I just want to say that Michael Haakenson is the Gardian Ad Litem on my childrens case. They have been abused by their father and his now wife for years, and Mike has not spoken to any of my kids about this. The abuse has been brought up in court and he ignores it. If Mr. Haakenson cannot protect children, how can he protect anyone as a judge? Jack Hoag, my ex's attorney. Jack protects my ex while knowing he physically abuses the children. The Court Commissioner McCrory knows as well. What kind of a person, especially a court commissioner, who has children of her own, protect a child abuser and deny the mother rights to her children for almost 3 years? All because she sides with Jack Hoag. Do you really want a court commisssioner who picks and chooses which favorite attorney it is and that is how the deciding judgement is. I have it all documented and in black and white if anyone feels free to challenge what I have just said!

I've had the displeasure of interacting with Tod O. Daniel ever-other day for about a year. He was probably the rudest person I've ever met in my life. I don't support him and when friends ask me who I support and who I do not support he is the one I tell them never to vote for.

http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/2011/12/0...

Is that you, Tod?

Looks like Jack Hoage likes to race around! http://wcca.wicourts.gov/pager.do;jsessi...

Looks like a lot of his courtroom experience has been spent defending himself! With his blatant disregard for the law, how can we trust him as a judge? I will be voting for someone else.

@avidreader. Same thing.happened here. My ex had daniels and I had hoag. Before court one day hoag, daley, and daniels all talked about their plans together for the night's basketball game. I thought they could have made their plans together in private. Then, after our final court hearing,neither hoag nor daniels ever filed the court papers they needed to. The child support never started, then eventually I was held in contempt to court because the weekedn visits were mixed up. Hoag had made huge mess. I had to get the minutes and get a lawyer out of Rock County to straighen it out. It took another year of court hearings.We finally got it all squared away in front of McCrory. I stuck my bill to Hoag, telling him why and that I would report him to the bar if he disagreed he must have dropped the bill. I welcome anyone who would like to email me to about my story. I welcome the chance to tell it because I am sure I am not the only one. I, like avidreader, got screwed, by letting my ex get off without paying what he should have been. There is definitely things in Rock County that should be investigated. I do not feel hoag or daniels are the answers. This is my story.

@avidreader
I'm sure they got around it since you never actually paid any money to Daniel, but that really is an unethical conflict of interest by divulging all your information to Daniel only to have your Ex wind up with him to face you in court. I hope other readers pay special attention to your post. When Daniel is in it all for the money that is not the type of person we should be electing as Judge.

I have only had experience with Daniel and Hoag. When the now ex turned violent, I needed a divorce lawyer. I went to Daniel first. His free consultation was pretty much, "let's see how much money you can come up with and I will see what I can do for you". I went to Hoag next. He not only took my case with no money up front, he helped me get a restraining order with what little money I did have. Of that I am thankful but when it came to the actual divorce proceedings I got a very strong feeling that he just didn't care if we won or lost and when I saw him and the opposing attorney, who just happened to wind up being Daniels, walking out of the courthouse together and laughing it up, I got a sick feeling in my stomach. I have gotten the impression that Hoag was the right divorce lawyer if you were a man, but not the best if you were a woman. Every man I know who had him as a divorce lawyer took their ex-wives to the cleaners. I barely got out of my marriage with the clothes on my back, but I did get out alive. I do appreciate that he helped get me a restraining order when I needed it, but after that he didn't have much time or use for my case.

Tom McDonald- A little too young and inexperienced. He didn't graduate from law school until 2007. I don't think 4, going on 5 years as an attorney is enough preparation for the job he is looking for. I think a lot of people still remember him for his excessive use of a cell phone/PDA's while at city counsel meetings and George Brunner had to step in as a dad and tell him to put his toys away. I wonder if he would do that on this job?

Harry O'Leary- I have never met him to my knowledge but don't we already have a David O'Leary as a D.A.? Is this any relation? They look very similar.

Jack Hoag- I probably run into him the most. Like all attorneys he is pretty quiet and reserved although he's become more chipper in the last couple months since his announcement to run for Judge. He at least gets out and has a personal life so a lot of people see him and I have never known him to have a bad attitude or anything. I won't go as far to say he is the best option, but I would rank him above a few of these candidates.

Tod Daniel - He's like the polar opposite of McDonald. He has the experience and the knowledge on paper, but holy cow is this guy mean! I have a close relative that had him as an attorney and this guy yells and screams at his clients, degrades them, and his law office secretary hangs up on people when she doesn't want to hear any more. I was witness to this myself on many occasions. We don't need another Judge Forbeck in the courthouse. I'm not much of one for campaign signs but I'm willing to make my own "Don't vote for Tod Daniel" sign and stick that in my own front yard.

Mike Haakenson - I have never met him to my knowledge. To make a better decision of character I would like to hear from some children who have had him as a guardian ad litem over the years as I have seen some good ones and other ones who sit there and work on other people's cases while sitting in court as guardian ad litem which is basically like double billing.

Barbara McCory - She's been in the courtroom making Judge-like decisions since 1999. She sees divorces, child abuse, restraining orders, etc. But her job limits her on certain rulings. I don't she her too much as a power hungry individual by wanting this job. I think there's a certain void she wants to fill where she can come down harder on those who need it instead of making a pit stop through her courtroom before heading to the Judge's Courtroom.

My thoughts are a lot like the one Harry O'Leary uses above. I don't have a single criminal charge and have never been required to be in a courtroom but I have been in a lot of courtrooms as a young adult because of a divorce case of my parents and car accident litigation case and I have seen a lot of "negatives tactics" used by other Judges. I'm glad to see Welker going and hope that Forbeck soon follows. It has always amazed me that these Judges can speak some B.S. cryptic language with attorneys but yet lack so much common sense.

justmy- My issue with Hoag has nothing - at all- to do with ability to pay. I spent years as a social worker, and am the biggest advocate of equal rights you could ever meet.
+
My issue with Hoag is his taking cases that hold no merit. He has represented individuals that, in my opinion, he should have known had no real case. People whose claims were asanine, or whose accusations were simply absurd.
+
To me, it is immoral to take someone's money if you know - or fully expect- that the case will be thrown out of the court and never heard.
+
That is what I am referring to. Of course, we all have the right to due process and should all have the ability to defend ourselves. A decent attorney will tell you if you don't have a case. Only a dishonest person would take money for something that they know you hold very little to no chance to win.

ladulce, so people who you don't approve of, or can't pay, should not be allowed to participate in the legal system? They cease to have constitutional rights? What if tomorrow you were unjustly accused by the next door neighbor's three-year old kid of sexually assaulting them. The kid just makes it up to get attention from his/her parents and you happen to be the one he/she accuses. Many in this county hate sex offenders and the minute you were arrested, according to your own logic you would be on your own. A qualified attorney like any of the above should refuse to handle your case. Don't think this doesn't happen--not too long ago the police arrested and splashed to the media the wrong guy in a sexual assault. I also know of a person whose got paid $50 by a third party to make up a sexual assault accusation to get some guy in trouble. He was also arrested and held until his alibi checked out and she confessed to the payment for prosecution scheme. Hoag, Haackenson, Daniel's and other attorneys make sure that the government in all it's unlimited power, plays by the rules and respects the rights of all citizens. Unlimited power corrupts.

Jack Hoag is the best and he takes cases whether or not you have money He represents his clients to the fullest, regardless of ability to pay or not. He is community involved and is a fact based guy and deserves this postion in the Judicial system. Jack My Vote is Yours.

I have worked with nearly all of the candidates and some point or another. My opinion is this:

O. Daniel is too ruthless and tough, almost uncaring...

Hoag will take any case- regardless of its merit- if you can pay, Hoag will represent you- which I find immoral.

I am indifferent to the others, except Haakenson. Mike is wonderful- he and his mother have done a lot to better the community. I have seen him work as a guardian ad litem and has always been professional, thorough, and caring.

Hands down- Haakenson gets my vote.

And are you implying that Mike Haakenson wouldn't?

Looks like some dentist's ad on the home page.

Hey Gazette...why don't you zoom in a little closer.

Tom McDonald and Jack Hoag would both be impartial and make excellent judges!

Seriously...

Jack Hoag is a nice guy. I like Jack Hoag.

He may have the requisite knowledge as an attorney....but he does not have the intestinal fortitude that a good judge should possess.

Jack Hoag is more concerned about Jack Hoag than he is or ever has been about his clients...and that will not change if he is detrimentally elected judge.

Sorry Jack....you are just not judge material.

On the other hand...Mike Haakenson is.

Jack Hoag for Judge!!!