Ford Motor Company had unlimited resources to fight our claims. And yet, we prevailed obtaining valuable settlements for all of our clients and changing the factory culture in a major corporation.
 
I represented a defendant in a criminal matter who was in a deadly struggle with a methamphetamine addiction. I encouraged him to enter the Adult-Teen Challenge program in Milwaukee. I care about people and this individual was giving up on life. I made the argument that if you are ready to give-up, to quit on life, and likely die or spend years in prison, what would be wrong with spending some time in a program? He agreed to try it. The case was resolved and I forgot about the client. I did not expect him to succeed, as if oft times the case with methamphetamine addicts. It is an addiction that is more unbeatable than beatable. Four years later another client of mine went to Adult-Teen Challenge to try to recover. This client made it through successfully as well. But, to my joyful surprise, the Alcohol and Drug Counselor who signed the second client’s papers was the first client. The man that I had begged to give rehab a try had not only succeeded, he obtained his bachelor’s degree and was now an addiction counselor. Thereafter, he obtained a degree in theology and is now a pastor in a church. This case confirms my belief that almost every life is salvageable if faith, desire and discipline are present.

​Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and administrative proceedings.

Criminal Litigation: 
I have been practicing criminal law for thirty-two years. I have tried felony and misdemeanor jury trials. I have handled hundreds of felonies from homicide, battery, sexual assault, stalking, strangulation, kidnapping, false imprisonment, possession with intent to deliver, conspiracy, child pornography, criminal damage to property, terrorist threats to a school, terrorist threats to a church, operating while intoxicated, first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and I seem to recall, one ninth offense. I have represented white-collar alleged criminals for theft in a business setting, fraud, identity theft, and theft by contractor. I am well versed in the laws of evidence and procedure. I have participated in hundreds of preliminary hearings and sentencing hearings. I have been active representing defendants at revocation and reconfinement hearings. I have negotiated with hundreds of attorneys from almost every district attorney’s office in the State of Wisconsin. I have litigated criminal cases in Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee, Manitowoc, Marathon, Sheboygan, Kewaunee, Outagamie, Brown, Door, Marinette, Shawano, Forest, Columbia, Dane and other counties in the State of Wisconsin. I have litigated criminal cases in the Federal Court System. No other candidate has as much criminal litigation experience as I do, not even close.

Civil Litigation:  
I have litigated thirteen wrongful death cases against drunk drivers, auto cases, the Sault Ste. Marie Bridge Authority, Railroads, and others. I have tried personal injury cases, divorces, custody cases, civil rights cases, contract cases, real estate disputes, adverse possession and prescriptive easement cases, CHIPS cases, injunctions, restraining orders, and property cases. I have litigated at the appellate and Supreme Court levels. I am immensely experienced in procedure including scheduling, discovery, motion practice, the rules of evidence, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial matters.  No other candidate has as much civil litigation experience, not even close.

Administrative Litigation: 
I am well experienced in advocating in administrative practice including Administrative reviews of administrative driver’s license suspensisons, probation revocation hearings and reconfinement hearings. I am familiar with the burdens of proof and the judicial review when outcomes before the Administrative Law Judges don’t go as a party desires. 
​
Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation.

I have faced many adversities. Certainly, it was an exceedingly tough time when my father went bankrupt when I was nineteen. I had limited resources, big dreams and seemingly no way to actualize my dreams. So, I got to work, committed to night school, found a day job in construction, and basically had the courage and fortitude to change the things I could change and to accept the things I couldn’t.

It took a lot of courage to go up against Ford Motor Company and their battalion of lawyers. We had thirty-two women who had put their future in our hands. If we failed, they would lose their jobs and not be able to duplicate their employment anywhere else. A woman with a high-school degree (maybe0 making $60,000.00 or more a year on the south side of Chicago was a rarity and it wasn’t as if one could walk down the street and get a secure union job anywhere near $60,000.00. The possibility of letting my clients down was terrifying. They were not let down We prevailed. Ford paid. And they didn’t lose their jobs.

Now, to the core of how I handle challenges. The most important resource I use to face fear and overcome challenges, and everybody faces fear whether they admit it or not, is my Christian faith. God is always with us and knowing that, believing it, allows a person to get fairly close to fearless. So, when times get tough, scary even, I pray, and then I get to work without much fear, count on my faith, and what do you know?  Things work out.

​Do you support requiring a justice or judge to recuse him/herself from cases involving donors and indirect supporters who contribute money or other resources to the judge's election? If not, why not? If so, why, and what contribution limits would you set?

Yes. I am not taking campaign contributions for this reason. I am independent in nature and am committed to maintaining my independence on the bench. As a trial lawyer, I would not want to litigate against another lawyer who is a known contributor to the judge on the case. That will never be a concern in my courtroom. As to contribution limits, I am an advocate of public financing for campaigns. I do not like the reality that money can buy a political position or a position on the bench. We should have an equal playing field amongst candidates so that the voters can make a decision based on facts, merit, credentials, experience and ability rather than a slick advertising campaign. As an additional thought, I’m all for term-limits too.

​What are the greatest obstacles judges face when trying to deliver true justice? What can or should be done about them?

I don’t believe there are “great obstacles” when delivering justice – if the judge has courage, stamina, wisdom, and a fundamental understanding that doing the right thing is not always the easiest thing to do but it is always the best thing to do. Judges are charged with delivering justice, not making friends. Sure, there will be situations where justice can hurt, will rattle people and anger them, too. But, the pain of justice is nowhere near the pain and harm of injustice. I cannot anticipate ever having a “woe is me” discussion regarding the “greatest obstacles” of delivering justice. Sure, there will be tough days just as there are for everybody else in the world – so be it. If a judge views his or her job as having great obstacles, I believe they are not equipped to be a judge. I mean, way too many people are worried about putting food on the table for their children, paying their mortgage or their medical bills, and a Judge is going to cry in his or her beer about the great obstacles to delivering justice? I’m not buying it. Great obstacles are fighting cancer, losing a child or a parent when you are a child, or being sent to war, these are great obstacles. I’ll concede that being a judge can be tough, but so what? Life is tough and most occupations are a lot tougher than being a good judge. Just because something takes courage, wisdom, insight and integrity doesn’t make it a great obstacle.

(Defining true justice:)
You’ve got to love the United States Constitution. Other than the Bible, there’s not a better writing in the history of mankind. Our founding fathers were revolutionary thinkers (no kidding) in all respects. It is often over-looked that we Americans are the only people in the world that are not subjects of our nation, that our government is of the people, not a government looming over the people like all other nations and their laws. So, to answer the question, to define Justice, here goes.

True Justice is a status arrived at that is based upon truth, equality, and morality. Through these tenants, “true justice” perfectly allocates responsibility and consequence, thereby resounding in a fundamental fairness to everybody involved.

Provide any other information you feel would be helpful to potential voters deciding for whom to vote.

Everything I have I have earned and accomplished on my own. My parents both passed away in the last five years. My sisters and I received not a penny of inheritance, no real estate, no personal property, nothing. I do not state this reality for sympathy but rather to assure the voters that I understand what it takes to succeed, to overcome hardship, and to prevail when the odds are against you. And let me tell you, a large percentage of people in courtrooms are facing hardship that they need to overcome. My faith and belief in honesty, charity, personal responsibility, discipline, hard work, and family are foundational to my life and work. I truly believe most all people can triumph over adversity. These beliefs and principles will serve me and the community well as a judge.