- Rationale

Introduction

The purpose of this site is to track a series of criminal and ethics complaints against numerous individuals affiliated with the University of Wisconsin System. The law appears to provide for criminal remedies to misconduct on behalf of these individuals, and ethics rules appear to provide additional remedies for any unethical behavior on the part of attorneys.

These complaints are intended to bring accountability and integrity to a culture that clearly lacks both. Civil remedies usually result in settlements that include nondisclosure and non-disparagement clauses, and these bring no accountability to the University - they are free to continue to act in exactly the same way as they did before the settlement.

The complaints found on this site have all been filed with law enforcement. In some ways they are tests of the system, and these complaints raise many questions. Do the statutes mean what they say? Are public employees required to follow the law? Will law enforcement actually enforce those laws on behalf of the people those laws are purported to protect?

And then there are the attorneys who provided counsel to all of these alleged offenders, and in some cases may have committed offenses themselves in their capacities as public employees. Will they be held accountable by law enforcement? Will the Office of Lawyer Regulation hold them accountable?

I think that the citizens of the State of Wisconsin deserve to know exactly where the lines are drawn, and by making all of this documentation available to the public, I hope that those lines will become bright and clear.

The documents, audio and commentary contained in this site are all a matter of public record.

- Bilder (click a button to access the file)

Exhibit 669 - Jun 4, 2018 - Complaint

Initial Statement of Facts
Commentary:

I have omitted the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) complaint form as all relevant information is included in this Statement of Facts.

Exhibit 672 - Jul 5, 2018 - Complaint

Response from Bilder and Lind
Commentary:

The only exception to the ethics rule in question is that the attorneys who are making a legal argument that appears unwarranted is that "it can be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law."

- Where in their response have Bilder and Lind made such a "good faith argument"? How can a case that has nothing to do with Wis. Stat. 19.89 be used to claim that individuals who are in fact members of the governmental body that is meeting can also be excluded, apparently and especially if the facility in which the governmental body is meeting is not sufficiently large to hold that governmental body? And why, then, is the governmental body meeting in a facility that is insufficiently large to hold it? Does this mean that the Wisconsin Senate can exclude senators if only they arrange to meet in a restroom stall? Where is there "good faith" in any such argument?

Exhibit 673 - Jul 6, 2018 - Complaint

Decision of the OLR
Commentary:

Mr. Zeisser is convinced that Bilder and Lind did nothing unethical, but falls far short of providing us with any explanation for why that is so. We should just believe him. If he believes that Bilder and Lind met the requirement that a "good faith argument" can be made for bringing up Badke v. Greendale Village Board then he should probably explain just what that "good faith argument" is.

- What, exactly, does Badke have to do with Wis. Stat. 19.89? Is Zeisser suggesting that members of governmental bodies may also be excluded from meetings of that body as long as the facility they are meeting in is insufficient to hold the entire body that is meeting and if so, why is that body meeting in a room that is too small for it in the first place?

Exhibit 670 - Jul 25, 2018 - Appeal

Letter Appealing the Decision
Commentary:

I have raised the issues with the failure of Bilder and Lind to provide any kind of "good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law" in this appeal.

Exhibit 671 - Jul 27, 2018 - Appeal

Denial of Appeal
Commentary:

The SCR Chapter 20 rules define "misrepresentation" as "communication of an untruth, either knowingly or with reckless disregard, whether by statement or omission, which if accepted would lead another to believe a condition exists that does not actually exist." It seems very clear that Lind's citation of Badke was intended to lead the hearing panel to believe that that legal case was relevant when it was not, and that there are instances where members of a governmental body may be excluded from attending meetings of that body when the law clearly states that there are no such instances. Like Mr. Zeisser before him, Mr. Sellen has claimed that "It appears the Badke case supports the proposition for which it was quoted". Sellen continues that "there are reasonable arguments that can be made for an extension to the facts of your dismissal proceeding."

- Whatever might these be? Weren't Bilder and Lind required to state those "reasonable arguments" in order to satisfy the permissible exceptions to the ethics violation in question? Why hasn't Sellen cited these arguments?
- The decision of the Director of the Office of Lawyer Regulation is "final", and as such we, the public, must assume that what Bilder and Lind did was not unethical as far as the OLR is concerned.

- Contents

Rationale
On the Legal Aspects of University Disciplinary Proceedings in Wisconsin

A brief study on the applicability of the statutes and case law

SCR Chapter 20
Supreme Court Rules on Lawyer Ethics (relevant portions highlighted)

Provided for reference

Bilder-Lind Complaint
June 4, 2018 - July 27, 2018 (Closed)

Advancing a claim unwarranted under existing law, failure to maintain candor toward the tribunal

Reed (Smith) Complaint
November 7, 2018 - present ( 320 days and counting... )

Failure to safeguard the integrity of the legal process, failure to maintain candor toward the tribunal

Reed (Smith) Second Complaint
December 19, 2018 - present ( 278 days and counting... )

Failure to safeguard the integrity of the legal process, failure to maintain candor toward the tribunal

View Criminal Complaints