CONFIDENTIAL

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT OF PATRICK J. FIEDLER

TO

HON. RANDY R. KOSCHNICK, DIRECTOR
OF THE OFFICE OF STATE COURTS
AND
HON. JENNIFER R. DOROW, CHIEF JUDGE
OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION AS TO
ALLEGATIONS MADE BY JUDGE JOSEPH W. VOlLAND
CONCERNING CERTAIN OZAUKEE COUNTY OFFICIALS

CONFIDENTIAL

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Attorney Patrick J. Fiedler conducted a confidential administrative investigation
regarding allegations made by Judge Joseph W. Voiland concerning certain Ozaukee
County Officials. I find that there is no basis to believe that anyone has violated Wis.
Stat. § 946.12, Misconduct in Public Office. There is also no basis to find that anyone has
violated any other criminal statute. The Clerk of Courts has taken appropriate measures
to correct past errors and to ensure that court records are accurate going forward. The
Clerk of Courts now has taken appropriate steps to comply with the statutory
requirement relating to segregation of fees on family cases and she should continue
those efforts. The Director of Family Court Services for Ozaukee County is Court
Commissioner Barry Boline. There is a serious communication problem between Judge
Voiland and other Ozaukee County Court Officials.
BACKGROUND

In February 2018, I was retained by the Office of State Courts to conduct a
confidential administrative investigation. The retainer agreement states that the scope
of my services will include investigation of claims by Judge Joseph Voiland concerning
certain Ozaukee County Officials. My charge was specifically defined in a February 26,
2018 memo from Third Judicial District Chief Judge Jennifer R. Dorow (See attached
Exhibit #1.) That charge is as follows:
Charge: Under the direction of Third Judicial District Chief Judge Jennifer
Dorow, to investigate claims by Judge Joseph Voiland concerning Ozaukee
County Officials, including the following (allegations are in summary form.
Please consult with Judge Voiland regarding specifics and supporting
documentation).
1. Alteration and/ or deletion of CCAP records by the Clerk of Circuit
Court/Register in Probate, including but not limited to back dating of case
assignments, removal of hearings from calendar, correction of docket
2

 entries without proper case file documentation/ notation, and destruction
of case files. (If these actions occurred in the past, determine whether they
are continuing.)
2. Misuse of Register in Probate/Probate Registrar authority, including but
not limited to granting of adjournments in formal cases and improper
designation of cases (formal vs. informal and the interplay between the
two and whether such actions were done without the approval of the
assigned judge) and the reason(s) for doing so.
3. Custody Study and related issues, including but not limited to the failure
of the county treasurer to segregate fees as required by Wis. Stat. §
814.615, and the failure to name and appoint a director of family court
services as required by Wis. Stat. § 767.405(lm)(a).
4. Other similar or related allegations as may be brought to your attention by
any of the Ozaukee County judges or Chief Judge Jennifer Dorow.
The investigation included review of numerous documents and interviews of
several individuals. Additionally, I draw upon by own experiences as a Dane County
Circuit Judge for 18 years, during which time I served in every rotation and handled
every type of case that was under review in this investigation.
INVESTIGATION

The Wisconsin Department of Justice, Division of Criminal Investigation (DOJ)
conducted an earlier investigation into the allegations made by Judge Voiland. This
investigation was commenced upon receiving a phone call from Judge Voiland on May
9,2016 regarding a complaint of CCAP records having been changed/ tampered with.
The concern was whether there had been a violation of Wis. Stat. § 946.12, Misconduct
in Public Office, a Class I felony.
The DOJ conducted an extensive investigation which included several interviews
and review of numerous documents. [Note that the DOJ investigative report is public

3

 record and I have reviewed the same.] The DOJ investigative report concludes with the
following:
On September 26, 2017, Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Michelle Viste sent an
email to Special Agent (SA) John R. Culver, Jr. and Special Agent in Charge
(SAl C) David R. Klabunde in which she stated, "I am just writing to confirm that
the DLS [Division of Legal Services] has closed the Ozaukee Co. case as a nonprosecution. Please let me know if you have any questions."
The Office of State Courts retained me in February 2018 to conduct the
investigation described above.
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

At the beginning of each interview, I advised each person that I was retained by
the Office of State Courts, at the direction of Judge Randy Koschnick and Chief Judge
Jennifer Dorow, to conduct an independent investigation regarding allegations made by
Judge Joseph Voiland. Further, that submitting to the interview was voluntary and the
person could stop the interview at any time. I also advised each person of their right to
have an attorney present and that they should feel free to ask any questions as the
interview was conducted. I asked each interviewee to be as truthful and accurate as
possible. I further told them not to assume that I would be asking all of the right
questions and that they should feel free to volunteer any information that may be
helpful. At the conclusion of each interview, I told them to feel free to contact me if they
had any additional information. I also asked that they keep the details of the interview
confidential.
INTERVIEWS

Five individuals were interviewed: Judge Joseph Voiland, Judge Paul Malloy,
Judge Sandy Williams, Court Commissioner Barry Boline and Clerk of Courts Mary
Lou Mueller. Additionally, at my request, Corporation Counsel Rhonda Gorden
authored a memo for my review. This report summarizes the interviews that revealed
the most relevant information. The interviews focused on the Voiland allegations

4

 contained in the DOJ report referenced above. Additionally, each interviewee was given
the opportunity to provide any additional information.
In the interest of completeness, I created an interview outline that contained the
allegations made by Judge Voiland as referenced in the DOJ report. (See attached Exhibit
#2.) Judge Voiland was given the opportunity to address all of these allegations. The
other interviewees were questioned regarding specific allegations about which they
might have knowledge.

Judge Joseph Voiland
Judge Voiland was interviewed in person on three separate occasions. He was
cooperative and answered all questions. Voiland graduated from Marquette University
Law School in 2002. He was a judicial law clerk for two years and then in private
practice prior to becoming an Ozaukee County Circuit Judge on August 1, 2013. As do
all three judges in Ozaukee County, he has handled every type of case. We discussed
the specific allegations related to the various cases and matters.

Judge Paul Malloy
Judge Malloy was first interviewed in person and then a subsequent interview
was conducted by phone. He was cooperative and answered all questions. Malloy
graduated from John Marshall Law School in 1985. Prior to becoming an Ozaukee
County Circuit Judge in 2002, he was the Ozaukee County District Attorney and an
attorney in private practice. Presently, he is the Presiding Judge in Ozaukee County.
Judge Malloy has handled every type of case. We discussed the specific allegations as to
which he had any knowledge.

Judge Sandy Williams
Judge Williams was interviewed in person. She was cooperative and answered
all questions. Williams graduated from Hamline Law School in 1983. She served as
both an assistant district attorney and the Ozaukee County District Attorney prior to
becoming an Ozaukee County Circuit Judge in 2009. Judge Williams has handled every
type of case. We discussed the specific allegations as to which she had any knowledge.

5

 Court Commissioner Barry Boline

Commissioner Boline was interviewed in person. He was cooperative and
answered all questions. Boline graduated from Drake Law School in 1994. He was in
private practice until becoming the Ozaukee Court Commissioner in 2012. We
discussed the specific allegations as to which he had any knowledge.
Clerk of Courts Mary Lou Mueller

Clerk of Courts Mueller was interviewed in person on two separate occasions
and a third interview was conducted by phone. She was cooperative and answered all
questions. Mueller obtained a degree in criminal justice management from Concordia
University in 2005. Starting in 1999, Mueller was an employee of the Clerk of Courts
Office. She became the Ozaukee County Clerk of Courts in 2011. She is also the Register
in Probate, the Probate Registrar and the Clerk of Juvenile Court. As such, she and her
office handle every type of case. We discussed the specific allegations as to which she
had any knowledge.
NON-INTERVIEW BASED INVESTIGATION
Corporation Counsel Rhonda Gorden

At my request, Ozaukee Corporation Counsel Gorden prepared a memo
regarding her knowledge of accounting for family court services. Reference to portions
of that memo is made below.
ALLEGATIONS
1. Alteration and/or deletion of CCAP records by the Clerk of Circuit Courtj
Register in Probate, including but not limited to back dating of case
assignments, removal of hearings from calendar, correction of docket entries
without proper case file documentation/notation, and destruction of case files.
(If these actions occurred in the past, determine whether they are continuing.)

2. Misuse of Register in ProbatejProbate Registrar authority, including but not
limited to granting of adjournments in formal cases and improper designation
of cases (formal vs. informal and the interplay between the two and whether

6

 such actions were done without the approval of the assigned judge) and the
reason(s) for doing so.

Judge Voiland had several concerns relating to these allegations. They are set forth
in Exhibit 2. Most of these allegations relate to Clerk of Courts Mary Lou Mueller.
As mentioned above, I interviewed Mueller in person on two occasions and by
phone on a third occasion. Also, Mueller provided me with copies of all court
documents which I requested.
Case No. 13PR84 - In the Estate of Mary H. Malinowski

Judge Voiland's concerns were that a date had been changed for an Order to Show
Cause (OTSC) hearing and that the case description had been changed from "formal" to
informal."
Mueller provided general information on the handling of probate cases. If a case is
designated as formal" the commissioner handles everything except for evidentiary
/I

matters which are handled by the judges. Mueller stated that this case was always
designated as formal. Mueller stated that Judge Voiland had sent her an email
requesting that she schedule eleven cases, including this case, for a hearing. She then
scheduled this case for a review hearing before Judge Voiland. Mueller generated a
court notice on March 9, 2016 to be sent by US mail and the notice was printed. She
does not know if the notice was mailed and presumes that it was not because she erased
the review hearing event. Mueller did so after seeing that the case was already
scheduled for a hearing before Commissioner Boline. When Judge Voiland became
aware of this, he told Mueller to put it back on his calendar as an OTSC hearing;
Mueller did so. According to Mueller, Judge Voiland had a hearing on April 6, 2016 and
Commissioner Boline had a hearing on April 27, 2016. At his hearing, Boline ordered
that the case be certified (sent) to Judge Voiland. Mueller concluded by stating that she
would not have erased the April 6, 2016 hearing from CCAP if the notices had been
mailed.
7

 I questioned Mueller as to whether her scheduling was in any way affected by the
fact that the Personal Representative was Attorney Rebecca Waldera. Mueller replied
that Waldera is an acquaintance but that this had nothing to do with her scheduling.
She also stated that there are no orders for extension of time on this file.
Mueller then explained that if a probate case is changed from formal to informal, or
from informal to formal, this creates an event on CCAP. Mueller stated that she never
has changed a case from formal to informal so that an attorney could have more time.
She noted that as the Probate Registrar, she has given extensions of time if the case is
within the time guidelines but, if the case is beyond the guidelines, she will then
schedule it for an OTSC hearing in front of the court commissioner. Mueller stated that
as Probate Registrar, she manages the informal cases.
Mueller gave a historical background as to her handling of probate cases. In 2002,
she started as the Register in Probate/Probqte Registrar/Probate Commissioner. During
her time, she has worked with Judge Walter Swietlik, Judge Joseph McCormick, Judge
Tom Wolfgram, Judge Paul Malloy, and Judge Sandy Williams, all of whom assumed
the bench prior to Judge Joseph Voiland. Mueller was assigned the task of managing
both formal and informal probate cases. She would do orders for extensions and she did
not have to change the case status, i.e., from formal to informal, because those judges
left it to her judgment. It was up to her discretion if something had to be brought to a
judge's attention. Mueller stated that she no longer signs extensions of time as Mary
Lou Mueller, Probate Registrar (electronic files) or Mary Lou Mueller, Register in
Probate (paper files). She stated that she quit doing so on Voiland cases after he told
her he did not want her doing this and that she quit doing so on all other assigned cases
after the DOJ interviewed her. Mueller noted that this relates to formal cases and that
she still has the authority to do extensions of time on informal cases.
Judge Malloy provided his perspective as to the general handling of probate cases in
Ozaukee County. In his opinion, Mueller keeps a good eye on the status of cases and

8

 that she and her staff are on top of this. He believes that if there are any problems
regarding the age of a case, Mueller would let him know and put the case on his
calendar. As to how she handles granting extensions of time, to his knowledge it has
been consistent since he started as a judge. Malloy stated that he is "99% sure that he
has given the Clerk of Court the authority to grant an extension in formal probate
cases."
Judge Williams stated that she will review probate cases with Mueller or her
designee to keep them on track. To her knowledge, Mueller has not changed a case
designation from formal to informal without her approval.
I find that Judge Voiland was correct in his allegation that a CCAP entry was
changed and that Mary Lou Mueller was in error in erasing the CCAP entry of the
aforementioned scheduled review hearing before Judge Voiland. Instead, Mueller
should have consulted with Judge Voiland, advised him that a review hearing was
already scheduled before Commissioner Boline, and asked Voiland if he still wanted to
conduct his own review hearing. This was a decision to be made by Judge Voiland and
not by Mary Lou Mueller. I also find that Mueller took this action based upon her belief
that this was the more efficient course to take and not because she was attempting to
usurp the authority of Judge Voiland.
Case No. 13PR130 - In the Estate of Emanuel Washington
Judge Voiland expressed a concern that he doesn't know how this case had
suddenly appeared on his docket calendar; the transaction record shows that Mary Lou
Mueller had assigned the case to Voiland on March 31,2016 and that she had backdated
the case assignment to July 13, 2014.
Mueller stated that this is true. Judge Voiland rotated into probate on August I,
2014. (All three Ozaukee County Judges take a 2-year stint in probate on a rotating
basis. The incoming judge is assigned all pending probate cases.) Voiland rotated into
probate on August 1,2014. He wanted to be sure that all of his cases were assigned to
9

 him. Mueller stated that on March 31, 2016 it came to her attention that the case was not
formally assigned to Voiland even though he had been in probate since August I, 2014.
She then assigned the case to Voiland and backdated it to July 13, 2014. When I asked
Mueller why it was backdated to July 13, 2014, she replied that it was an error on her
part and it should have been backdated to July 31 or August 1,2014.
Mueller noted that Judge Voiland wanted all Branch 2 (Voiland's branch) cases to be
assigned to him even if the case was inactive and even if there had been no postjudgment activity. Mueller stated that in accommodating this directive, her first priority
was to be sure that all open cases were assigned to Voiland and she then checked on
closed cases.
I find that the explanation by Mary Lou Mueller is reasonable. As an aside, the

situation described by Judge Voiland also happened to me on occasion when I was a
judge and an older case was reassigned to me.
Case No. I1FA310 - In RE the marriage of Robert Roland Hanke and Antonia E.
Hanke
Judge Voiland expressed a concern that Judge Williams had appointed a GAL
(guardian ad litem) on this case even though the case was assigned to Voiland.
Judge Williams stated that family cases are assigned to a particular judge and that
the court commissioner conducts certain hearings. If Commissioner Boline is not
available for a scheduled hearing, then either she or Judge Malloy will cover it. She
noted that court commissioner hearings do not have a court reporter but are tape
recorded. Williams does not recall if she handled the November 17, 2014 hearing but if
she did then her name should be on the court record. She also noted that the deputy
clerk who was at the hearing may have overlooked the fact that the minute sheet was
partially completed to reflect Boline as presiding since it was on his calendar.

10

 Commissioner Boline stated that he has no independent recollection of the
November 17, 2014 hearing but that he did review the file. Based upon his file review,
he states that Judge Williams covered that day as he was out, that Williams appointed a
GAL, and that he signed the order appointing the GAL.
Mueller stated that the record still indicates that Commissioner Boline presided at
the November 1714 hearing but that a transcript clearly shows that it was Judge
Williams who presided. At the hearing Judge Williams appointed a GAL and
Commissioner subsequently signed the order appointing a GAL. Mueller stated that a
deputy clerk mistakenly entered Boline's name into the record even though Williams
had presided at the hearing. Mueller stated that she has not corrected the record due to
the pending investigation. Mueller stated that when the investigation has been
completed, she will have the record corrected with a notation as to the error and the
correction.
I find that the explanation by Mary Lou Mueller is reasonable and that the error
made by the deputy clerk is an innocent error. I further understand why Mueller is
waiting to correct this error until this investigation is completed and I find that this
decision to wait is reasonable.
16JD2 - John Doe case
Judge Voiland had expressed a concern that the case file was destroyed.
Mary Lou Mueller stated that on January 11, 2016, Paul Ammerman filed a petition.
Ammerman is a prison inmate and the petition was confusing. Deputy Clerk Connie
Mueller gave the petition to Judge Malloy. On January 21, 2016, Malloy, apparently
believing the petition to be requesting a John Doe hearing, directed Connie Mueller to
send a letter to District Attorney Adam Gerol asking for Gerol's position on the
Ammerman petition. [Note - This would be pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 968.26(2).] The
petition and the letter to DA Gerol were docketed on January 21, 2016 and assigned
Case No. 16GF23. On March 1,2016, Assistant District Attorney Patti Wabitsch replied
11

 to the January 21, 2016 Malloy letter stating that the DA was refusing to issue charges.
On March 2,2016, Judge Malloy issued a decision denying Ammerman's petition for a
John Doe proceeding; this order was docketed the same day.
On March 10,2016, Connie Mueller again reviewed the petition which had been
filed on January 10, 2016. She thought that the petition should have been designated a
JD case and not a GF case. She then opened up Case No. 16JD2 but did not place any
documents in that file. Subsequently, Connie Mueller discussed this matter with Mary
Lou Mueller. Mary Lou Mueller directed Connie Mueller to erase all references to
16JD2.
Mary Lou Mueller told me, that in retrospect, her decision to erase 16JD2 was a
mistake. She explained that the Clerk of Courts Office was not that familiar with John
Doe cases and, at that time, did not have a good policy/procedure in place. Mueller
explained that she became Clerk of Court on January 1, 2011 and since that time up to
the filing of the petition by Paul Ammerman, only two cases had been given the JD case
designation, 11JDl and 14JDl. Mueller stated that the present policy in her office is that
if a petition indicates "John Doe", it is filed with as a JD case. She also stated that if a

filing error is now made on any type of case, this is reflected in the court record so that
CCAP will accurately reflect corrections and where documents are located. As an
example, Mueller stated that in this particular case, the record should state that 16JDl
was" opened in error; see Case No. 16CF23." Mueller has not made this correction on
this case. She stated that she follows this procedure on all other cases opened in error
but has not done so on this case because this case is part of an investigation and she is
waiting until the investigation has been completed.
I find that Judge Voiland was correct in his allegation that CCAP records had been
erased and that Mary Lou Mueller made an error in erasing the record as to 16JD2 but
that she has acknowledged her error and that she now has a procedure in place to
ensure that this type of error will not reoccur. I further find that her decision to wait to

12

 correct the error on this case until after this investigation is completed is a reasonable
decision.
As to all types of cases, Mueller stated that her office processes over 100,000
documents per year. The processing of this number of cases requires that 100s of
thousands of data entries be made to record events. Mueller stated that her policy,
adopted after the DOJ investigation, is that if a correction of a spelling or grammar error
is made, there is no notation made. However, all substantive corrections result in the
entry of a notation that a correction has been made. I find that this procedure is
appropriate.
Judge Voiland's judicial dashboard
Judge Voiland had expressed a concern regarding his judicial dashboard. (Each
judge has a computer dashboard that shows all of that judge's assigned cases and the
age of each case.) Voiland noted that certain cases were not shown on his dashboard
one month and then the next month a case would show up as "overdue/late" by a
significant amount of time. He further stated that he did not understand why an
"overdue/late" case would not have shown on his dashboard the previous month.
Mary Lou Mueller stated that this was due to the fact that probate cases were
reassigned from Judge Malloy (who had rotated out of probate) to Judge Voiland (who
had rotated into probate). The reassignment of the case does not result in a change of
the age of the case. Thus, the judicial dashboard would designate" overdue/late" even
though Judge Voiland had just had the case reassigned to him.
I find that the explanation by Mary Lou Mueller is reasonable. As an aside, the
situation described by Judge Voiland also happened to me on occasion when I was a
judge and an older case was reassigned to me.

13

 Case No. 15PR17 - In the Estate of Janice E. Garsha
Judge Voiland had expressed a concern that Mueller had changed the case
designation from formal to informal without Voiland's authorization.
Mueller stated that she had signed an order for extension of time and she had
mistakenly checked the box "Informal Administration." She further stated that the case
was still in formal status as reflected on CCAP. Mueller again provided an explanation
as to how the status of a probate case is changed, the extent of her authority, and a
historical background as to her handling of probate cases. (For that explanation and
historical background, see above discussion on Case No. 13PR84 - Estate of Malinowski
and the comments by Mueller at page 8 of this report.)
I find that Mueller's explanation as to her mistakenly checking the wrong box is
reasonable. I further find that her mistake is human error and is not an attempt to usurp
the authority of Judge Voiland
Case No. 15PR79 - In the Estate of Kenneth E. Goetschel
Judge Voiland had expressed a concern that Mueller had changed the case
designation from formal to informal without Voiland's authorization.
Mueller stated that she had signed an order for extension of time and she had
mistakenly checked the box "Informal Administration." She further stated that the case
was still in formal status as reflected on CCAP. Mueller again provided an explanation
as to how the status of a probate case is changed, the extent of her authority, and a
historical background as to her handling of probate cases. (For that explanation and
historical background, see above discussion on Case No. 13PR84 - Estate of Malinowski
and the comments by Mueller at page 8 of this report.)
I find that Mueller's explanation as to her mistakenly checking the wrong box is
reasonable. I further find that her mistake is human error and is not an attempt to usurp
the authority of Judge Voiland.
14

 3. Custody Study and related issues, including but not limited to the failure of
the county treasurer to segregate statutory fees as required by Wis. Stat. §
814.615, and the failure to name and appoint a director of family court services
as required by Wis. Stat. § 767.405(lm)(a).
Judge Voiland expressed concerns that Wis. Stat. § 814.615 was not being followed.
That statute requires that statutory fees must be segregated into a separate account and
maintained by the county treasurer. Judge Voiland also stated that there had been a
failure to appoint a director of family court services as required by Wis. Stat. §

767.405(lm)(a).
Corporation Counsel Gorden, in her memo, stated that her knowledge of accounting
for family court services accounts is based upon what she has been advised of by the
Clerk of Courts' staff. Gorden was advised that mediation fees are kept in a separate
county account as well as court filing fees allocated to family court services. The
custody study fee deposits were maintained in a county clerk of court account. Money
deposited for mediation fees is forwarded to the county treasurer monthly. Gorden
stated that she recently discussed with the Clerk of Court that there was no real reason
to treat the custody study fees differently than the mediation fees because, in both cases,
funds are paid out by the court or pursuant to statute and checks must be issued for
both services to third parties. The Clerk of Court's office agreed and it is Gorden's
understanding that changes were underway to manage the custody study fees in the
same manner as the mediation fees. Since then, it is Gorden's understanding that new
account numbers were created on the general ledger to account for custody study fees
separately. To Gorden's knowledge, no accounting changes were made when the
County passed the family custody study ordinance in 2016. What appeared to Gordon
in discussing these matters with the Clerk of Court is that careful accounting was done
of both mediation fees and custody study fees and all money is accounted for and
properly allocated. Gorden stated that she spoke with Ozaukee County Treasurer Josh
Morrison as to whether he has observed any changes in accounting regarding custody
15

 studies. Morrison advised her that has not seen any changes other than the recent
creation of new general ledger account numbers as indicated by the Clerk of Court.
Clerk of Courts Mueller provided me with a memo and a flowchart describing the
handling of fees in family cases. Her information appears to be consistent with the
information her office provided to Gorden. Mueller explained at length the process
regarding the handling of fees for mediation and studies.
Wis. Stat. § 814.615(1) sets forth the fee structure for family court services, viz., the
first mediation session is as no fee, and all mediations after the first session have a
single fee of $200, regardless of the number of mediation sessions held. For a custody
study, the fee is $300. § 814.615(2) gives a county the option of establishing a fee
schedule and sets forth the criteria to be considered. § 814.615(3) relates to payment of
fees. § 814.615(4) requires the county to deposit fees collected under this section to be
deposited into a separate account. This separate account is for the exclusive purpose of
providing mediation services and studies.
Mueller explained that a $20 fee is taken from the filing fee for family and paternity
cases. The Clerk of Court (CO C) puts the $20 from each case into a segregated account.
These monies are forwarded on a monthly basis to the county treasurer. Mueller stated
that it has been done this way ever since she started as COC on January I, 2011. Further,
Mueller stated that, as far as she can tell and according to records she has reviewed, it
has been done this way for the last ten years. As to the first mediation, there is no fee.
As to all mediations after the first one, the fee is $200 total. As to custody studies,
Mueller stated that she could only find four cases, prior to Judge Voiland joining the
bench, where a custody study had been ordered. Since he began, Judge Voiland has
ordered a custody study in twelve cases; Judge Malloy and Judge Williams have not
ordered any studies.
Mueller also explained that Ozaukee County passed a family custody study
ordinance in 2016. Prior to the passage of the ordinance, Commissioner Boline had
16

 ordered the parties to make deposits totaling $1,000. In those cases, Judge Voiland had
ordered the COC to refund all but $300 of the deposits in each case. [Note that this
would be pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 814.615(1)(a)3.] Mueller made those refunds. Mueller
further explained that since the passage of the county ordinance, a fee schedule has
been established. [Note that this is allowable under § 814.615(2).]
Mueller believes that the COC is in compliance with the Wisconsin Statutes. Mueller
has sought the advice of Judge Malloy and Corporation Counsel Gorden. She advised
that both Malloy and Gorden believe the COC is in compliance with the statues.
Mueller also sought the advice of Marcia Vandercook at the Office of State Courts.
Mueller stated that Vandercook did not make any recommendations to change the
current procedure.
Mueller noted that the Office of State Courts completed an audit of Ozaukee
County's calendar year 2010 CS-147 Annual Report of Actual Revenues and
Expenditures and issued a report on July 12, 2012. The report made recommendations
relating to proper reporting of revenues and expenditures. I have reviewed this report
and it does not specifically reference fees for mediation and studies.
In my opinion, the COC is in compliance with state law. However, to have full

confidence in the procedure, I recommend that the Office of State Courts conduct an
audit.
Finally, Commissioner Boline stated that he is the Director of Family Court Services.
In that role, he appoints mediators. He also had involvement in coordinating with the

Ozaukee County Department of Human Services (DHS) as to the present ordinance,
effective July 2016, which gives the courts the authority to order the DHS to conduct
custody and placement studies.
I find that Commissioner Barry Boline is the Ozaukee County Director of Family
Court Services.

17

 Other similar or related allegations as may be brought to your attention by any of
the Ozaukee County judges or Chief Judge Jennifer Dorow.
llFA284 - State of Wisconsin et al v. Kevin M. Flood, Paternity Acknowledgment
Judge Voiland stated that he had ordered a study re: custody and placement but that
Commissioner Boline had not followed this order.
Commissioner Boline stated that, after receiving this order, he spoke with Judge
Malloy. Malloy directed Boline to tell the attorneys on this case that Ozaukee County
does not do custody studies. At this time, Malloy and others were in the process of
drafting a county ordinance relating to custody studies. Boline then drafted a letter to
the attorneys stating that Ozaukee County family court services does not provide legal
custody and physical placement studies. Boline then discussed this with Judge Voiland.
He told Voiland that Voiland had given him an order and that Malloy had told him not
to follow the order. Boline then told Voiland that he would follow his order but that
Boline needed Voiland to "have his back" with the County Board. Boline stated that a
county ordinance was eventually passed and became effective in July 2016. The
ordinance authorizes the courts to order the Ozaukee County Department of Human
Services to do a custody and placement study. Boline stated that since the ordinance has
passed, there have been approximately five to six studies ordered.
Judge Malloy recalled that he was in the process of working on a county ordinance
and that it was taking a while to get it drafted. He believes that he did tell Boline to hold
off on ordering the home study ordered by Judge Voiland and did so because of the
importance of maintaining a good relationship with the County Board. Malloy stated
that he was trying to get the ordinance done and not trying to undermine Judge
Voiland's authority. The ordinance was eventually passed and became effective on July
2,2016.
I find that Judge Voiland was correct was correct in his allegation about custody
studies. I also find that Commissioner Boline was in an untenable position as he had
18

 received inconsistent directions from Judge Voiland and Judge Malloy. I further find
that Commissioner Boline was not attempting to usurp the authority of Judge Voiland. I
find that Judge Malloy was not trying to usurp the authority of Judge Voiland but was
attempting to maintain a good relationship with the County Board and working
towards the passage of a county ordinance. I find that Judge Voiland did have the
authority to order a custody study but should have been more cognizant of the
importance of the County Judiciary maintaining a good relationship with the County
Board. Fortunately, the County Board has subsequently passed an ordinance so this
particular problem should not arise again.
Leah Goodman

Judge Voiland expressed a concern that he had ordered Leah Goodman to be held in
custody and that Judge Malloy had subsequently ordered that Goodman be released.
Judge Voiland believed that he had a legal basis to hold Goodman.
Judge Malloy stated that Goodman had filed a habeas petition which was assigned
to him. This case was on his desk when he arrived at work on August 26, 2015. He
attempted to discuss the case with Judge Voiland but Voiland was not in the
courthouse. Malloy did not believe that there was any legal authority to hold Goodman
and ordered that she be released.
I find that Judge Malloy acted in good faith and that he was not attempting to usurp
the authority of Judge Voiland. I further find that the habeas petition required prompt
action by Judge Malloy and that he attempted to discuss the case with Judge Voiland
but that Voiland was not in the courthouse. I conclude that Judge Malloy acted properly
in ordering the release of Leah Goodman because Malloy did not believe that there was
any legal authority to hold her.

19

 July 26, 2016 orders appointing 18 employees as "Deputy Register in Probate" and
"Deputy Probate Registrar"

Judge Voiland expressed a concern that the orders were signed by Judge Malloy and
Judge Williams but that he did not sign the orders.
Judge Malloy recalled that there was a judges' meeting in July 2016; present were
Judge Malloy, Judge Williams, Judge Malloy, probably Clerk of Court Mary Lou
Mueller and Deputy Connie Mueller, possibly Chief Judge Randy Koschnick, and
probably District Court Administrator Mike Neimon. Discussion included the
appointment of deputy registers in probate (RIP) and deputy probate registrars (PR).
Subsequently, Neimon forwarded a template order probably to Mary Lou Mueller.
Mueller converted the template to an order appointing Deputy RIPs and Deputy PRs.
The proposed order was circulated. Judge Williams signed the order first, Judge Malloy
then signed the order and then gave it to Judge Voiland's judicial assistant so that
Voiland could sign the order.
Malloy recalls that he was contacted by Neimon in mid-September asking about the
order. Malloy then emailed Voiland and asked about the order. Voiland responded that
he had seen the order and alluded to some problems he had with it including the fact
that no interviews had been conducted. Malloy made Koschnick aware of the situation.
Malloy stated that he never envisioned the need to conduct interviews. Malloy
stated that the order was to promote efficiencies in the system so that individual deputy
clerks would be authorized to handle all types of various cases/matters. Voiland felt
that he had no imput into the decision. Malloy's position was that Mary Lou Mueller
supervises all of the deputy clerks, was aware of their qualifications to be Deputy RIPs
and Deputy PRs, and, unless there is a problem, the judges should sign the order.
In approximately October 2016, Koschnick tasked Voiland with establishing a
process for these appointments. Voiland contacted Ozaukee County Human Resources
20

 (HR) about advertising for these positions. HR asked why this was necessary as there
were not any positions that were vacant. Malloy told Voiland that if Voiland, "wants to
hire new people, we have to let people go. If we don't hire new people, we should
appoint the people we have." Voiland then dropped his request for interviews.
Chief Judge Koschnick approved (signed) the appointment order on October 28,
2016. This order was never signed by Judge Voiland. Wis. Stat. § 851.71 requires that
" " .the judges of the county shall appoint and may remove a register in probate.
Appointments and removals may be made only with the approval of the chief judge."
Malloy stated that it was his opinion that this approval was by a majority of the judges.
By his approval (signature) on the appointment order, Chief Judge Koschnick
apparently agreed that approval of a majority of the judges was sufficient.
In my opinion, both Judge Malloy and Chief Judge Koschnick are correct; I believe
that Wis. Stat. § 851.71 requires approval of a majority of the judges in the county and
that it does not require unanimous approval. The order also references Wis. Stat. §
865.065 relating to "probate registrar." This statute states in relevant part:
The acts and orders which this chapter specifies as performable by the probate
registrar may be performed either by the court or by a person, including the clerk,
deputy clerk, register in probate, deputy register in probate and court legal assistant,
designated by the court by a written order filed and recorded in the office of the
court.
I find that the order appointing Deputy RIPs and Deputy PRs became effective when
it was signed by Chief Judge Koschnick on October 28, 2016 and that the requirements
of Wis. Stat. §§ 851.71 and 865.065 were followed.
16PR91 - In the Estate of Lawrence E. Foreman
Judge Voiland expressed a concern that the Clerk of Court did not follow his order.
This is a probate case where Judge Voiland had signed an order, dated July 14, 2016,
scheduling a hearing in October 2016 in Branch 3 (Judge Williams). This occurred right
21

 before August 1, 2016 when Voiland was rotating out of probate and Williams was
rotating in. Williams gave this order back to Voiland with two post-it notes questioning
why Voiland had scheduled this before her. The Clerk of Court did not file the order
until after Malloy had told her to do so. In the end, Voiland ended up keeping the case
as was his prerogative.
Judge Williams stated that she returned the order containing her post-it notes to
Voiland because, in her opinion, Voiland could have had the final hearing before the
rotation occurred. Williams stated that Voiland ignored the post-it notes and did not
respond to her.
I find that Clerk of Court Mary Lou Mueller was not attempting to usurp the
authority of Judge Voiland but that she was in an untenable position since she had
received conflicting directives from Judge Voiland and Judge Williams. I find that,
while both Judge Voiland and Judge Williams acted within their authority, it would
have been more prudent to have a private in-person discussion regarding this case. I
find no wrongdoing on the part of anyone.
CONCLUSIONS

In my opinion, the conclusions and findings of this investigation do not hinge on a
credibility determination. Everyone who was interviewed was credible. But everyone
answered questions from his/her own individual perspective. As to Judge Voiland's
allegations, I find that no criminal activity has occurred but, as noted above, some of his
allegations uncovered errors by the Clerk of Courts. I also note that communication
between Judge Voiland and the others involved is a serious problem. While conducting
the investigation and in preparing this report, I often wondered why the people
involved did not meet in person to discuss these issues. I am not certain that this would
have resulted in agreement; indeed, as to any of the issues raised, they may have agreed
to disagree. But as a fair and impartial, neutral and detached outsider and a former
judge, I question how this situation could have evolved to the extent that it has. My

22

 strong suggestion is that, going forward, all involved attempt to resolve any differences
of opinion among themselves in a professional and respectful manner.
FINDINGS

Having reviewed the relevant documents and considered the statements of those
with relevant and material knowledge, I find the following:
1. There is no basis to believe that anyone has violated Wis. Stat. § 946.12,
Misconduct in Public Office.
2. There is no basis to believe that anyone has violated any other criminal statute.
3. The Clerk of Courts has made certain errors as described above. The Clerk of
Courts has acknowledged those errors, has either corrected or is in the process of
correcting those errors, and has taken appropriate steps to ensure that those
types of errors will not reoccur.
4. The Clerk of Courts has taken appropriate steps to comply with the statute
relating to segregation of fees on family cases although this remains a work in
progress. I recommend that the Presiding Judge, the Clerk of Courts, the
Corporation Counsel and the County Treasurer continue their joint efforts to
ensure that Ozaukee County remains in statutory compliance.
5. The Director of Family Court Services for Ozaukee County is Court
Commissioner Barry Boline.
6. There is a serious communication problem between Judge Voiland and other
Ozaukee County court officials, particularly between Judge Voiland and Clerk of
Courts Mueller and, to a lesser extent, between Judge Voiland and Presiding
23

 Judge Malloy. This communication problem has resulted in a lack of trust which
has affected the administration of the court system.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Office of State Courts should conduct an audit of the Ozaukee County Clerk
of Courts Office to determine if it is in compliance with Wis. Stat. § 815.615.
2. The Ozaukee County Officials interviewed for purposes of this investigation

should endeavor to communicate and cooperate with each other in a professional
and timeI y manner.
Respectfully submitted this 3 rd day of July, 2018.

Patrick J. Fiedler
WI State Bar No. 1014512
PO Box 1528
Madison, WI 53701-0528
pfiedler@hurleyburish.com
Phone: (608) 257-0945

24

 JENNIFER R. DOROW
Chief Judge
Waukesha County Courthouse
515 West Moreland Blvd.
Waukesha, WI 53188·2428
Telephone: (262) 548·7210

STATE OF WISCONSIN

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PATRICK C. HAUGHNEY
Deputy Chief Judge
Waukesha County Courthouse
515 West Moreland Blvd.
Waukesha, WI 53188·2428
Telephone: (262) 548·7210

MICHAEL G. NEIMON
District Court Administrator
Waukesha County Courthouse
515 West Moreland Blvd.
Waukesha, WI 53188·2428
Telephone: (262) 548·7209

WAUKESHA COUNTY COURTHOUSE
515 WEST MORELAND BLVD" ROOM C-359
WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN 53188
OFFICE (262) 548-7210
FAX (262) 548-7815

February 26, 2018
Charge: Under the direction of the Third Judicial District Chief Judge Jennifer Dorow, to investigate
claims by Judge Joseph Voiland concerning Ozaukee County Officials, including the following
(allegations are in summary form. Please consult with Judge V oil and regarding specifics and supporting
documentation).
1.

Alteration and/or deletion of CCAP records by the Clerk of Circuit Court/Register in Probate, including
but not limited to back dating of case assignments, removal of hearings from calendar, correction of
docket entries without proper case file documentation/notation, and destruction of case files. (If these
actions occurred in the past, determine whether they are continuing).
2. Misuse of Register in Probate/Probate Registrar authority, including but not limited to granting of
adjournments in formal cases and improper designation of cases (formal vs, informal and the interplay
between the two and whether such actions were done without the approval of the assigned judge) and the
reason(s) for doing so.
3. Custody Study and related issues, including but not limited to the failure of the county treasurer to
segregate statutory fees as required by Wis. Stat. § 814.615, and the failure to name and appoint a director
offamily court services as required by Wis, Stat. § 767.405(lm)(a).
4. Other s im ilar or related allegations as may be brought to your attention by any of the Ozaukee County
judges or Chief Judge Jennifer Dorow.

JEFFERSON .J OZAUKEE .J WASHINGTON L WAUKESHA

 Judge Joseph W. Voiland

1. June 10,2016 interview with DOJ

A. 13PR84; "In the Estate of Mary H. Malinowski" - date changed for OTSC hearing;
case description changed from "formal to "informal";
B. 13PR130; "In the Estate of Emanuel Washington" - doesn't know how this case had
suddenly appeared in his docket calendar; the transaction record shows Mary Lou
Mueller had assigned this case to Voiland on 3/31/16 and that she had back-dated the
case assignment to 7/13/14;
C. 11 FA31 0; "In RE the marriage of Robert Roland Hanke and Antonia E. Hanke" -

Judge Williams had appointed a GAL on this case even though it was assigned to
Voiland;
D. Voiland stated that Commissioner Boline was labeled as doing family court services,
but that Boline does not do anything related to family court services;
E. 11 F A284; "State of Wisconsin et al v. Kevin M. Flood, re: Paternity
Acknowledgment"; Voiland had given an order to do a study re: custody and placement;
letter dated 6/8/15 from Commissioner Boline to case attorneys advising that Ozaukee
County family court services does not provide legal custody and physical placement
studies; Voiland doubts that Boline sent this letter
F. Under § 814.61 (l )(b), costs associated with family court services are to be partly
funded by filing fees, held in a separate account; filing fees are supposed to be put in a
separate account and maintained by the County Treasurer;
G. Voiland stated that every year Boline and Malloy told Voiland they would set up
Family Services and studies "next year";
H. John Doe cases - 16JD2 was destroyed;

1. V oil and held Leah Goodman held in custody - Malloy ordered Goodman to be
released;
J. Voiland "dashboard" - cases not on his dashboard one month, then the next month a
case would show "overdue/late" by a significant amount of time, that they should have
showed late in a prior month;

 2. June 20, 2016 interview with DOJ
A. Voiland had gone to the CCAP office in Madison on May 23,2016 and reviewed a

number of files;
B. Voiland stated probate cases can be assigned to the Clerk of COUlis, Mary Lou

Mueller, which Mueller can then assign to the judges. Voiland stated Mueller had
assigned cases to V oiland which she had falsified by back-dating the dates of the case
assignments of cases she had assigned to Voiland;
C. GAL paperwork and fees
D. Paperwork missing from files
E. Jury qualification questionnaires
F. Copy of a printout of Voiland's probate docket, listing case volumes of pending cases
between July of2015 and January of2016; Voiland stated there was a "70% spike" in
January of 20 16 in the number of cases assigned to him. In April of 20 16, when Voiland
asked Mueller what was going on, the large increase in the number of cases stopped and
the number of cases assigned to Voiland "leveled off."
G. 15PR17; "In the Estate of Janice E. Garsha" - COC changed the case designation
from "Formal Administration" to "Informal Administration" without telling Voiland.
H. 15PR79; "In the Estate of Kenneth E. Goetschel" - changed from "formal" to
"informal" without Voiland's authorization.

1. John Doe cases - 16JD2 was destroyed and erased
J. Electronic signature of Voiland used by others

3. September 15, 2016 interview with DOJ
A. July 26,2016 order appointing 18 employees as "Deputy Register in Probate" and

"Deputy Probate Register." Signed by Malloy and Williams but not signed by Voiland or
Koschnick.
B. 16PR91 - failure of COC to follow Voiland orders; post-its from Sandy Williams