On Fitzpatrick is likely choice for judge

Posted on September 11 at 9:42 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

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

On Firefighter's union files lawsuit

Posted on May 20 at 11:19 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

Is this the same Janesville firefighter who attempted to bilk an elderly Beloit woman out of a million dollars in real and personal property in 2004? If so, why is he still even employed by the City of Janesville? I for one would not want this individual in my home as a paramedic when I was most vulnerable. I think the Gazette should tell the rest of the story.