STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT RACINE COUNTY
Branch 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA J. WEIDNER,
Plaintiff, MOTION
vs. Case No. 17-CV-1644
CITY OF RACINE,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------
HONORABLE EUGENE A. GASIORKIEWICZ
Judge Presiding
Date of Hearing:
September 25, 2018
Leslie M. Johnson, RMR, CRR, CPE
Official Court Reporter, Branch 2
APPEARANCES
KNUTESON, HINKSTON & QUINN, by Mark Hinkston,
appearing for the Plaintiff.
MEISSNER, TIERNEY & NICHOLS, by
Michael Cohen and Dieter Juedes, appearing
for the Defendant.
Asst. City Attorney, Nicole Larsen, present.
Plaintiff present in person.
THE COURT: Good morning. This is the case of
Sandy Weidner versus the City of Racine, case number
17-CV-1644.
The action is brought here on a motion for
contempt. There have been several motions that have been
filed today.
I'm not sure if counsel are privy to them or
not, but I received -- Actually, my clerk received from
Mr. Wait -- Mr. Wait, would you identify yourself, raising
your hand -- a pro-se motion to intervene under 803.09
(1). I will have that file stamped now, sir.
There also was a motion to intervene by Mr.
Spahn on behalf of Freedom of Information Council. Mr.
Spahn, you're here, correct?
MR. SPAHN: Correct, your Honor. Just to be
clear, the letter that was submitted was on behalf of the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and five different entities.
THE COURT: Thank you for that, so a request to
intervene. I am not sure if I understand the import of
both of the interventions.
I don't suppose, and this question goes to Mr.
Spahn as well as Mr. Wait. Mr. Spahn, I know, is a
lawyer. Mr. Wait, I don't believe that you are. Is that
correct?
MR. WAIT: That's correct.
THE COURT: Open participation in a contempt
hearing. Is that accurate?
MR. WAIT: I am sorry, your Honor?
THE COURT: Open participation or opening of the
courtroom with respect to allegations of contempt.
MR. WAIT: That's correct, your Honor. We just
wanted today's hearing to be held in open court, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Wait?
MR. WAIT: I wasn't aware that this was a
contempt hearing, being that there is no information
available on CCAP.
THE COURT: My question is very specific, sir.
Is your motion to intervene that today's hearing with
respect to contempt be open to the public, yes or no?
MR. WAIT: I would request that if I can
verbally to be done, yes.
THE COURT: We don't make verbal requests, sir.
You have every right to appear pro se under Wisconsin law
and by our constitution, but you do not get any pass with
respect to procedure or process. Do you understand that?
MR. WAIT: Yes.
THE COURT: The Court never had an intent to
close the hearing on contempt today. I don't know where
that came from. I've seen it eluded to in a number of
articles that have been provided by Mr. Cohen.
I've seen it eluded to in the Racine Journal
Times as of this very date. The content of the nature of
the contempt issue, the disclosure of the information,
which is subject to court seal, does not have to be
addressed or brought up in terms of the contempt issue.
The issue here is quite narrow and specific.
Did Ms. Weidner violate a seal order by this Court by
disclosing information to third parties, not parties privy
to this, Mr. Hinkston, Mr. Cohen, or the parties that were
allowed access to this document.
That matter is before the Court of Appeals. The
issue of my sealing is one of the issues that's present
before the Court of Appeals.
However, one does not get to simply violate a
seal order because you may think it's illegal, or
improper, or an erroneous exercise of discretion by this
Court.
So the issue, the narrow focus of my hearing, is
public access to the issue of whether or not Ms. Weidner
was held in contempt or should be held in contempt for
violation of a court's order but, secondly, the content of
the information, which is under seal, will not be
disclosed or should not be mentioned during the course of
this proceeding.
That seal order remains in effect by my order,
also by the order of the Court of Appeals.
So that information should not be disclosed.
Secondarily, so I don't know if that takes care of your
concern, Mr. Spahn, or not, but your client --
This courtroom will be open to the public for
the contempt proceeding, and you can address that later
on, Mr. Wait, as well.
Secondly, there's been a request from
Mr. Hinkston for an adjournment of this matter indicating
that he believes that, based on the nature of the
allegations in the contempt filings in this matter, that
you have a conflict of interest. Is that accurate?
MR. HINKSTON: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: The Court need not go through those.
Those, of course, would be your duty and responsibility if
there was a conflict not to represent Ms. Weidner, so the
question then flows to Ms. Weidner directly.
Do you seek counsel at this proceeding, ma'am?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, I have, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you seek to have counsel sitting
next to you at this proceeding?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well. The Court is deferential
to that. The Court will allow you time to retain counsel
to be here for this matter.
I know that Mr. Cohen objects to that and has
cited that there has been additional dissemination of
information, which is at least theoretically subject to
the seal order in this matter made by Ms. Weidner.
She eludes into the Racine Journal Times as late
as today, this morning I saw. I can't verify the accuracy
of the reporting, that it was at the urging of someone
else that you disclose information.
This Court's position, ma'am, is that whether or
not you agree or disagree with my seal order, it is an
order of this Court. You must be compliant with that
order.
Even if you think it is imprudent or an abuse of
exercise of discretion, you must be compliant with that
order until the Court of Appeals, which your present
counsel has brought before it as an issue, renders its
determination. Do you understand, ma'am?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Cohen, anything you wish to add?
MR. COHEN: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Hinkston?
MR. HINKSTON: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Then back to you, Ms. Weidner. Have
you taken some effort to try and obtain counsel?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, I have, your Honor.
THE COURT: Can you tell me without -- I don't
want to know any names, but have you retained someone?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, we are meeting tomorrow at
4:00.
THE COURT: So I do not want to adjourn this
matter for a great deal of time.
I am going to give you the next set court date,
and I would ask that whoever that counsel is, that you
make sure that that counsel will be available for that
hearing. Do you understand?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE CLERK: October 3 in the afternoon.
THE COURT: Could you check your calendars for
October 3 in the afternoon, please?
MR. COHEN: Your Honor, I have matter, but I
will move that matter. I think this is a matter of some
importance.
THE COURT: Mr. Cohen, thank you for that
courtesy. Mr. Hinkston, I am not sure what your
participation will be, if at all, but can you check your
calendar?
MR. HINKSTON: Yes. I have no conflict, your
Honor.
THE COURT: So that will be the date,
Ms. Weidner. Would you check with your new counsel to
make sure that if you do retain this person, that he will
be available that date and time prepared to go, all right?
MS. WEIDNER: Yes, I will, your Honor.
MR. COHEN: I heard afternoon.
THE CLERK: 1:30.
THE COURT: I'd like to impose on someone here
to prepare an order that the contempt hearing will be open
to the public.
However, the content of the information that's
subject to the seal order will not be disclosed or
divulged by anyone.
Essentially, the Court is not going to
re-litigate its decision relative to the sealing. Yes,
Mr. Spahn?
MR. SPAHN: Your Honor, I appreciate your
willingness to let me be heard.
Given that this proceeding is open, I was
wondering if your Honor would unseal the motion for
contempt?
THE COURT: I cannot, because it includes
matters that are partial to the seal.
I want to make myself quite clear. I am willing
to open this courtroom for the issue of contempt, but with
respect to the actual content of the seal order, that's
not going to be part and parcel.
The issue here is very simplistic to the Court's
eye, and the hearing will be focused in that aspect. Mr.
Cohen, can I lean on you to prepare that order?
MR. COHEN: Be happy to.
THE COURT: Anything else then?
MR. HINKSTON: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, thank you.
MR. COHEN: Thank you, your Honor.
(Hearing adjourned).
STATE OF WISCONSIN)
) SS:
COUNTY OF RACINE )
I, Leslie M. Johnson, RMR, CRR, CPE, Official Court Reporter,
Branch 2, do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript
constituting of 10 pages inclusive is a true and accurate
transcript of the proceedings taken on the 25th day of
September, 2018.
Dated this 25th day of September, 2018.
Leslie M. Johnson (electronically signed)
__________________________________________
Leslie M. Johnson, RMR, CRR, CPE
Official Court Reporter, Branch 2
