First, I doubt that Kimily is a "friend of the Lenstroms". If he(she)was, she would have heard Lillie Lenstrom say many times that she would never sell her son's farm as long as she lived. I never heard Ralph Lenstrom say anything one way or the other. However, I know that Matthew Simpson bragged that he could "get Ralph to do anything he wanted". After his son died, Ralph was a totally different person, easily led by a strong personality who was trying to take advantage of a bad situation.

It never ceases to amaze me how Simpson is able to persuade otherwise intelligent people that he was the victim in this case. The truth, as noted by Judge Welker in a strongly worded opinion and AFFIRMED ONE HUNDRED PERCENT by the Wisconsin Appellate Court AND the Wisconsin Supreme Court, is that he was the victimizer. Judge Welker, by the way, worked for the Brennan, Steil law firm TWENTY YEARS AGO!!!! If there had been some ethical reason for him to recuse himself from the case, the Appellate Court would have remanded the case back for a new trial.

Second, her facts about the trial are wrong. Lillie DID say in court that she DID NOT want to sell the farm to the Simpsons. Ralph's brother also testified that HE HAD NEVER HEARD LILLIE SAY THAT SHE WANTED TO SELL THE FARM TO THE SIMPSONS. Since he also testified that he visited his brother weekly, isn't it reasonable that he would have heard something about the impending sale from Lillie during at least one of these visits?

What Lillie said about the power of attorney was that she DID NOT REMEMBER signing it. However, she also said that she wanted her niece to help her with her finances. The psychogist testified that, based on his testing, he knew that Lillie would NOT have been capable of reading and understanding the land contract.

If Lillie was truly on-board with the sale, why didn't she accompany the other three to the attorney's office. The Simpsons testified that they "left her in the garden" that day. Then, according to Simpson, sometime later, a time which changed several times during the course of the case, Simpson supposedly took her to an ILLINOIS bank to sign the document in front of a notary, who testified that she had no recollection of the event. As the judge pointed out, they had to DRIVE BY the attorney's office in order to get to that bank. A bank employee who was supposedly a witness to this whole charade testified that he had NO RECOLLECTION of this event WHATSOEVER!!!!

I think you people should start getting over this. If you are truly interested in the truth, read the trial transcript, Judge Welker's opinion and finding of fact and the Appellate Court opinion.

To

I cannot think of a better choice. Congratulations, Mike.

One more thing,ok two. I just want to say that NO judge should be allowed to preside over a case that involves his previous law firm. How can that be considered a fair trial? And once again, I have nothing against Mr. Fitzpatrick personally, I was only stating that I hope that he turns out to be a better judge than Judge Welker,a judge that also came from that same prominent Janesville law firm.

Also Cougar21 you stated that "he" retained an attorney and made arrangements for a land contract and that "Ralph" purchased a truck and "he" titled it in Mr. Simpson's name."he" refering to Ralph.The Simpsons didn't do anything, Mr. Lenstrom did. The only thing the Simpson's are guilty of is signing a land contract that Mr. Lenstrom had drawn up to his liking. Anyone that knew Ralph Lenstrom knows he didn't do anything unless he felt strongly about it.He was in his right mind right up until he took his last breath.He was a good man and I wish he was hear to speak for himself.

Cougar21, I'm not against Mr. Fitzpatrick personally, I just hope he's more above board than Welker and won't preside over a case that involves his previous law firm.I was mistaken when I said two attornies from that law firm were "appointed".I meant to say are now judges, not how they became judges. Yes, Welker got elected.But money talks and him and his previous law firm have plenty of money.Yes,I understand that the facts that you read would lead you to believe the Simpsons took advantage of the Lenstroms.No, I am not a Simpson.I am a friend of the Lenstroms.Judge Welker prevented most of the evidence that was in the Simpson's defense from being admitted or just flat out didn't take it into consideration.He even denied them the jury trial they requested.A constitutional right.Do you think people that are guilty of taking advantage of senior citizens would want a jury trial?There was a lot of evidence that wasn't printed in the appeals info that was said and presented on behalf of the Simpsons in the original trial.Such as Mrs. Lenstrom said on the stand during the trial that she never gave her niece power of attorney to handle her affairs, let alone sue the Simpsons in her name. She was unaware she was suing the Simpsons until she was in court and she said that she didn't want to sue them or want the farm back, it belonged to them.She was even deemed competent to make decisions for herself by a doctor for this trial.When Ralph's son died no family members came to help them run their farms.MR. Lenstrom called the Simpsons for help and they ran both farms for FREE for over 3 years and never asked for a thing in return.Ralph wanted to GIVE the Simpsons his son's farm but they declined it.They insisted on paying for it.They wanted to pay him much more than the land contract price but Ralph wouldn't hear of it, he set the price and the terms, not the Simpsons.The Simpson's house was for sale and they planned on paying off the land contract when it sold, not in 30 years.But of course that conveniently wasn't in the appeals records.If the Simpson's were truly trying to take advantage of the Lenstroms, the could have just accepted his offer to give it to them, not INSIST on a LEGAL land contract.It wasn't until Ralph was on his death bed in the final weeks that his wife's niece showed up to "help".When her aunt dies, she stands to inherit both farms and all other assets her aunt owns. That was left out of the records too. Even the Lenstrom's neighbors and Mr. Lenstrom's family testified on the Simpson's behalf.So no, I'm not "clueless" as you say.I'm very informed about the case I referenced.It's just easy for people like you to believe everything you read.Had you of been IN that court room during the original trial you would have seen and heard ALL the facts left out of the appeals courts info.

This is not a comment on Fitzpatrick, whom I am sure is a good choice. I would simply say, however, that I think all such reports should check the public records and find out if the appointee gave any donations to the Governor and to what amount. This is a fact that is relevant and a fact we may want to know when and if we vote in a future election.

kimily, you need to get your facts straight.

First, Judge Welker was never appointed to the bench. He ran for his position and was ELECTED by the voters in the mid or late 1980's. He's since been RE-ELECTED by the voters many times, including in a contested election a few years ago. When I saw your post and knew you were wrong about that, I googled "Lenstrom v. Simpson," actually read the court of appeals decision, and you're wrong about that case, too. The case says:

"Upon the death of their son, Ralph and Lillie Lenstrom inherited his farm. At the time, Ralph suffered from cancer. Shortly after his son’s death,Ralph discovered he was terminally ill. He retained an attorney and made arrangements to transfer the son’s farm property, along with related farmmachinery and personal property, to Matthew and Catherine Simpson. The farm land was valued at $793,000 and was conveyed via landcontract to the Simpsons for $188,750 with no down payment, four percent interest and monthly payments of $500 payable over thirty years. The farmequipment and personal property were valued at approximately $160,000 and were conveyed for $15,300. Ralph also purchased a truck for $32,000 which he titled in Mr. Simpson’s name."

The case goes on to list a whole series of things the Simpsons did to take advantage of the Lenstroms. Sure seems like fraud to me. After reading the case, how anyone could say that "all the evidence" was in the Simpsons' favor is beyond me -- unless your name is Simpson.

Mr. Fitzpatrick must be a good choice for the bench since you're the only person against him and obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Ok, this is at least 2 attorneys from Brennan, Steil, Bastings firm that have been appointed as judges. First Welker, now Fitzpatrick. Hmmmm. Judge Welker failed to recuse himself from a court case that his old firm was representing the plantiff in and gee, the plantiff won (Lenstrom vs. Simpson)despite all of the evidence in the Simpson's favor. Let's see if Fitzpatrick operates the same way. Sometimes I think it's all about who's pockets are getting lined and not about justice. Judge Fitzpatrick, I hope you turn out to be a fair judge in spite of this.

An excellent choice! Congrats, Mike!