(File Photo by Kevin Mathewson, Kenosha County Eye)
On February 20th (Primary) and April 2 (General) of this year, Kenosha County residents will be selecting a replacement for Judge Bruce E. Schroder. Governor Tony Evers (D) appointed Frank Gagliardi, a long-time democrat, to the post and Gagliardi was sworn in on January 23, 2024. Court Commissioner William Michel, another long-time democrat, also applied for the post. A third candidate, Heather Iverson, the only conservative seeking election to the post, decided against asking Evers for the appointment.
The three candidates participated in a forum on January 29 with the local state-run media outlet called WGTD. The forum was aired on February 3, 2024. All three candidates articulated their desire to be elected to the 6-year term.
Most of the forum was your average, run-of-the-mill stumping, but one long-winded statement by Gagliardi raised eyebrows.
Gagliardi told a story about a big loss he and his father suffered at a jury trial in Rock County, WI. Gagliardi said it was his first Jury trial. Although Gagliardi didn’t give the name of the case, KCE located it. The case involved a woman named “Dorothy.” In 2001, Dorothy sought medical treatment for circulation problems. Dorothy saw a general surgeon who diagnosed her disease and suggested surgery that was later performed. After the surgery, Dorothy’s condition slowly got better over her seven week stay in the hospital, but post op. still had circulation problems in her legs.
Three days after Dorothy’s release, however, she came back as her condition worsened. Dorothy would later need to have the lower section of her left leg amputated, as well as her right toe. Dorothy sued the doctor alleging malpractice. The case proceeded to 5-day jury trial. A third party doctor testified that the surgeon provided treatment to Dorothy consistent with “the proper standard of care.”
The jury agreed with the doctors and dismissed the case. The judge later ordered Dorothy to pay more than $11,000 to the defendants. Gagliardi and his father appealed the case to the Wisconsin Appellate Court, who refused to reverse the Judge and Jury’s findings. The Gagliardis then appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme court, who also refused to reverse the Judge and Jury’s findings.
Why does Frank Gagliardi think that the jury sided with the doctors and not his client? Racism. “[The jury] judged her because of the way she looked,” said Galiardi. “Because she was an African-American woman and [the judge, jury, and doctors] were [all] Caucasian…I found that in the human nature of that particular case, that client was not treated fairly.”
Gagliardi didn’t mention any of the other possibilities for the loss:
Did he and his father do a poor job at trial?
Did the jury believe the doctors?
Were the facts on on the plaintiff’s side?
Did the plaintiff’s fail to meet the burdon?
The many voters that alerted KCE to this forum thought that Gagliardi’s blaming racism on his loss was disingenuous or maybe worse – a signal of how he will rule from the bench. How does a judge “fix” systemic racism? Tougher sentences on white people? Or lighter sentences on minorities? Perhaps Judge Gagliari will clear up and confusion in the future.
Full transcrpipts:
“It brings me back to um and this I’ve talked about in the campaign uh trail. Uh in we we run a a trial uh team is what we do and we were in a litigation firm and I was out in Rock County uh with Judge Roethe. Uh, I won’t say the plaintiff’s name but we were in a jury trial, uh, in two thousand I believe seven uh for it was my first jury trial experience and I was in a situation that kind of changed my career um and my outlook on people uh and in that jury trial we had an African-American woman who was our client and a Caucasian uh doctor who we were um trying the the malpractice case against and there was some interesting things that went on in that case uh but when the case was finally over um in the uh the in in the middle of the testimony I mean towards the end of the case in the middle of the testimony of the doctor she turned to the this jury and said uh basically I’m paraphrasing so we can’t quote I don’t have the transcript but basically saying turned and said I’m sorry this was a happened it was a very unfortunate result um it was a Caucasian jury a Caucasian doctor uh and an African-American woman who is our client. Um the jury found my client um or the doctor to be not negligent in this malpractice case and when I was polling the jury what bothered me was, they judged my client. They judged her because of the way she looked. Because of the way she presented herself in court. Because she was an African-American woman and they were Caucasian. That really stuck with me and there were some other issues in the case where um we had to file an appeal and I filed an appeal. Uh and the reason I filed an appeal was because that decision of the jury was not right. And no matter what I did I we tried the case the best we could and we couldn’t change the result. Uh jury speaks of on its own but I found that in the human nature of that particular case, that client was not treated fairly. We did everything we could – I think we appealed it to the court of appeals – I think I appealed it to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin as well. Um but I was passionate about it and I then litigated all of my cases saying that I don’t care if you’re male or female black or white young or old handicapped or not handicap, I’m going to treat you the same way I want to be treated and that is I’m going to work as hard as I can to make sure you get a fair result uh because sometimes the justice system doesn’t yield a fair result. But my efforts were of such that I was motivated for the future to treat my clients and now the people who come before me in my courtroom um as fair as possible because there is no absolutely zero room for prejudice and discrimination in the courtroom. I don’t care if it’s prejudice against it doesn’t matter what what you’re saying – orientation um you know ethnicity, um gender, uh social status, everybody should be treated fairly and that really bothered me and I took a stand and made the decision to change the way that I uh effectively uh was going to run my legal career and that’s how I still operate.”
58 Responses
None of us were fooled by Gagliardi. He’s spent years writing checks to the dems. And Michel showed his worth when he let a sex predator out on low bond. The choice is clear Kenosha County, vote for Iverson and put common sense on the bench. Keep our community safe.
People are innocent until proven guilty. Unless you’re claiming that you think the accused will abscond and avoid his court dates, then the bond is of no issue. Bond should not be a tool to keep people in jail until trial before they’ve actually been convicted just because they are accused of something bad.
Search for “Tyler Tess” on this website. Held for a year on a 100k bail for a crime he did not commit, on a case where the jury said there was so little evidence that he shouldn’t have even been tried. A year of his life stolen from him, because he wasn’t rich enough to post an absurd bond amount.
Good on the court commissioner for lowering the bond. If the accused is not a flight risk, that’s how it should be. If a jury decides he is guilty, *then* he should be imprisoned. Not before.
Are you saying the two cases are the same, or just using this space to complain about the bail on a different case?
Sounds like berg being a clown. See his page? Troll
lol. The race baiter? One who posts work out videos once a year to be relevant? No on cares about berg AKA Sgt hard. He’s irrelevant. Soon to be outta a job
If his quote is accurate, he might just be the most inarticulate judge I have ever read.
The decision to include filler words like “um” in the transcript is incredibly petty and clearly done with the intention of making this guy look bad, which is pathetic. I am sure in person it wasn’t hard to follow.
I posted the transcript as translated by google and posted the actual audio clip. What else could I have done to make you happy?
I don’t know why you’re asking me that, because I was very clear on what the issue was. Unless someone is reading from a teleprompter or reciting a prepared speech, filler words like “um” and “uh” are very common, as is rephrasing something. Proper journalistic practice is not to include them. Given the political slant of this article, the intention behind it is transparent despite the above attempt to distance yourself from that decision.
Political slant? Like every article and cute video produced by Forward Kenosha?
So basically, you are complaining that he lets us all read verbatim that witch is available? I sure like that better than having people redact things.
White Savior Complex sums up Frank
WTF
Frank has the white guilt. What a loser.
Also super inappropriate to use County Board public comment time to campaign. There should be a policy preventing that in the future, before it gets out of hand.
It’s common for all candidates to drop in and do that across the county. So common it’s a tradition.
People can speak about anything they want during public comment. All for it honestly
Another deep state tool put in by the tool Evers. Plain as day.
All three of these candidates are seriously fucking horrible at their jobs and none of them deserve to be a judge. It’s a sad state of affairs when these three schmoes are judges…..
Nothing worse than a person in power that has deep seated desire to right a perceived wrong doing.
I found the case. The appeal was largely based on a procedural issue. The doctor being sued brought in a late expert witness who was not disclosed during the time period the judge established in a scheduling order. That expert witness, over Gagliardi’s objection, was allowed to testify anyway despite the failure to abide by the scheduling order and gave testimony favorable to the defendant doctor. The jury sided with the doctor. The appeal was not based on the jury’s verdict but mostly on the judge allowing the last-minute witness’ testimony.
Blah blah blah blah, waycist, blah blah blah, wees victims, blah blah blah, and we wuz kangs
There are many great Black quarterbacks in the NFL right now. Last night, one of them was the Super Bowl MVP. It wasn’t too long ago that many people thought that Blacks were not smart enough to play that position.
Dude is mixed. Still going by the one drop rule?
Nothing that the libtarded dumocrats do today surprises me one bit. They have only two brain cells and one is chasing the other all around in circles! 🤪🤪🤪
Iverson being supported by Steinbeck jr in pleasant praire . So she must like criminals also.
Is this Andy Berg?
Oh Good Grief! Now I don’t know WHO to vote for!!!???
How do you know she is being supported by Steinbrink JR?
The fact that Evers appointed him shows what a Democratic Party Boy he is. A socialist playing a race card is nothing new. This is routine for Democrats when they have no valid talking points. It appears this is the story here. Appeal to certain elements by painting yourself the social defender. If he gets elected it will be like having Gravley sitting on the bench. The Sheriff can convert the jail into a Air B&B because no one will be going to jail.
Gags is a Second Amendment guy and if you broke into his house you wouldn’t worry about a trial. Enough said.
Labels don’t mean shit.
What does mean shit is perception. Thus, it doesn’t really matter what he is because he gives the very strong perception he is a Dem so therefore he is a Dem. Learn how it works, dumb dumb.
So, if I perceive you to be ignorant, then you must be? Got it.
Apparently like most demoncrats, Frank Gag-me-artly has too much starch in his panties to think rationally.
Gagliardi s have been doing business for years around town.
Dirty, scummy, slimy ,theiving, no morals …are just a few terms to describe that clan.
Unlike the other candidates, Mr. Gagliardi has seasoned experience with Trials. He won numerous trials. Gagliardi is NOT a liberal.
Frankie–is that you?
He has ZERO experience other than in personal injury- and a majority are settlements. He’s never practiced anything criminal…and yes, he’s a liberal. Check out the family donations…
Judge Gagliardi was an experienced family law attorney. His father is almost exclusively the personal injury lawyer.
The judge may be a Dem but at least he’s not a RINO or someone who sucked up to the party.
If clown evers picked him-he is most definitely a libtard.Book it.
There are three choices on the ballot. Let’s walk through them. One did not participate in the governor’s appointment process which includes a detailed disclosure questionnaire, an interview with a 15-member panel, a character and fitness investigation and then the governor interviews the person or person’s recommended after all that is done. So, here, one person chose to avoid the disclosure questionnaire, interview panel and character and fitness investigation and another apparently didn’t make it all the way to the governor’s desk. You can book that.
The truth is that we don’t have a good way of picking judges in Wisconsin. Far too political and getting worse.
Three years ago, Frank’s “detailed disclosure questionnaire” revealed a past sanction from the OLR board. However, in his recent application, he claimed to have no such history of sanctions. Did he conveniently forget about the previous sanction, or does this discrepancy hint at a lack of ethical integrity?
Regarding the journey to the Governor’s desk, it’s worth noting that only one applicant’s dad donated $50,000 to Evers. Can you guess which candidates dad made the donations?
Even with a donation the applicants still have to pass the investigation process.
The question about attorney discipline is a good and fair one. Anyone can file a complaint regardless of merit and it remains open until it is closed. But since the question is out there here is the official answer today direct from the searchable database of attorney discipline:
Wisconsin Attorneys’ Professional Discipline Compendium
Compendium Search Results
No Documents Found
You searched for: namef:frank namel:gagliardi
First
Back
Return to Search Form
Next
Last
Questions or feedback? Send us an email.
During the investigation, it was determined that Frank indeed had a pulse, confirming his eligibility.
However, when considering the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) sanction, it raises questions as to why Frank indicated a sanction on his application three years ago. Was this a mere oversight? It seems improbable that someone qualified to serve as a circuit court judge would make such a mistake. How often on job applications do people claim to have committed a felony when they haven’t? I am pretty sure people double check to make sure they checked the right box on critical questions. Will Frank check the wrong box in sentencing – Life in Prison check, oh wait no time served!
Furthermore, the absence of documents doesn’t necessarily mean there was no sanction. OLR sanctions are frequently kept confidential, so a lack of documentation could simply indicate that it was a non-public reprimand.
The investigation went beyond a pulse. Only a few complaints lead to discipline, public or private. Many are dead on arrival and others are closed after further inquiry. Many complaints (probably the bast majority) stem from disagreements between attorneys and former clients and some are administratively resolved or mediated. Discipline can be a private reprimand, public reprimand, suspension or revocation. Those are the only “sanctions.”
When a complaint is received the process typically involves sending it to the attorney who is required to respond to it and can face severe sanctions for failing to do so. An exception is when there is something that on its face is wacko and dead on arrival. Then a determination is made what to do next. It is possible that there was an open complaint at the time of the first application that was later closed without discipline. Also, the investigation phase is confidential. That ends when public discipline is sought or imposed.
Seems like I touched a nerve…I find it interesting that you never come out and state that Frank was not sanctioned. You talk about why OLR investigates things and the different type of discipline – some of which would not be shown in your 1st attempt to dismisses his sanction(s) – but never have a reason why Frank stated he WAS SANCTIONED. The question isn’t were you investigated by OLR but have you ever been sanctioned, and he stated YES. So Frank either lied on the current questionnaire or made one of stupidest mistakes ever on a job application. I think the voters deserve to know if Frank lied or was so careless 3 years ago.
If it wasn’t clear: no discipline.
The process explanation outlines that there are frequently disputes between lawyers and clients who file complaints. Most complaints wind up dismissed.
You were not clear because there are two different questions on the application. Question 38 B – “Have you ever been disciplined, reprimanded, or sanctioned by any regulatory or licensing entity” Frank answered yes in 2019 and no in 2023. Question 38 D – “Have you ever been subject to an investigation by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the Office of Lawyer Regulation, the Crime Victim Rights Board, or any other equivalent entity in any jurisdiction”. Frank answered Yes, both in 2019 and 2023. So your excuse that it was an investigation and not a sanction doesn’t hold water. Both questions were clearly asked and Frank stated he was ‘disciplined, reprimanded, or sanctioned’ and in a separate question about ‘just being investigated’. If he was confused by question 38B and thought it also included investigations, having a question specifically asking about investigations should have cleared up any confusion. Plus, I would hope a judge would be able to clearly understand a simple question like ‘Have you ever been disciplined, reprimanded, or sanctioned by any regulatory or licensing entity.’ This is clearly a sore spot for Frank but the voters deserve to know the truth about his sanction and why his two applications answer the question differently. I see only two possible answers, he lied or was so careless that he marked the wrong box. I also can’t see anyone voting for a judge that lies or is that careless.
By process of simple elimination it looks like a complaint closed with no discipline means that the one of the boxes on the first form was incorrectly checked. That’s a matter of fact. Whether it was careless is an opinion.
By law these investigations are confidential. If an attorney is charged with misconduct then it becomes an open record.
You really like to talk around in circles. You stated earlier that ‘Discipline can be a PRIVATE reprimand, public reprimand, suspension or revocation.’. Now you say through ‘simple elimination it looks like’ the from was incorrectly marked. So the discipline can be private but since you can’t see it, it must not exist. How much is Frank’s dad paying you to defend him? Remember Frank’s dad ‘donated’ $50,000, so he has deep pockets. I hope it is a lot because coming up with these excuses must be tiring.
I call on Frank to release his unredacted application from 2019 where he had to write an explanation for why he said yes to “Have you ever been disciplined, reprimanded, or sanctioned by any regulatory or licensing entity”. The voters deserve to know the truth. Failure to do so shows he is hiding something and doesn’t deserve to be a judge. Frank, what are you hiding? Release the documents!
So, the self-appointed buffoon here demands disclosure of confidential information when he, she, they or it themselves can’t tell the truth.
Case in point: The allegation that Paul Gagliardi donated $50,000 to Evers and the implication that the judicial appointment was bought (a fallacy in itself because if that was the case he would have gotten it the first time he applied).
According to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign database here are his contributions to Evers — a whopping $5,075:
8 Contribution(s) Found – Total Amount Contributed: $5,075.00
Date Contributed To Contributor Name City, State, zip Employer Interest Category Amount
10/17/2022 Evers, Tony Gagliardi, Paul V Salem, WI, 53168 Gagliardi Law Lawyers/Law Firms/Lobbyists $900.00
06/29/2022 Evers, Tony Gagliardi, Paul V Salem, WI, 53168 Gagliardi Law Lawyers/Law Firms/Lobbyists $500.00
12/29/2021 Evers, Tony Gagliardi, Paul V Salem, WI, 53168 Gagliardi Law Lawyers/Law Firms/Lobbyists $850.00
04/25/2021 Evers, Tony Gagliardi, Paul V Salem, WI, 53168 Gagliardi Law Lawyers/Law Firms/Lobbyists $1,000.00
07/24/2019 Evers, Tony Gagliardi, Paul Kenosha, WI, 53142 Gagliardi Law Lawyers/Law Firms/Lobbyists $277.00
10/19/2018 Evers, Tony Gagliardi, Paul Kenosha, WI, 53142 Gagliardi Law Lawyers/Law Firms/Lobbyists $1,000.00
10/03/2018 Evers, Tony Gagliardi, Paul Salem, WI, 53168 Gagliardi Law Lawyers/Law Firms/Lobbyists $348.00
08/20/2018 Evers, Tony Gagliardi, Paul V Salem, WI, 53168 Gagliardi Law Lawyers/Law Firms/Lobbyists $200.00
So, were you lying or did you make a mistake? Were you careless? Or all of the above?
When you get your own facts straight then maybe I’ll listen to you.
Voted for Trump and didn’t see his tax returns nor did I have any right to.
Witch-hunt.
Conservaturds only want accountability from others, not themselves.
Integrity and character aren’t determined by ‘political party’ but by who the person is to their core, behind closed doors in word and deed.
Oh great! Kerkman 2.0….. He’s a bro!
Frank, I know you fairly well. Not everyone is your friend. Your problem is that you think too highly of yourself to the point that you have yourself fooled. Calling the jurynracists essentially, fuck you Frank. Your ego will always be your Achilles heal, just as it was when you were a boy. Your arrogance is off putting. You are a nice guy on the surface but you have personal issues about the reality of who you are vs who you think you are and the last thing you should be is a judge. You aren’t fooling me, or many others thankfully. Other judges are dreading the thought of you being a judge because you known as being lazy. For goodness sake, who the fuck takes a picture of themselves with the camera looking up at them!?!? You are the only one that would do such a thing. You need to learn how to be a man before being judge and if you become judge, know that it was from daddy’s $$ and no accomplishments of your own. When it comes down to doing what is right, you’ll cave to special interests (that’s why your got an appointment from Evers). I know first hand that you are a bitch when it comes to doing the right thing. You are not a man, just a spoiled little boy that never grew up.
Wow. Interesting.
We can see where this guy is going. Sanctuary City status probably not far behind.
Iverson likes to split families in family court she’s adds nothing the our court system they are all garbage