FILED
11-12-2019
Clerk of Circuit Court
Grant County, WI
2018CV000218
Below are Roger’s Comments in Yellow Highlight
Note: the line numbers on the left side are not
accurate. For accurate line numbers see the original decision and order here: (Transcript-oral-ruling)
Newer versions have suffixes on filename
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT GRANT COUNTY ________________________________________________________ ) SABINA LEIGH BURTON ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 18 CV 203 ) THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE ) UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN ) SYSTEM, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________)_________________________ ORAL RULING ________________________________________________________ BEFORE: HON. ROBERT P. VANDEHEY, Circuit Judge DATE: November 1, 2019, at 10:03 a.m. LOCATION: Grant County Courthouse, Lancaster, WI APPEARANCES: BERNARDO CUETO, Attorney at Law, appeared telephonically on behalf of the Plaintiff. MPOLI SIMWANZA-JOHNSON, Assistant Attorney General, appeared telephonically on behalf of the Defendant. Kathleen E. White, RMR, CRR Official Court Reporter Grant County Courthouse 130 West Maple Street Lancaster, WI 53813 |
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Documents important to this decision
include:
Dr. Burton's petition to the Grant
County Circuit court: (Petition)
Dr. Burton brief presented in support of her petition: (40pgBrief-8-9-19-Stamped-Dkt-224)
The Board's reply brief: (Dkt-228-RespondentBrief-9-26-19).
Dr. Burton's reply to the Board's response: (ReplyBrief-Filed-10-28-19-8am).
Here is a transcript of the decision by Judge Van DeHay
on November 1, 2019: (Transcript-oral-ruling).
THE COURT: Good morning. This is 18 --
MS. SIMWANZA-JOHNSON: Hi. Good morning.
3 MR. CUETO: Good morning.
4 THE COURT: Good morning. This is 18 CV
5 218, Sabina Burton versus the Board of Review for the 6 UW. Appearances.
7 MR. CUETO: Attorney Bernardo Cueto appears
8 on behalf of the petitioner, Sabina Burton.
9 MS. SIMWANZA-JOHNSON: Good morning, Your
10 Honor. This is Assistant Attorney General Mpoli 11 Simwanza-Johnson, S-i-m-w-a-n-z-a hyphen Johnson, on 12 behalf of the university.
13 THE COURT: The parties have filed their
14 briefs. This is the time set for an oral argument, and
15 while I don't want to, you know, have counsel revisit
16 everything that was stated in the briefs, I guess, Mr.
17 Cueto, I did have a couple questions for you and then
18 for Ms. Simwanza-Johnson. If I understand it, you
19 allege that because the board allegedly violated the
20 open meetings law, that mandates a remand or a reversal 21 under the Section 227.57(8); is that -- did I read that
22 correctly?
MR. CUETO: There were many procedural
errors, so we would prefer a reversal under another ground, but that was one of the issues that did come up.
THE COURT: Okay. And what hearings were
held in violation of the open meetings laws? 3 MR. CUETO: I believe it was the evidentiary
4 hearings. I'd have to look at which specific ones.
None of the hearings at the university were advertised as required. There were three hearings and none of them were advertised.
5 THE COURT: The evidentiary hearing for the
6 termination decision?
7 MR. CUETO: Yes.
8 THE COURT: Okay. All right. And I know
9 you did notice some different procedural violations, and
10 the statute, you know, does indicate that that would be
11 a grounds to afford action. Does it matter if the 12 errors could be deemed harmless that the -- really the 13 due process interests were not offended?
14 MR. CUETO: I believe that harmless error is
15 something that would -- you know, that's part of all
16 appeals. I'm sure -- I mean I would like it otherwise,
17 but I don't think I can argue otherwise. I think 18 harmless error -- the Court has to find that these 19 violations were not harmless.
Whether the Board
can explain its violations of statutes or constitutional law the court must
reverse or remand if there is a violation. Wis. Stat. 227.57(8) says
Attorney Cueto was
speaking about Wis. Stat. 805.18 which states:
“(1) The court shall, in every stage
of an action, disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings
which shall not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party.
(2) No judgment shall be reversed or
set aside or new trial granted in any action or proceeding on the ground of
selection or misdirection of the jury, or the improper admission of evidence,
or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion
of the court to which the application is made, after an examination of the
entire action or proceeding, it shall appear that the error complained of has
affected the substantial rights of the party seeking to reverse or set aside
the judgment, or to secure a new trial.”
The administration has been
abusing this statute for years. It explains why the university attorneys
promulgate the belief within the faculty that the Chancellor doesn’t need to
follow the law or policy. The court has set up a system whereby the
administration is able to violate applicable laws and policies and if the
matter is taken to court they argue “harmless error.”
The courts seem hell bent on giving the harmless error argument to the Board at
every turn. We proved multiple violations of law and policy and Judge Van DeHay simply considered all of the
violations to be “harmless.” So, what this means is that none of the laws that
have been written in the statutes, none of the policies in faculty bylaws or
university policies, and none of the Board’s guidelines are enforceable by an
employee.
Attorney Cueto may have made
this complex issue overly simplistic in a way that incorrectly creates an undue
burden on Dr. Burton. We’ll address this in the appeal. It appears that some
constitutional violations, such as the right to an impartial judge (or in this
case an impartial hearing panel), are so basic that there is no need to show
harm. It is telling that the judge didn’t even mention Dr. Burton’s argument
that the hearing panel chair, Dr. Susan Hansen, a lobbyist for UW Platteville,
received pecuniary reward for dismissing Dr. Burton.
Other constitutional violations,
such as the right of an appellant to be present at any hearing and to face her
accusers have special requirements for demonstration of harm. The burden is not
on Dr. Burton to show harm but on the administration to show that these
constitutional violations did not create harm. The burden is also higher for
constitutional violations than for statutory or policy violations.
Likewise, First Amendment
violations create harm immediately when they occur so, even though there is a
requirement to show harm, the harm is shown by the violation. Further, as shown
by my comments below, the judge glossed over Dr. Burton’s real arguments about
these violations and based his finding on false and misleading statements
regarding this issue.
We plan to explain this issue
more fully in the appeal.
20 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Simwanza-Johnson,
21 you've had an opportunity to review Mr. Cueto's reply
22 brief. Is there anything you would like to say in response to that?
MS. SIMWANZA-JOHNSON: No, Your Honor.
Basically, our position is he does assert a whole bunch
of procedural arguments, but ultimately he can't prove to how they harmed his client here. The standard of
3 review with respect to factual findings is a pretty low
4 burden.
5 Ultimately, his client disclosed confidential
6 information about her colleagues,
7 This is a false statement. The
information was never identified as “confidential” by any credible source. It
was called “confidential” by the Chancellor because he wanted a “hook” to fire
Dr. Burton. As explained in our briefs, Dr. Burton never disclosed any
confidential information whatsoever. Further, she is protected by the
Whistleblower law, as explained in the briefs. So, this is a false statement
that the court assumed to be true.
8
9 and the university
10 determined that that was not conduct that was
11 appropriate for a tenured professor,
12 This is a misleading statement.
The university did not make this determination. As explained elsewhere in my
comments, the university was represented by a biased appeal panel and a biased
appeal panel chair. The chair of the panel did not fairly represent the faculty
of the university. Therefore, it was not the university that made the
determination but a biased hearing panel in a biased hearing procedure. Again,
even though the bias was indicated in Dr. Burton’s briefs the court assumed the
university to have delivered a fair determination. It did not. A more accurate
statement would be “the chancellor determined that that was not conduct that
was appropriate for a tenured professor.”
13
14 and they fired her
15 for it.
16 So, the Board hangs its hat on
the decision to fire Dr. Burton on a false finding that the information
released by Dr. Burton was “confidential.” But it was not. The Board even admits
that Dr. Burton did not violate any laws of confidentiality. They simply made
up an unwritten rule and fired her for it.
17 So even if it's an open meetings violation, as
18 he claims, if they redo the hearing, it's not going to
19 change the evidence. The evidence is what it is. The 11 outcome will still be the same.
20 This is why Dr. Burton needs publicity. The
Board has continually argued that because she had no supporters she should be
fired. Yet, they failed to advertise the hearing so that no supporters would
know of the hearings. They scheduled the hearings for May 25-26, 2017, just
before the labor day weekend, so most people would be
out of town and not able to attend to support Dr. Burton. They make the
argument that the outcome would not have changed if there were supporters in
attendance. Supporters at the hearings could have demanded that the appeal
panel be selected properly. We need supporters to contact the Board of Regents
and demand that Dr. Burton be reinstated. We need supporters to do something to
help make this process fair for future targeted employees. We need people to
show the appeal court that it would have made a difference if they had heard of
the hearing because they could have stood up for Dr. Burton at the hearings and
that would have changed the evidence and the outcome.
21
22
23
12 THE COURT: Okay. And I guess, Mr. Cueto,
13 I'll give you the last chance. Anything else you would 14 like to say?
15 MR. CUETO: Sure. Well, every one of the
16 issues we did show that it was not harmless. I mean we 17 did go into why every one of these were prejudicial.
18 For instance, if they were to redo the hearings -- well,
19 there were some hearing -- at least one hearing that she 20 wasn't even present for, that she wasn't allowed to --
21 she wasn't able necessarily to cross-examine witnesses.
22 I mean obviously that would provide a lot more evidence, but, you know, Your Honor, you've got our briefs. I mean I don't want to relitigate everything that I already had in my brief. Already long enough as it is.
THE COURT: Okay. And there is a lot of
information. It was my intent to always do a written 3 decision because of the importance of this to both 4 parties.
It is interesting that the judge intended to do a written decision because of the importance but he didn’t do a written decision. It was just a transcribed phone call. So, why not write something? Maybe he is trying to hide something? His decision is so tainted with false statements of fact and glossed over arguments that there seems to be bias on judge Van DeHay’s part. I’m not coming out and saying he is biased but consider that he is the judge for Grant county. UW Platteville is the biggest employer in Grant county. Hmmm.
5 MS. SIMWANZA-JOHNSON: I'm sorry, Your
6 Honor, I'm struggling to hear the Court.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 MS. SIMWANZA-JOHNSON: That's much better.
9 Thank you.
10 THE COURT: Please let me know if there is
11 something else that you can't hear. My intent had been
12 to do a written decision because of the importance to
13 this -- to the parties and had started one, but as I got
14 into it, there are just so many separate issues that are
15 raised and the review by the court of appeals is of the
16 respondent's decision and not necessarily mine, so I am
17 going to give an oral decision.
18
I don’t understand what the judge is saying here. He seems to be saying
that he won’t give a written order because there are many issues. It seems that
a written decision would be better to address many issues so the court wouldn’t
miss anything. As it is, judge Van DeHay missed a lot
of issues. Did he do it on purpose?
19
20
21 I will address the
22 issues in the order that they are -- that they occur in
23 the decision and order that was actually issued by the 20 Board of Regents and then will pick up, I think, some of 21 the other main issues.
So, the judge is using the Board’s termination decision as his guide to determine whether Dr. Burton’s petition is valid. Hmmm. Why wouldn’t he use the petition or Dr. Burton’s briefs as a reference. It seems he wants to gloss over Dr. Burton’s points and focus only on the Board’s points. He seems to think this is a petition by the Board instead of a petition by the petitioner. The judge definitely missed Dr. Burton’s real arguments. As shown below, he focused on the arguments made by the Board and disregarded Dr. Burton’s arguments. Hmmm.
22 I think the big issues have to do with the
academic freedom and also the issue that the university took with the secret recordings and the subsequent posting of those on the web.
Well, the judge again missed the big issues. The big issues are that Dr. Burton’s due process rights were violated in many ways. The First Amendment violations is a big one. Dr. Burton’s constitutional rights were violated when a biased hearing panel and biased panel chair were hand-picked in violation of law. Her constitutional rights were also violated when that biased panel decided to conduct a hearing in Dr. Burton’s absence. Another big point is that there were scores of legal and procedural violations that directly harmed Dr. Burton. The big points are that the court needs to evaluate Dr. Burton’s arguments and not limit his decision to two things the Board’s decision claims to be Dr. Burton’s only arguments. What the court did here is to sum up Dr. Burton’s many varied arguments into two neat “big issues” and he completely ignored the rest. He used the Board’s misrepresentations of Dr. Burton’s arguments as though they are Dr. Burton’s arguments. They are not. If the Grant County Circuit court allows the Board to make Dr. Burton’s arguments for her then there is no justice at this level for employees.
And I will hopefully touch upon all of those issues, but the decision does set forth the correct procedural posture of this case,
What is he saying here? It appears the judge is saying that the Board’s lies are well enough “postured” that they must be valid. So, it appears that the Board’s only requirement to fire a tenured faculty member is to compile enough lies so it looks like the employee is guilty of something. The court didn’t find that any of the facts were true, but that they were “postured” well. Hmmm. I’m not sure what that really means.
and
3 there are other proceedings that occur that have
4 affected this.
5
6 They're set forth in the record.
7 We
8 have the federal lawsuit,
3 I think the court is referring
to the 7th Circuit court of appeals decision which was based only on
information provided to the court on or prior to 12/1/15. Those events are
ancient history and have very little, if anything, to do with the case at hand.
So, if an employee ever loses a court battle, for any reason and for any
issues, that loss will reason to decide against her in every subsequent matter.
Why did we lose that first appeal? The main reason is that Attorney Timothy
Hawks, Sabina’s former attorney, took a dive. He failed to make the arguments
we told him to make and he failed to put into the record the evidence we told
him to put into the record. So, if you get the wrong attorney for your first
case that will haunt you in future cases. That is not reasonable in this case
because Dr. Burton was fired for events that occurred after 12/1/15 that she
could not have adduced in that case.
4
5
6 we have the referrals to the
7 EEOC and the subsequent ability to sue, the permission 7 to sue. We have numerous complaints raised by Dr.
8 Burton and grievances that were filed or complaints made
9 against her or which she made against others, some of
10 which were resolved in her favor, some of which were 11 apparently ignored.
11 Judge VanDeHay
seems to have completely ignored Dr. Burton’s briefs. Why didn’t he mention her
briefs in this list? Also, he writes that Dr. Burton’s complaints were
“apparently” ignored. Why does he soften the violations of Dr. Burton’s due
process rights by saying “apparently?” It appears that he is not convinced that
her complaints were ignored. Hmmm. On the other hand, there are several false
statements of fact in this decision that he presents without using the term
“apparently.” So, he seems to completely agree with the various false
statements that are detrimental to Dr. Burton but is wishy washy as to whether
he believes Dr. Burton’s complaints were ignored, even though the record is
replete with evidence that her complaints were ignored. Hmmmm.
12
13 This is a situation, not unusual, where
14 there are two sides. On one side Dr. Burton appears to
15 be a beloved teacher with amazing credentials who can
16 speak German and has a chemistry background and has a
17 lot of great ideas concerning how the program can be 17 improved.
18
Here it is again. The judge says that Dr. Burton “appears” to be good
but then presents the Board’s false assertions as though they are factual.
19
18 On the other hand, there is Dr. Burton who
19 not only made things unnecessarily difficult
20
And what did the Court determine Dr. Burton did that was “unnecessary?”
What did he use as his reason to determine this? Why didn’t he use the term
“appears” to describe the necessity? How does he come to that conclusion? He
doesn’t say. Again, as always, there is no indication what Sabina “did,” that
was wrong or “unnecessary.” What did Sabina “do” that was unnecessary? Was it
unnecessary to file a grievance; to ask others not to violate policy; to file a
lawsuit; to complain that she was being harassed? What did she “do” Judge? The
judge answers my question later in the decision. He says that filing grievances
and complaints are unnecessary, and that a tenured faculty member can be fired
for filing them. These things are obviously protected by the First Amendment
and Academic Freedom. Also, there is policy which allows such complaints. The
administration wanted to squash Sabina’s complaints because they were
legitimate. But that doesn’t matter in the appeal. What matters is that Sabina
had a right to file complaints whether they were legitimate or unfounded. They
can’t legally fire her for filing complaints.
21
It appears that the judge completely ignored Dr. Burton’s briefs and
simply read the Board’s decision to fire her.
Hmmm.
22
23
24 but made
25 things impossible for the other members of her 21 department and particularly her supervisors,
26
This is straight from the Board’s decision on page 15. The court seems
to have simply gone down the Board’s decision and made his decision based on
the Board’s rendition of what happened without regard to Dr. Burton’s briefs or
even her petition.
27
28 and as in
23 all lawsuits there is support for both positions.
This is wrong. There is not substantial support for the Board’s position. There is only testimony that violated Dr. Burton’s rights. That fact should have been enough to reverse the decision for two reasons 1) the evidence gathered in that hearing is not substantial because it was not tested, sworn or sequestered and 2) the hearing was a violation of Dr. Burton’s constitutional rights. 3) the hearing panel was biased and the panel chair was biased. Good Grief, there are a million other reasons too.
So the issue comes down to the Court's
requirement to give deference to factual findings and to look at the legal issues in a more de novo type fashion.
This is correct, according to the scope of review in Wis. Stat. 227.57. However, the judge misses the point below.
So when I go to Page 3 of the decision, it starts off with,
So, the judge is going off the Decision that was written by the Board. That decision was written with the intent of convincing a judge to side with the Board. The Board’s attorneys are familiar with the things a court looks at and structured its decision to be persuasive. Here is the problem. The Board’s decision contains a whole bunch of lies and is based on multiple violations of Dr. Burton’s constitutional, statutory and procedural rights. In this case, the Board attempted to distract the court away from Dr. Burton’s true arguments. It worked. As you see when you read on, the Board’s decision misrepresents Dr. Burton’s arguments as though they center around whether Dr. Gibson was punished. But if you read Dr. Burton’s briefs you will see that is not at all true. Dr. Burton never complained that Dr. Gibson wasn’t punished. She used the fact that he wasn’t punished as evidence of disparate treatment. She used the fact that Chancellor Shields lied about the reason for and timing of Gibson’s non-renewal. But she never argued that he wasn’t punished or punished enough. Yet, that is what the Board argued in its decision. Any employee can be fired for any reason. All the Board has to do is “posture” their decision so the court can maintain a degree of credibility by siding with the Board. The court will believe as true all statements in the Board’s decision. They don’t need to be true and the process does not need to conform to the law or policy.
you know, Dr. Burton, you know, was a tendered
3 professor, that in the fall UW Hospital -- or
4 UW-Platteville was faced with this issue of Dr. Gibson
5 handing a note with the words, "Call me." The doctor's
6 position is that basically that was swept under the rug, 7 there was a coverup.
7 Wrong: the issue was that the
administration began retaliating against Sabina and she filed complaints about
it that were never heard. The administration never gave her fair due process.
Sabina was not concerned that Gibson was not punished. She was concerned with
the way she was treated because she advocated for the student. Good grief. The
fact that there was cover up is evidence that the Board fired Sabina unfairly.
8 Also, the court was wrong about
what was written on the note. The judge clearly got his information from the
Board’s brief. On pages 9-10 of Burton’s initial brief she wrote “Dr. Gibson
did not just write “call me” as alleged in the Decision. The handwritten note
to the female student stated, “Call me tonight!!” and was followed by his
personal cell phone number.” The the judge didn’t seem to even read Dr. Burton’s briefs. He
just considered everything in the Board’s decision to be true. But it was not
true at all.
9
Board’s decision: (Board-Regents-decision-6-8-18). This is the
document judge Van DeHay used to make his decision.
It is filled with lies, misstatements and misdirections.
10 Dr. Burton's
petition to the Grant County Circuit court: (Petition) Judge Van DeHay
didn’t seem to even look at this.
Dr. Burton’s initial brief in support of her petition: (40pgBrief-8-9-19-Stamped-Dkt-224) Judge Van DeHay didn’t seem to even look at this.
The Board's reply brief: (Dkt-228-RespondentBrief-9-26-19).
Dr. Burton's reply to the Board's response: (ReplyBrief-Filed-10-28-19-8am). Judge Van DeHay
didn’t seem to even look at this.
11 So, it seems that the court got
its information from the Board’s inaccurate and biased Decision without even
considering the correct information provided by Burton. On page 10-11 of the 40 page brief Burton wrote “Chancellor Shields
misrepresented the facts in order to cover up his own mishandling of the sexual
harassment incident and to make Dr. Burton a scapegoat for his failure to act
appropriately.” The problem Burton pointed out is that the Chancellor
misrepresented the facts, not that Gibson wasn’t punished. The Board’s Decision
misdirects the reader to believe that Burton was complaining that Gibson wasn’t
punished but that is simply not true.
12
13
14 UW-Platteville thinks that they
8 addressed it appropriately by, one, immediately stopping 9 the experiment, as they call it, the breach experiment 10 to make sure that it didn't happen again, and, secondly, 11 not renewing Dr. Gibson.
The university claims that they
think they handled the matter appropriately, but they didn’t. But that isn’t
even Dr. Burton’s defense against the allegations against her. Dr. Burton never
argued that she shouldn’t have been fired because the university dealt with
Gibson inappropriately.
Dr. Burton proved on page 11 of her 40 page brief that Dr. Caywood admitted that he handled the sexual harassment incident poorly. So, how can the administration have handled the incident “appropriately?” The words “poorly” and “appropriately” don’t mean the same thing. The decision to non-renew Gibson had nothing to do with his sexual harassment incident. Chancellor Shields lied about this. He said Gibson was non-renewed at the earliest opportunity but that is false. Gibson continued to teach for two and a half years. Shields also said that Gibson was let go for a ‘whole variety of reasons.’ That implies that one of the reasons was the sexual harassment incident. It wasn’t. The sexual harassment incident was not mentioned in Gibson’s appeal at all. The court made a wrong inference. (See Burton’s initial brief on pgs 9-12). This demonstrates one of the problems with the court system. The lying administration is considered to be telling the truth. The court simply sides with them because they said so and for no other reason. Further, it is completely irrelevant to this case why Gibson was let go or whether the administration handled the matter properly or poorly. That’s not the point here. The point is that the administration abused Sabina and Chancellor Shields lied. The administration made the argument that Sabina was complaining that Gibson wasn’t punished properly but Sabina never made that complaint. The court just goes with anything the administration says.
12 There is information in the record about --
13 through e-mails that Dr. Gibson at one time had been
14 voted chair of the department and that the Dean overrode 15 that vote because he was untendered -- untenured and a 16 second year employee, and Dr., I believe, Dalecki is the 17 way you pronounce that remained as the chair.
18 The point that's brought out later is that
19 Dr. Gibson was addressed, had some explanation which Dr.
20 Burton questioned and which, frankly, I think most 21 people would question, but apparently whatever was going
21 on ended, and he was released in 2014.
False: Gibson was released in 2015. Sabina wrote on page 11 of the 40 page brief “Dr. Gibson taught for two and a half years at UW Platteville after the sexual harassment incident.” The incident was in October, 2012. Gibson was released after spring term 2015. I’m still not sure why the court continues talking about this. It’s not important, except to establish that Chancellor Shields lied in the hearing. And that’s just one of the many lies. The court has made a provably false statement. Here is an email from Gibson, from his university email account, dated 2/17/15. (exhibit 643). This proves he was still with the university on 2/15/17 and very much concerned about the future of the CJ department. He left the university at the end of Spring semester in 2015.
Why does the court spend so much time talking about Gibson? This was not a central point to the petition or Dr. Burton’s arguments. He seems to be looking for a way to say something that paints Sabina in a bad light and ignore Sabina’s real points. It is becoming clear as I read this, that Judge VanDeHay is biased in favor of the administration and is just trying to confuse the issue, as the administration has done. The court appears to have latched onto the Gibson incident as though it was a central argument to Burton’s case. It was not. Whether the administration handled Gibson properly or appropriately shouldn’t provide any justification whatsoever, to fire Dr. Burton.
The respondent looks at that, as did the Seventh Circuit in its decision, I think, as support for a proposition that Dr. Burton was not engaging in academic freedom by continuing to raise this particular episode and continuing to claim that the university did 3 not protect students against sexual harassment in 2016 4 and 2017.
the 7th Cir didn’t look at that. This is
important.
Wow. That’s not right. .
5 The issue of protecting students from sexual
6 harassment and having an opinion as to whether Dr.
7 Gibson should have been fired on the spot or more should
8 have been done, that, I think, is probably a fair -- you
9 know, a fair application of the McAdams case up to a
10 point.
11
Sabina never argued that Gibson should have been fired on the spot. She
never argued that more should have been done to him. That’s just absurd. Wow.
She argued that she was retaliated against because she advocated for a student
victim of sexual harassment. It appears that the court was just looking for a
way to misdirect attention away from the real issues. The judge seems to be
saying that the MeeToo movement is a bunch of hoey.
12
13
14
15 In McAdams, we're dealing with a professor who
16 basically told a student that we're not going to
17 tolerate a discussion of any opinions that the gay
18 community should not enjoy the same rights as the
19 heterosexual community. Dr. McAdams took exception to
20 that and indicated that you -- you, meaning a
21 university, has to be more tolerant to the views of
22 people who you maybe disagree with, but the university's
23 decision to fire him -- I guess first to suspend him and 19 then make his reinstatement contingent upon an apology
20 was, you know, an illegal activity because it did punish
21 him for exercising academic freedom, the right of free
22 speech, and underlying, I think, was making a valid point about the need to allow for a discussion of contrary views.
23
24
Academic Freedom does not require a valid point to be made. Any
American is free to offer wrong and invalid opinions. By removing the
protection of Free Speech because the speech was later determined to have been
invalid violates the First Amendment by causing a chilling effect where
speakers will self-censor out of fear of later being proven wrong. Even in the
court’s own sentence above he contradicts himself. The judge says that it is a
valid First Amendment right to argue that we need to allow contradictory views
but at the same time removes Burton’s First Amendment protection because her
view contradicts that of the administration.
25
At some point the respondent obviously felt
that that argument did not work for Dr. Burton's continued expressions of dissatisfaction with everyone
3 she had worked with,
5
6 and in policy that's maybe a slight
7
overstatement, but the
Seventh District Court of Appeals
8
looked at this issue and whether the concept
of academic
9
freedom protected Dr. Burton from these many,
many
10
e-mails,
12 it also looked at whether Dr. Burton was being
13 discriminated against and retaliated against for filing
14 a lawsuit against the UW-Platteville, and the -- I think
15 the briefs note the coincidence or lack thereof of the
16 time between filing the lawsuit and the letter of 12 direction.
This actually proves that the 7th circuit didn’t consider whether the emails were protected. The court is confused as to facts.
13 The Seventh Circuit found and the regents
14 found that, "The record demonstrates that Throop had a
15 factual basis for each of the allegations she leveled
16 against Burton in the letter of direction, and Burton
17 failed to provide evidence that the allegations were 18 pretextual.
18
This is true. The 7th circuit found that Dr. Burton flubbed up
and didn’t prove that there was causal connections
between the lawsuit and the letter of direction because 6 months had passed and
she only argued about the two issues (thanks Tim). We messed up and trusted the
wrong attorney. He didn’t make the right arguments or present the right
evidence and we lost that case.
19 Indeed, the district court stated that
19 Burton did not dispute the truth of the allegations,
20 only how Throop perceived and characterized those events
21 and whether Throop" –
22 While it is true that the 7th
circuit court did write that, it is false to say that “Burton did not dispute
the truth of the allegations.” Dr. Burton has disputed
the truth of the allegations since the day the letter of direction was issued.
The 7th circuit court was wrong. Check out the District court’s
finding that Dr. Burton did dispute the truth of the allegations. (Dkt-90). The District court wrote on page 24
“Burton relies on evidence of pretext: she contends that the allegations in
Throop’s letter of direction were so obviously false that they must have been a
cover for retaliatory animus.” How can one judge say the exact opposite
of what another judge says when they are both considering the exact same
evidence?
23
24
25 I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing
26 that correctly - "should have accepted Burton's explanation for each of them." This is at the bottom of Page 4.
Top of Page 5, "There is no evidence in the
record that Throop's complaint against Burton was retaliation for her protected activity, but there is
3 evidence that Burton decided not to heed any of the
4 direction contained in the letter."
5 At the bottom of that paragraph, "No
6 reasonable jury could find that either the letter of
7 direction or the subsequent complaint were caused by
8 Burton's protected activities rather than legitimate
9 disagreements between Burton and Throop."
The protected activities the 7th circuit court used were only the filing of the lawsuit and one other event I can’t remember. They didn’t even consider any of the emails in their decision. Good Grief. The emails Sabina was admonished for in the Throop letter of direction were 1) protected activities, 2) were not even considered by the 7th circuit in their determination, 3) written in 2013 and were not the emails provided by the Board in its decision to fire Sabina. Good grief.
Judge Van DeHay decided against Sabina because she failed to prove arguments that had nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons the Board fired her or with any of her arguments that her due process rights were violated in her dismissal.
10 And that's a part factual determination, I
11 think a part legal determination, and while the Seventh
12 Circuit Court is not binding authority, it can be
13 persuasive authority and I think something the regents
14 could rely upon, and the point is made, and I think a 15 legitimate point in both the petitioner's brief and
16 reply brief,
17 that point out exactly what is protected
18 and what was not protected and what is inaccurate and
19 what is accurate. And the finding that was made
20 basically was that, "The course of conduct" - and this
21 is on Page 7 - "that she was engaging in disrespectful,
22 harassing, intimidating behavior directed at her
23 colleagues in an attempt to undermine them professionally and damage their reputations and careers."
24
What is he saying? It appears that he is saying that the 7th
circuit court decision that had nothing to do with any events after 12/1/15 was
evidence that Dr. Burton deserved to be fired in 2018. Am I reading that right?
There really isn't one particular e-mail
that jumps out because all of the -- or I should say the majority of the e-mails are couched in terms of, "I want
3 you to follow policy. I want to work together to make
4 this a better department.
5 Sabina wanted people to follow policy
because they were violating policy right and left. They were violating her
rights. She has a right to complain that her rights are being violated. The
judge is right that there is not any one particular email
that “jumps out.” In fact, there is not even one email that would not be
protected. They are all valid and they are all protected. None of Dr. Burton’s
emails can be considered to be anything warranting
discipline. Combined, they don’t warrant any discipline at all. The Board only
presented a handful of Dr. Burton’s emails.
6
7
8 I want to, you know,
9 basically make this a better place for the students.
10 All I'm doing is I want to let the students know what a
11 train wreck this department has become."
3
So, the court takes out of context the term “train wreck” and uses this
email, that Dr. Burton wrote in 2014, as reason to fire her in 2018. Sabina’s
email used a term coined in an audit report. Sabina was trying to get the
department to fix the problems pointed out by the auditor. (See Dkt 53-10 page 13). The auditor wrote “campus administration and
the dean's office must shoulder some responsibility for the train wreck that
occurred much later.” The court decided that the Board can fire Dr. Burton
because she repeated the term “train wreck.”
Sabina didn’t say she wants to tell the students what a train wreck the
department had become, she said she would tell the students that truth about
their job prospects if they pursue a career in the CSI field. The court missed
the point.
4
5
6 And there is 8 information in the -- in the federal lawsuit where Dr.
9 Burton, you know, acknowledges that this was basically a
10 hostile work environment.
11 Of
course Sabina claimed that she worked in a hostile work environment. That’s
what the whole lawsuit was about. The administration was retaliating against
her, and it still has never stopped. The judge turned this around to make it
seem like Sabina was admitting that she “created” the hostile environment when
in fact she was complaining that she was the victim of abuse. In essence the court is saying that
anyone complaining of a hostile work environment is creating a hostile work
environment by complaining. Is that what the court really wants to say?
12
13 In her brief she indicates
14 that there was no disruption, the department worked
15 fine,
16
17 What the hell?????? Sabina never said the department “worked
fine.” She said she was retaliated against. That’s not fine. she said she
didn’t do anything to cause the disruption and that all her actions were
protected activity. The department was certainly dysfunctional
but it wasn’t her fault. It was the fault of the administration for letting
things to go shit and by disrupting the department.
18 which I think is inconsistent with her prior
19 statements and inconsistent with the record. The record
20 is that this department was not functioning and that the 15 reason for that had to do with Dr. Burton pursuing not
16 legitimate complaints for the most part,
17 Well of course, if you believe
the lies to be true it appears that Sabina is a potential mass murderer. That’s
why the court needs to consider the illegitimate documents as unsubstantial. At
the very least the court needs to reverse the decision for the simple fact that
the Board violated her rights. But apparently, this judge is on the side of the
powerful Board of Regents.
18 Good grief, he calls Burton’s
complaints illegitimate without examining them. Without her ever being given a
grievance hearing to air her grievances. Ridiculous. Obviously biased. Maybe
lazy.
19
20 but, as I think
21 Dr. Shields said, unreasonable and unfounded allegations
22 of unethical conduct by other faculty members.
23 How can Shields know if Sabina’s
allegations were unreasonable or unfounded without any fair hearings into her
allegations? What the court is doing is creating “a formula for permitting
unauthorized, unregulated, foolproof, lawless government coercion. The formula
consists of coupling threats with denunciations of the activity that the
official wants stamped out…The judge was giving official coercion a free pass.”
Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart, 807 F.3d 229, 238 (7th Cir. 2015). The activity
Shields wanted stamped out was Dr. Burton’s legitimate allegations. So, he and
Throop threatened Dr. Burton against making allegations and denounced the
allegations by calling them unreasonable and unfounded without legitimate
investigations.
24
25 And when 19 I started off by saying this is a case that involves a
20 story of two different individuals, I don't need to make
21 a determination of who's correct. I just need to decide
22 if the regents had substantial evidence in the record
23 The key word here is
“substantial.” That means a reasonable person would believe the evidence to be
credible. The investigation report is a forgery and the hearing of 5/25/17 was
conducted in Dr. Burton’s absence. The witnesses were not sworn to tell the
truth, they were not sequestered, they lied and Dr.
Burton was never allowed to cross examine them. I don’t think a reasonable
person would consider their testimony credible. But the court did. To me, that
means the court either doesn’t know how a reasonable person thinks or he is
biased.
24
25 to reach the conclusion they did. And one thing that they mentioned is striking, and maybe this was the Seventh District who said that, "There was not one faculty
member who spoke in Dr. Burton's favor that she should be retained;
Nope, that was not the
7th circuit court who said that. Their decision had nothing to do with anything
that happened after 12/1/15. So, their decision could not have referred to the
hearings of 5/25/17, 9/19/17 or 11/30/17. This is an indication that judge Van DeHay was trying to give false credibility to the Board’s
argument that Burton should be fired because she wasn’t given enough time to
bring her witnesses and the Board refused to make their witnesses available to
her. It also shows that he assumed the 7th circuit considered all of the same documents in the record. Effectively, he is
saying, “this whole matter has already been determined by a higher court so I’m
just going to go along with them.” This is completely invalid.
Why should it matter that nobody spoke on Dr. Burton’s behalf anyway. The point is that the Board violated her rights repeatedly, wantonly and purposefully. What has that got to do with a friendly witness standing up for Sabina? Nothing. Dr. Burton’s supporters had been systematically fired or threatened into non support for her. Anyone who stood up and supported Sabina at the hearing would have been immediately targeted by the administration in the same way Sabina was. Sabina was concerned for her supporters so she didn’t put them in the dangerous position of testifying on her behalf. Also, she wasn’t given time for it anyway.
instead, Dr. Burton has to rely upon some
3 letters from students," which I think should be
4 considered. But the regents indicated that they didn't
5 give a whole lot of weight to that,
6
7 The letters from students were
not to support Sabina. They were to verify that she didn’t talk about her
disputes in class and that is all. Sabina didn’t “rely” on those letters for
anything other than to point out that she didn’t do what she was accused of.
The judge is completely confused as to the facts in this case. The students
took the opportunity to voice their support of Sabina but that’s not why she
submitted them into the record.
8
9 and the letter of
10 a -- I think it was the Solar letter about how she was a
11 Nope, it was a letter from
Chancellor Shields.
12 dynamic teacher and did a good job, and it's mentioned
13 in the record a couple of times that she had received a
14 couple raises and she had gotten tenure since this whole
15 Gibson episode, but even the person who wrote that 11 letter changed her mind and quickly -- I think rather
12 quickly ended up not being able to work with Dr. Burton.
Who changed their mind quickly? What is the judge saying here? The judge mentioned this twice, so he seems to think it is important. But what is he talking about? I am speculating that he was saying that Chancellor Shields changed his mind about Sabina. Dr. Burton mentioned this to show that the Chancellor changed his mind. That’s the whole point. What caused him to change his mind? It was the fact that she spoke up about the retaliation she received for her advocacy of the student victim of sexual harassment. Judge Van DeHay seems to have missed the point and twisted it into a reason to fire Sabina.
13 So the factual finding that the continued
14 complaints and grievances
15
So, the court is saying that filing complaints and grievance is reason
to fire a faculty member? Really? Wow.
16
17
18
19 and conduct
20
What conduct are we talking about? What did Dr. Burton “DO?” She wrote
a few emails. Even this court pointed out that there were not very many and
that none of them jumped out at him as problematic. The “conduct” he is
referring to is all the false allegations against her that she was never given
a chance to refute in a fair hearing.
21
22
23 met the criteria
24 for being disrespectful, harassing, intimidating and met
25 the standards for termination is supported by the
26 record.
27
As I have said numerous times, the record contains evidence that Sabina
is a potential mass murderer. The question is not whether that evidence is in
the record, but whether that evidence is credible. It is not. The court relied
on evidence that is not substantial. The administration got some people, who
were threatened by Dr. Burton’s efforts to gain fair treatment, to lie about
her. The administration forged an investigation report. The hearing transcript
of 5/25/17 is not credible, the letters of direction are not credible, and the
investigation report is not credible for reasons spelled out in Burton’s
briefs. Remove those documents from the record and the Board has no support
left for its decision. That the judge refused to evaluate Burton’s arguments
fairly is evidence of bias.
28 Dr. Burton has other evidence. I think the --
29 the one issue that comes to mind is whether Dr. Solar, I
30 believe is the name, that she had to quit as department 20 chair
31
Nope, it was Dr. Staci Strobl who resigned.
32 because she spent all her time dealing with Dr. 21 Burton, and it was such an unpleasant situation that she 22 had to resign.
33
Well, that’s the Board’s false story. But Dr. Strobl’s resignation
email said that she was resigning because of a lack of institutional support. (Strobl Email)This
was explained in Dr. Burton’s briefs but the judge seems to completely discount
everything Dr. Burton says and repeats the Board’s false statements as though
fact. Video of news report: (DiggingDeeper-WKOW-TV).
Dr. Burton brings up the fact, "Well, that's
not the stated reason, and, in fact, this is what she said why she said she was leaving." Those are the kind of discrepancies that the finder of fact sorts out, and the regents quite clearly were entitled to accept the
3 position that Dr. Burton, because of her activities,
4 non-protected activities had made it an impossible place
5 to work, and that conclusion is supported by the
6 opinions of other people who worked in the department.
Sure,
if someone is a mass-murderer he/she should be fired. But if someone lies about
her being a mass murderer maybe that is an important point to consider. The question
is whether the Board is allowed to rely on lies to
support their findings.
The transcript of the hearing of 5/25/17 was taken in violation of Dr. Burton’s constitutional rights. So, it cannot be considered substantial. It cannot be considered at all. So, Judge Van DeHay is completely wrong here. Dr. Strobl said a bunch of really wild stuff in the hearing of 5/25/17. It appears someone filled her head with a bunch of lies about Dr. Burton as part of the smear campaign against Burton. Strobl later filed complaints against the university. Dr. Strobl called Dr. Burton a victim of discrimination in a complaint against the university. (Leaked Title IX Strobl). Dr. Strobl had some other interesting things to say as well: (Title IX dismissal), (2019.07.24 Ltr to ERD Filing Complaint (00654250xC0FCA)).
7 And while the finder of fact could accept or reject
8
those -- that testimony, once they accept it, this Court
9
isn't in a position to overturn that.
10
11 Yes, the court is in a position
to overturn that.
It can easily decide that the transcript and the investigation report are not substantial
evidence. It made a mistake by viewing those documents as substantial. Of
course, Sabina should be fired if those documents are considered valid because
the unfettered false testimony given at the hearing makes her appear to be a
potential mass murderer. But the evidence is not valid. The people giving the
testimony were allowed to bash Dr. Burton while she
was not even present. That can’t be considered valid evidence.
12
13 There are -- 10 excuse me, there is counter evidence, and the briefs
11 bring it out about Dr. Dalecki, you know, pointing a
12 finger in the form of a gun, some doctor hitting her at
13 a meeting that was being recorded, some of the
14 transcripts or the editor -- they were editorialized,
15 her transcripts, would indicate that at these meetings
16 Dr. Burton was being disrespected and being shut down 17 and those sorts of things.
Wow, the judge finally got something right.
18 But there is another side,
19
Oh, here it comes.
20 which is that
21 everyone -- I should say no one spoke on her behalf,
22
So, it is ok for Dr. Dalecki to threaten to shoot Sabina and it is ok
for Dr. Fuller to assault her to keep her from speaking, but if nobody stands
up in a kangaroo court and speaks up for her that is somehow reason to fire
Sabina? Hmmm.
23
24 and
25 you can't open one of the attachments in the record
26 without seeing either another complaint or grievance or 22 dispute that was going on with another faculty member.
27
And why do you suppose that is? Its because
the administration was doing everything it could to make Sabina seem to be a
problem employee. It made up complaints with no validity. It was a smear
campaign against her. The administration repeated lies, forged documents and
fabricated complaints against Dr. Burton without giving her opportunity to
address the false allegations. That’s why the court needs to look at whether
the evidence is “substantial.” If it is not substantial the court should ignore
it. By considering all evidence in the record to be substantial the court is
ignoring the scope of review. Without knowing which complaints the court is
referring to I can’t be specific here but there is a story demonstrating that
each of those complaints against Sabina is not substantial and there is
evidence proving that all of Burton’s complaints are accurate and true,
regardless of the lies spewed by Chancellor Shields, Throop and others.
28 I was trying to go through the record again, and all of a sudden I see this thing about Dr. Rice. I have no idea who Dr. Rice is. I just know that, you know, there
was another grievance filed against her.
The complaint by Rice against Dr. Burton is explained in depth here (DebRice-Complaintof8-8-16); (Rice v Burton Complaint Dismissal Packet). Long story short: This was part of the smear campaign against Burton. The allegations were completely without foundation or merit.
And while Dr.
Burton may have felt that it was her job to pursue this
3 aggressive and hostile stance
4 So, the court is saying that
filing proper grievances against colleagues who are abusive is “aggressive and
hostile.” Why then do the policies of the university provide procedures for
filing and processing such complaints?
Why didn’t the university properly process Dr. Burton’s complaints? They
should remove the policy saying a faculty member can file complaints.
5
6 when it came to
7 essentially everybody she had contact with,
8 I can assure you, as Dr.
Burton’s husband that I have been in contact with Sabina routinely and,
although we have our share of marital frictions, she is not unreasonable. It is
unreasonable for the court to ascribe the handful of people who have filed
fabricated and bogus complaints against Sabina as “everybody she had contact
with.” Ridiculous. The court is obviously biased. The Board lied about all the
other complaints.
9
10 the regents
11 were within their right to conclude that she was being 6 unreasonable and things were unfounded.
So, because people filed complaints against Sabina Judge Van DeHay concludes that Sabina’s complaints were “unfounded.” How does that fit? Even if those complaints against Sabina were legitimate, which they were not, that fact alone could not give any indication whatsoever as to whether Dr. Burton’s complaints were unfounded. Another sign of bias by the court.
The court uses a complaint by Deb Rice, that he didn’t even read because it wasn’t in the record, to justify firing Burton. The court is giving the administration permission to file false complaints against someone and then fire that person even after the complaint was dismissed. That is a violation of UWS 6.01(3). The court doesn’t seem to care, but is making up reasons to fire Sabina that the Board didn’t even consider. The Board’s decision and its briefs said nothing about the Rice complaint.
7 I would continue with the -- with some of
8 the findings. The finding about Dr. Strobl - I think I
9 said Dr. Solar - that was corrected.
10
11 Correct, it was Strobl who resigned, not Solar.
12
13 "No. 11, that
14 departmental problems related to Dr. Burton's behavior
15 persisted, and as a result Dr. Strobl resigned as the
16 department chair in 2016." No. 9 is, "Almost
17 immediately Dr. Strobl was consumed with issues 14 surrounding Burton, and it took up most of her time." 15 The findings are supported. I’m done to here – Roger-3-15-20
Of course this finding is supported if the incredible evidence in this case is considered credible. They are full of lies. These documents were assembled in violation of numerous laws and violated Dr. Burton’s constitutional and statutory rights in many many ways. Good grief.
16 There is an issue about the Roter report. I
17 think the regents made it clear they only considered the
18 testimony and not the hearsay contained in the Roter
19 report.
20
Well, isn’t that special. The court simply says ‘hey, the Board and Dr.
Burton say different things so, it must be the Board who is right.’ The
investigation report is full of lies and omits material information. It
contains biased opinions that should not be in an investigation report.
Chancellor Shields forged the report and violated law by failing to allow Dr.
Burton to compare the original with the report in the record. Yes, I said Chancellor
Shields forged the investigation report. And the court considers this forged
document to be legitimate evidence.
21
22 There was a complaint that it wasn't signed
23 because it was e-mailed. I don't think that's a 21 procedural error that would affect the outcome of this 22 decision.
No. The problem is that it is a forgery, not that it isn’t signed. The fact that it isn’t signed simply is one of many indications that it is not the original report. Chancellor Shields altered the original report. That’s forgery. The court simply swooshes right past Dr. Burton’s allegations about the invalidity of the investigation report and the fact that the Board did rely on it.
There is a finding at the bottom of Page 6, Paragraph 15 that Chancellor Shields did offer to meet with Dr. Burton as required by U.W.S. 4.02(1). She did not attend because she objected to the inclusion, and that at least that was -- the administrative code
3 provision was complied with.
Whatever. Obviously, the law is not something that needs to be followed. The court used the Board’s decision to form his judgment and disregarded Dr. Burton’s briefs that prove the facts in the Board’s decision to be false. Obviously the court is biased.
4 The finding on 16(a) is something which we
5 did discuss or that was discussed in the briefs of,
6 "Publicly disclosing public confidential personnel
7 information of colleagues which constituted a breach of
8 trust and violated the reasonable expectations of
9 UW-Platteville for its faculty."
10 Again, this is part factual, part legal.
11 The respondent concedes that there was no law broken,
So, if there was no law broken, I ask again, what did Dr. Burton do wrong? She did not violate any rule or law or guideline. The Board made up this unwritten and unnoticed “reasonable expectation” and fired her for it.
Also important here is that the initial complaint against Sabina alleges that she violated specific laws by publishing those recordings. However, the Board admits that she violated no laws whatsoever, so, the allegation was never proven. It shifted to a brand new charge against her that she was never given notice of. As the District court said ‘Tenure provides significant protections and one of those protections is that she be given due notice of the charges against her.’ See Peterson’s ruling Dkt. 90 for exact quote. The Board never gave Dr. Burton any notice that there was ever any expectation that she not publish audio recordings of open meetings or that she not publish audio recordings of DRB meetings or that she not publish audio recordings of assaults on her person. This is a big one. We should argue that she never received notice of any such expectation.
12 that the recording of these conversations primarily
13 dealing with promotion of junior colleagues was a breach
14 of trust and violated the reasonable expectations of 15 UW-Platteville for its faculty.
So, Dr. Burton has to show that the severe violations against her caused her harm in order for the court to reverse the Board’s decision. She does this in many ways, but the court doesn’t think the harm is significant, even though the violations led to her dismissal. On the other hand, the Board has demonstrated that Dr. Burton violated only an unwritten expectation. Something that somebody supposedly expected her to do but never instructed her to do and that was never written down. The court is saying that the Board can fire any tenured faculty member for any unwritten “expectation” it wants to make up after the fact. The Board can fire you for sneezing in a crowded elevator because some people “expect” that you will not do that.
16 Now, this is different than McAdams in that
17 McAdams was expressing an opinion about what he
18 conceived -- what he perceived was some intolerance of
19 opposing opinions by another professor.
20 This is a
21 situation where the members of the department would get
22 together and discuss what they thought of colleagues,
23 who was on track, what kind of points were being obtained or received, the scoring. I mean you can read the transcripts. Some of it is foreign to me. As a matter of common sense, if you're discussing those types
of sensitive employment issues with personnel and you're talking about who's going to get tenure, who's going to 3 get promoted, what's going to go on, there is some kind
4 of expectation that you're going to discuss it and then
5 you're going to come out with a decision as a committee,
This actually makes sense. That is why we need to also make the
point that the audio recordings were protected under the Whistleblower law.
The court completely glossed over the Wistleblower law because it is biased and it cannot dispute the protection. That is the same reason the Board glossed over the whistleblower argument.
6 but that's not what -- that's not what makes me
7 determine that the respondent is correct in this matter.
8 What matters is that there was evidence in
9 the record. I believe it was Chancellor Shields who
10 indicated just how important the confidentiality of
11 these discussions is and how a university personnel
12 would know that, and that evidence was something that 13 the finder of fact decided to accept that, in fact,
14 there is, you know, an understanding that when you're
15 talking about the confidential information of under --
16 particularly underlings and the fact that they may be
17 promoted or not, it's not something that should be
18 posted on the web,
Well, the Wisconsin Open Meetings law allows for this. It allows the chair of the department to close such meetings. The chair failed to close the meetings so Dr. Burton was never informed of any such “expectation.” Why didn’t the Board discipline the chair of the meetings for not closing it? Because they wanted to fire Dr. Burton for completely unrelated reasons. The court glossed over Dr. Burton’s other arguments in her briefs.
One important question is whether Dr.
Burton is responsible for violating the expectation or whether the chair of the
meeting is responsible for the violation of this unwritten expectation. The
chair has the responsibility to close any such meetings. Otherwise those
meetings are open. All open meetings are fair game for recording and
disclosing. Cite the open meetings law in the complaint.
19
20
21 and so there was evidence in the
22 record it wasn't illegal, but I think the respondent was
23 entitled to accept that and to find that she knew by 21 turning this over to her husband that it would be put on 22 the web.
24 How did she know what I was
going to do? I never told Sabina what I was posting. There was a lot of stuff
that she had no idea about, and this was one of those things. Why was it a
problem to put those audios on the web anyway? They were already public information. The audios had already been
filed with the courts in public documents. So, Sabina was fired for not
stopping me from publishing public documents. Also, Dr. Burton was protected by the Whistleblower law. The court
completely ignored that argument.
25
I know there was some issue in the reply
brief, I think, about how there is no information in the record that she told her husband to post this, that she even knew her husband had done this, but the finding that the regents made is supported by a reasonable
3 inference that she was recording, and the fact those 4 recordings ended up on the web is something that she 5 would have been partly responsible for.
Even if she had instructed me to post those audios, which she did not, it doesn’t diminish the facts that there is no rule against doing so, she is protected by the Whistleblower law, and the documents were already public in court records.
6 I would accept that the finding that, "She
7 knowingly violated reasonable expectations of privacy
8 associated with sensitive personal discussions held at
9 department meetings" - that's at the bottom of Paragraph
10 8 - "might be something they should put in the manual so
11 that people understand that and it's explicit."
12
13
14
So,
the court held that there was no “explicit” expectation. This is important because of the whistleblower law and also case law. Because Dr. Burton had never been given
prior notice of this “reasonable expectation” she violated nothing. I agree,
the university should put this in their policy if they want to hold faculty
accountable. But it is not in policy so they should not hold Dr. Burton
accountable. This judge is getting on my nerves. Good grief. He is just
shooting down all of our arguments without any
consideration for the law.
15 But the
16 evidence was that Dr. Burton did know that as someone 13 who was on the faculty and should have understood that 14 those actions were harmful to the university.
How did Dr. Burton know this? The only evidence that it was harmful was given in the hearing of 5/25/17 and the forged investigation report. Those documents are not credible evidence and must not be allowed as substantial evidence. The bottom line is that the posting of those audios were didn’t cause the university any harm whatsoever.
How should she know this? There is no rule, policy, law whatsoever. Even Chancellor Shields and Dean Throop didn’t list anything about this in their letters of direction.
I think the strongest
argument is that she was protected by the Whistleblower law. That’s why they
ignored it.
15 They did mention on Page 10 about that there
16 weren't any other individuals who spoke on behalf of Dr.
17 Burton that she should still be retained;
18
Well, of course nobody spoke on her behalf. They were all threatened
with termination if they did. Some employees were fired for their perceived
support. Sabina didn’t want to get anyone else fired so she didn’t try to
garner support from supporters at the time. Employees are rightly afraid to
stand up for their rights in the UW System. But if we all stand up together, we
can make a change. The judge mentioned this twice, so, it seems he is making it
a condition of innocence that a targeted employee be supported by her
colleagues. Maybe it is time for us to stand up together. Please help.
19
20 although there
21 were numerous letters in the file from students, and 19 there was one letter that the author eventually ended up
20 changing her opinion on Dr. Burton.
What author is he saying changed their opinion? I don’t get this. Does he think a student changed their opinion? I think the judge mentioned this twice. I’m confused by this.
21 I guess I'm on Page 12. This is now
22 basically a legal issue, that the testimony concerning this ongoing conduct exceeded the Safransky test in that it was something that continued, that was serious, that basically disrupted the entire workplace. The lack of
the department to function was something that Dr.
Burton, I think herself, had mentioned in prior
3 pleadings.
Well, Dr. Burton claimed that she was the victim of workplace harassment in her first lawsuit. It seems like the judge is saying that anyone who complains of workplace harassment is a harasser and should be fired. Am I reading this right? Dr. Burton certainly never argued that she disrupted the workplace. She didn’t. She pointed out violations of her rights and the Chancellor disrupted the workplace.
4 The decision goes on to talk about missing
5 documents. I don't think that was brought up.
6 The Roter investigation they handled.
7
That’s it? They “handled” the forged document? Wow. That’s quite convenient. The judge just says
that it’s ok for the administration to forge documents to get people fired as long as the Board “handles it.”
8 The selection of the faculty hearing panel,
9 there was a note that it was actually changed by one
10 person at the request of Dr. Burton, that one person did
11 resign and they appointed someone else.
So, the court seems to think that if the Board follows one of its rules, like allowing Dr. Burton to disqualify one individual, then Dr. Burton’s arguments about all the hundreds of other violations are invalid. Dr. Burton also fingered Dr. Hansen for disqualification, but she was not removed. Dr. Burton didn’t know at first that Dr. Hansen was a lobbyist for the university. This did not become clear until after Hansen had been made chair of the hearing panel. The fact that one person was disqualified from the panel does not diminish the fact that the panel was selected in violation of the law and that the chair, Dr. Hansen was also selected in violation of the law.
The court said that Hansen was “appointed” but she wasn’t. She “volunteered.” Somehow her volunteering was all she needed and nobody appointed or voted for her. She just took the reins because she had them already anyway. She was pulling strings on the puppet chair, Dr. Peckham.
12
13
14 Other than this
15 conspiracy theory or collusion which Dr. Burton has
16 raised at every level and has been rejected at every 13 level,
17
So, just because the administration rejected her complaint at every
level is reason for them to violate policy? What? By this theory, any targeted
faculty member can be fired for any reason. If the targeted faculty member
complains that the appeal panel is biased because it was selected in violation
of law, the biased panel can simply say “I reject your argument” and the court
doesn’t see a problem with that.
18
19
20 there's no reason to question the impartiality of 14 the panel that heard this case.
Good Grief. They only violated nearly every law and policy that applied to the appeal. The chair of the panel was paid extra for firing Burton. That’s what a lobbyist is. Someone who gets paid for making the university look good.
15 The open meetings law, we talked about that
16 a little bit. Apparently, there is another procedure, 17 19.97, that would handle that.
That’s it? That’s his argument to allow the Board to violate the open meetings law? So, I guess the court is agreeing with the Board, that it is ok to violate the law because the law allows for other recourse? But it is a violation of the law and it caused harm. Hmmm. Nothing will come of Dr. Burton’s complaint under 19.97 because it goes to the state. She is suing the Governor.
18 The alleged violation of 4.02, that's where
19 the regents found that she chose not to participate.
20 The inability to call and cross-examine
21 witnesses, and this, I think, goes to the heart of the
22 reason we're here. I note that she had made all of these conspiracy and collusion type arguments
23 and that they had been rejected.
24
They were rejected by the conspirators and colluders. Good Grief.
25
26 There really was no evidence for it.
27
Really? Dr. Burton gives all sorts of evidence in her briefs. Good grief.
Good grief.
28
29 That's the type of unfounded and unreasonable allegations that she was making throughout this for whatever reason.
Now the court is using his erroneous finding to support the Board’s false allegations that Sabina’s allegations were unfounded. None of Dr. Burton’s complaints were fairly investigated. So, how can anyone say they were unfounded. Good Grief.
3 You know, to the extent that she thought it
4 was protected because she was attempting to have
5 policies enforced
6
What is “it?” I guess the court is simply saying that none of Dr.
Burton’s speech was protected, without identifying what she said that was not
protected. So, attempting to have policies enforced is not a protected
activity? Really? Wow.
7 or to get bad people removed
8
Sabina was not trying to get Gibson or anyone else removed, if that’s
what he is talking about. She was trying to defend herself and she was not
allowed to do so.
9
10 or to get
11 investigations by the attorney general
12
What the hell? This was an allegation in the Throop letter of direction
in October 2014. This was not what the Board fired her for. Sabina was never
given a hearing to address the letter of direction. This was a violation of her
rights. The court doesn’t seem to care about that. Asking for investigations is
a protected activity.
13
14
15 or anything else,
16 it just goes toward the unreasonableness of her 8 positions,
So, the court agrees with the Board that Sabina was unreasonable, but he points to protected activities and identifies them as unprotected to demonstrate unreasonableness. This shows bias.
17 her unwillingness to take correction
18
Throop said that Sabina said she wouldn’t heed the letter of direction.
Sabina never said that. Sabina was willing to take correction, but she was
never told what she did wrong. That’s not unwillingness to take correction.
That’s unwillingness to take retaliation.
19 and to 9 cease and desist filing these matters.
So, the court is saying that Sabina was properly fired because she properly filed complaints as allowed by policy. None of those complaints were fairly investigated. The Board determined her complaints to be groundless, without any investigation. Hmmm. So, the question for the court of public opinion is “were Dr. Burton’s complaints groundless?”
10 And when I look at the inability to call
11 witnesses, this is also an example.
12
This is the third time the court mentions the fact that nobody stood up
in the hearings to support Sabina. Again, there should be no reason for anyone
to stand in a kangaroo court to support her. The burden was on the
administration to prove she violated a law or rule. In order to do that the
administration had to violate scores of laws and policies. The court is
ascribing all the blame to Sabina for not having been given time to call
witnesses. Why did she need witnesses at all? She had all the evidence
necessary to disprove the lies that were told against her. Why is live
testimony stronger evidence than written proof that the allegations were false?
Why wasn’t she given fair opportunity to present her trove of evidence? Answer:
Because she is right, and the administration didn’t want that fact to be known.
13
The Court says that she should be fired BECAUSE she was not given
opportunity to call witnesses. WOW. That shows bias.
14
15 She indicates well,
16 they -- her husband showed up, said she was sick, and
17 they went on with the hearing anyway.
18 The record
19 indicates that there was -- the panel talked about that,
20 and were advised,
21
The Panel was not “advised” about these things. Atty Lattis, who
represents Chancellor Shields made these “arguments.” They were not advice. She
was asking for the panel to proceed and making arguments to which Dr. Burton
was not allowed to respond.
22
23
24 one, that there is no medical excuse;
25
Important note here: Dr. Burton’s husband, me, is a former U.S. Marine
fighter pilot and decorated Gulf War veteran. I had no reason to lie, yet the
judge assumes that my in person notice to the hearing panel of Sabina’s
illness, before the beginning of the hearing of 5/25/17, was not valid notice
of Dr. Burton’s illness, even though the transcript of the hearing also shows
the chair of the panel admitting that Sabina was not present due to illness.
That’s a slap in my face. He just called me a liar. I gave the medical excuse for Sabina’s absence.
Sabina followed it up with a doctor’s note six days later. It took a few days
to get the doctor to write the note.
26 two, that Dr. Burton had attempted to get it continued
27 numerous times.
28
This
is a false statement. Dr. Burton had asked for the hearing to be conducted within 20 days
as required by policy. But that didn’t happen. Then Dr. Burton asked the
Appeals Commission to re-constitute the hearing panel in accordance with the
law. The Board misrepresented Sabina’s request that the panel be formed
properly to be efforts to “continue,” or delay the hearings. This is a false
statement.
29
It was Dr. Peckham, the first panel chair, who suggested a continuance:
(Peckham-5-12-17).
30
This is a way to show harm for the panel proceeding. This
lie was presented as truth, Dr. Burton was not given opportunity to rebut the
lie, and the court affirmed the lie.
31
32 The opinion was expressed by the
33 Attorney
34
The judge is referring to Attorney Lattis, Chancellor Shields’
attorney.
35 that, you know, she'll never show up, you know,
36 if she had her way or words to that effect. She had the
37 right to be there, but I don't think it's reasonable for
38 a litigant at any level to expect that you can try to
39 delay and delay and delay
40
When did Dr. Burton delay and delay and delay? There is only the false
allegation of this. Dr. Burton asked for
the hearing to be conducted as required within 20 days. She wanted the panel to
be re-constituted. She never asked for a delay but for the panel to be selected
properly. She asked for sufficient time to present her
case but was ignored. She did recommend that the panel should take time to learn the policy
to avoid further violations. This should demonstrate that the panel’s further
and continuing violations of law and policy were intentional. Attorney Lattis’
arguments do not trump the constitution which demands Dr. Burton’s presence at
any such hearing.
41
42
43 and then at the last second claim illness without so much as a medical excuse.
44
There was a medical excuse. Dr. Burton’s husband gave it to the panel.
The doctor issued a written explanation of the symptoms as well. The court’s
assessment is completely irrelevant anyway. It is a violation of her
constitutional right to have the hearing in her absence, whatever the reason.
The explanation given by the administration is not sufficient.
The expectation that Dr. Burton would
never appear was wrong. All of the reasons to conduct the hearing
were wrong and illegitimate but the court accepts them without question. Good
grief.
45
The first chair of the panel, Dr. Peckham wrote to all parties “Good
cause for a continuance of a trial or hearing is generally found where the
facts presented demonstrate an unexpected emergency such as a sudden illness or
the unforeseen barrier to the attendance of a party or a key witness.” (Appeal-DenialofReqst-5-15-17).
46
47 There was a report that was issued, I think, a month or two later,
48
Wrong. Dr. Burton sent her husband,
Roger Burton, to inform the panel of her medical excuse in person on the day of
the hearing before it began. It is absurd to argue that personal notification
of severe illness is not an “excuse.” Dr. Burton sent an email to Dr. Bearse on 5/25/17 explaining her symptoms. (Filed:
12/21/18, Petitioner’s motion to Correct the Record/E-40, Dkt.124). The Board
knew of these symptoms because Dr. Burton’s husband relayed them to the panel.
Dr. Bearse provided a doctor’s note on 6/1/17, six
days later, not months later. (Filed: 07/15/19, Certification of Amended Record
Part7, Dkt.201).
10 but in court if this were to happen, if it's
11 a civil matter, the person would be defaulted;
12
This was not a court hearing and he is probably wrong. If a person
becomes ill and a personal message is given to advise the court that she is ill
the person would not default. (I don’t think.) It was a university appeal
hearing. All they had to do was reschedule. They could have called Sabina and
asked her if she was sick. She had her cell phone. Is the judge saying that a
person can’t get out of a court hearing if they suddenly become seriously ill?
Is the court saying that the court would proceed in the appellant’s absence
even if it knew the person to be absent due to illness? The fact that the panel decided to conduct
the hearing in Dr. Burton’s absence is another sign that they were biased
against her.
13
if it's a criminal matter, there would be a warrant.
It is not a criminal matter. There would not be a warrant because there was a medical excuse. It is absurd that they claim there would be a warrant in such a case.
The common experience that people who are facing, you know,
3 possible consequences, whether it be, you know,
4 defendants in small claims actions or defendants in
5 criminal actions, they tend to either have car trouble
6 or sickness, and we don't hear about it until a couple
7 minutes before matter has been scheduled. So I don't
8 fault the panel for proceeding.
Well, the Supreme Court does. See Dr. Burton’s brief concerning this issue for more.
9
10
11 I think if they hadn't, 10 it's doubtful whether, you know, Dr. Burton ever would
11 have shown up because it was -- it's not in her interest
12 to facilitate this,
13
But Dr. Burton did show up for the other hearings. How can you say that
it’s doubtful that she would show up? This argument is not valid. It would be
in her interest to be present for her own appeal hearing. Good grief. How can
the court say that? It is ridiculous. It was in her interest to appear because
she did nothing wrong. She didn’t violate any rule or law. That would have been
evident if she had a fair hearing.
14
15
16 and she made it as difficult as
17 possible and -- or intended to.
18
How can you say what Dr. Burton’s intentions were? Based on Attorney
Lattis’ misinterpretation of what she thought Dr. Burton’s intentions were?
What did she do to make the process “difficult?” She got sick. Is that
intentional? Is that something she did to make the process difficult? No. She
got sick because the panel was selected in violation of policy and was
therefore biased against her. The stress of facing a biased and unfair hearing
panel stressed her and exacerbated her already severe stress related illness
and caused a life-threatening event. The fact that they held the hearing in her
absence is evidence of their bias.
19 The other issue came up about the
20 cross-examining witnesses. It was repeatedly brought up
21 that the panel has no ability to subpoena witnesses.
22 What does that have to do with anything? The witnesses who testified at the hearing in Burton’s absence should have been made available for cross. If the university had re-scheduled this would not have been a problem. Instead, the university decided to violate her rights. The university didn’t give adequate time to call witnesses.
23
24 If
25 they want to show up, fine.
26
So, Dr. Burton is required to show up even when she is deathly ill but
the people who lied in her absence can skip their appearance for cross
examination if they please? How is that fair?
27 The list that Dr. Burton
28 proposed consisted of some 30 individuals. You know,
29 again, who's ever running the hearing, if it were a
30 matter of a court thing, we would not allow somebody to
31 run out the clock and call needless and unnecessary
So, on one hand the court uses the fact that Sabina called no witnesses to testify on her behalf as evidence that she should be fired, and on the other hand it argues that all of the 30 witnesses she called were “needless and unnecessary.” This is evidence of bias by the judge. I’m now convinced beyond any doubt that the judge is biased against Sabina. There is no other reason to make such contradictory holdings. Will we get the same from the appellate court? I think we need some publicity.
32 witnesses who, you know, would prolong beyond any reasonable period of time a hearing.
Good grief. One of our arguments was that the hearing wasn’t long enough. The panel cut it from 16 hours to 6 hours. Now the judge thinks that Sabina calling witnesses would have prolonged the matter unreasonably? Wow. That wasn’t even one of the Board’s arguments.
The burden of proof, the panel found clear
and convincing. The regents say it's the preponderance
and cites a case. I don't know. I think the evidence is sufficient under either standard that the panel used
3 or that the board used.
Of course the evidence is sufficient if you consider the hearing of 5/25/17 and the Roter report to be substantial evidence. Dr. Staci Strobl testified that Dr. Burton and I are potential mass murderers. She then filed a complaint against the university saying Dr. Burton is a victim of discrimination. If the hearing transcript stands as legitimately collected evidence there is really no way Sabina can argue that she should be retained. Who wants a potential mass murderer teaching their kids. But the thing is, that statement about my wife and I was part of a smear campaign that has no validity.
Bernardo:
Arguing the just cause issue of clear and convincing/preponderance is a losing
argument. Don’t use it. He is right. If we lose the other arguments
we lose this one. So, the only way to win this argument is to first win the
other arguments. That makes this a moot point.
4 There are many procedural issues, but I
5 don't think they really affect the outcome in this 6 particular case, and I don't know that remanding is 7 going to do any good.
6
7
Why not? A remand would allow an impartial panel to be selected and for
Dr. Burton to cross examine witnesses. A remand would allow the university to
follow policy and start over. It would allow the record to be corrected. The
record is a mess because the Board violated so many laws.
8 The issue is whether the toxic environment
9 that existed in the department from approximately 2012
10 to 2017
was due to Dr. Burton being the subject of
11 retaliation and discrimination or whether it was due to
12 her unreasonable and abusive actions,
13
Wrong:
That’s not the issue. The issue is whether the Board
conducted the appeal within the scope of review found in Wis. Stat. 227.57 The
court is wrong about so many points here. The court admits that there were many
procedural errors that all harmed Dr. Burton but he
doesn’t seem to care. Any faculty member can be railroaded this way.
14
15 and the decision
16 by the regents is supported.
17
As I have said many times, the decision is supported only if the court
considers a forged investigation report and a transcript of a hearing held in
Dr. Burton’s absence to be substantial evidence. This court did. Hopefully the
appellate court will not.
18 And, Mr. Cueto, I guess if
19 there's any other point that you want me to
20 address specifically?
21 MR. CUETO: May I just have one minute, Your
22 Honor? There was one issue that I don't think you
23 touched on, which was -- it was with regards to -- it's
24 kind of a strange academic issue which I guess in
25 academia they can issue a complaint, and then if it gets 21 resolved you can't be in jeopardy from it any further.
22 I did -- we did go through that in both briefs, but I don't know if the Court's addressed that specific issue.
THE COURT: Is that the Chapter 6 complaint
that was --
MR. CUETO: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: -- that was dismissed? And I
3 was unclear. It sounded like that -- part of that
4 Chapter 6 complaint was filled out the same day as that
5 October 28th Letter of Direction, but then it wasn't
6 served until December or January, and it, you know, 7 included information after October 28th. Am I thinking 8 of the right thing?
9 MR. CUETO: All right. Well, Dr. Burton
10 never received it. So we know it was filed. We don't
11 receive it. It was filed the same -- you're right, it
12 was filed around the same day as the letter of
13 direction, so it was kind of what could be in it? I
14 mean I understand some of this it speculative, but on
15 the other hand she had asked for it, she made a record
16 of asking for it, and it hadn't been disclosed. Other 17 than that, this one issue, I think you have touched on
18 the others.
Nope, he failed to mention the Whistleblower complaint.
19 THE COURT: All right. And, Ms.
20 Simwanza-Johnson, do you have any help here on what
21 happened to that Chapter 6 complaint or --
22 MS. SIMWANZA-JOHNSON: No, Your Honor,
because again it all boils down to I don't know how this is outcome determinative, and if there was a procedure that he feels was violated, then he should have pursued that procedure.
Good grief. The court slams Sabina for filing so many complaints and now the Board argues that she should have filed another complaint even though she didn’t even know of the existence of the complaint against her. Well, would the administration have given fair consideration to Sabina’s complaint about this matter? No. Sabina didn’t know about it until 8/31/16 so how could she have done anything about it? That is about the time she was bombarded with false allegations that led to her dismissal.
So, reading his briefs, I did not see anywhere in there where he indicated that that would
3 mean that she could not get terminated here. He
4 speculates as to what it means, but there's no actual
5 concrete proof. He has to show by a preponderance of 6 the evidence that it would be outcome determinative, and 7 he hasn't done that.
6 Sure. The Board likes to protect
its agents who violate the law.
8 THE COURT: Yeah. It wasn't brought up in
9 the decision by the Board of Regents, I guess, so it
10 didn't factor into their decision.
11 It factored into the Board’s decision and it factored into the Court’s decision. The allegations in the letter of direction are identical to the allegations in the chapter 6 complaint of the same date. But the court doesn’t care. He wants everything to be nice and tidy. That’s why the Board gave it a nice tidy package of lies.
12
13
14
15 The point being made
16 is that had it been filed and had it been dismissed,
17 maybe it would be a bar to relitigating any issue that
18 would have been contained in that letter or that Chapter
19 6 petition, and I guess I don't see that it has any
20 particular relevance. The record doesn't indicate what
21 happened to it, what it said, and if she was never
22 served with it, I don't think it could have any either
23 prejudicial effect or it could be of any, you know, res
24 judicata effect either. So that's the best I can do.
Good grief. He just wanted to push this along. He didn’t understand what the issue was. His decisions were all prejudiced by his belief that Sabina is a terrible person. He believed this because of the transcript and the investigation report.
The judge didn’t address the fact that the Board used the uncorroborated Roter report as reason to fire Sabina even though it said it didn’t. He just said that they used the live testimony.
The judge didn’t address the Whistleblower law.
There were probably a bunch of other things he didn’t address. But it seems obvious to me which way he would have gone regardless of Sabina’s arguments.
25 All right, anything else?
26 MR. CUETO: Could there be a written order?
27 It doesn't have to go through all the details but just something in writing from the Court for appeal purposes?
THE COURT: Okay. Yeah. I'll just do a
basic order for the reasons set forth in the record.
MR. CUETO: Yeah, that's it. That's fine.
3 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you, 4 folks.
5 MS. SIMWANZA-JOHNSON: Thank you, Your
6 Honor.
7 MR. CUETO: Thank you.
8 (This concludes the proceedings in this case
9 at 10:50 a.m.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
C E R T I F I C A T E
3
|
4 5 |
STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF GRANT |
) ) ) |
6
7
8 I, Kathleen E. White, Official Court
9 Reporter and Notary Public, in and for the State of
10 Wisconsin, County of Grant, do hereby certify that the
11 foregoing is a true and accurate transcription of the
12 proceedings held on November 1, 2019, in the
13 above-captioned case, before Honorable Robert P.
14 VanDeHey, Circuit Judge, Grant County, Branch I, State 15 of Wisconsin, in accordance with my stenographic notes
16 made at said time and place.
17 Dated this 12th day of November, 2019.
18
19
20 Electronically signed by:
Kathleen E. White
21 _____________________________
Kathleen E. White, RMR, CRR
22 Official Court Reporter
Grant County Courthouse
130 West Maple Street
Lancaster, WI 53813