KENOSHA, Wis. — A Racine County circuit court judge has dismissed a Kenosha journalist’s open records lawsuit — marking the first legal loss in 23 public records challenges filed by Kevin Mathewson, founder of Kenosha County Eye — but Mathewson filed a notice of appeal the very next day and says he is confident the Wisconsin Court of Appeals will reverse the decision.The reasoning behind the dismissal is already raising eyebrows inside the Kenosha courthouse. Judge David W. Paulson ruled that because Mathewson “knew substantially” what was behind the redactions in a heavily blacked-out government memo, he was not entitled to receive an unredacted copy of the record.

In essence, the court concluded that prior knowledge — even partial knowledge — eliminates a citizen’s right to obtain the official document itself.

Mathewson argues that approach turns Wisconsin public records law on its head.

“Imagine if the Department of Justice or a federal judge said, ‘Well, we all know what’s behind the redactions in the Epstein files, so there’s no need to release them,’” Mathewson said. “That would be absurd. The entire point of public records is documentary proof — not rumor, not assumption, not secondhand knowledge. The judge’s reasoning is the same nonsensical approach.”

Mathewson said that as a journalist, personal knowledge alone is never sufficient to publish a story.

“I can certainly know something,” he said. “But knowing it isn’t enough. I need documentation. I need proof. That’s how you protect yourself from frivolous lawsuits — something I’ve now experienced twice. Public records are the shield. They are what allow a journalist to report accurately and defensibly. Without the document, you don’t have protection.”

Paulson was assigned to the case after all Kenosha County circuit court judges recused themselves. He ruled February 19 that Kenosha County properly redacted a September 4, 2025 memorandum authored by Kenosha County Clerk of Courts Rebecca Matoska-Mentink.

The memo concerns Mathewson’s conduct while photographing defendants during intake court. According to court filings, the memo was generated after Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Chad Kerkman directed Clerk of Courts Rebecca Matoska-Mentink to conduct an internal review regarding Mathewson’s activities in intake court, a directive Mathewson says followed his lawsuit against Kerkman.

The resulting memorandum, now part of the public court record as Exhibit B, recounts an incident in which Mathewson, while bending over to photograph defendant information, experienced a wardrobe malfunction that exposed part of his backside. The memo references multiple individuals and events during intake proceedings.

Kenosha County argued it redacted identifying information to protect employee privacy and safety. However, Paulson’s written decision references approximately 37 or more redactions throughout the document — far more than a single name or limited identifying detail.

“They want the public to believe this is about protecting one employee,” Mathewson said. “But when you have nearly three dozen redactions, that’s not just a name. That’s a document that has been gutted.”

In his ruling, Paulson focused on Mathewson’s acknowledgment that he knew the identity of at least one individual interviewed in connection with the memo, despite the document referencing multiple people. The judge concluded that if Mathewson already knew the redacted information in substantial part, there was no need to compel production of the unredacted document.

Mathewson also sharply criticized the procedural handling of the case, arguing Paulson effectively converted what was styled as a motion to dismiss into a summary judgment ruling without providing the procedural safeguards required under Wisconsin civil procedure.

“He allowed affidavits and outside materials that were never properly entered into evidence,” Mathewson said. “Under basic civil procedure, once you consider matters outside the pleadings, you have converted the case into summary judgment. I was never given the opportunity for discovery or to fully respond as the rules require.”

He added: “I can’t believe that as a community college dropout, I seem to know more about basic civil procedural law than a multi-decade attorney who has been a judge for over a decade. I’m alarmed — but not surprised — that he would stick up for Deputy Chief Judge Chad Kerkman, who he may view as his boss. In reality, the voters are his boss. Paulson is an ingoramous, and one of the worst judges I’ve dealt with, and I’ve dealt with Chad Kerkman,” added Mathewson.

The financial cost to taxpayers is also escalating. County Executive Samantha Kerkman has authorized what Mathewson estimates to be between $20,000 and $30,000 in outside legal fees to defend the redactions, despite Mathewson’s assertion that the records are clearly public under Wisconsin law. With the appeal now underway, he warns that figure could double or triple.

“I really can’t believe that Samantha Kerkman, our county executive, is using so much taxpayer money to protect such inconsequential data just to help out her ex-husband,” Mathewson said. “Why does that have to cost the taxpayers so much money?”

“This case is about whether the government can black out a document and then say, ‘You already know what it says, so you don’t get to see it,’” Mathewson added. “If that logic stands, it weakens public records rights across Wisconsin. I hope the Court of Appeals does the right thing.”

Mathewson represented himself in circuit court and is appealing to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District II.