If there are any legalfags around, I have two questions about the transcript:
1) THE COURT introduces himself as "Commissioner Jason Mishelow". He also says: "Both parties have the right to appeal my decision to the judge". Does that mean this hearing wasn't actually in front of a judge, but rather just some court employee (or whatever the hell a commissioner is)?
2) How on earth is it legal for a defendant to be served just 1 hour before the hearing starts, with no time to hire representation etc.? That's kinda scary. Kudos to Andrew for holding his own despite that,
A "commissioner" is just a lawyer appointed by the court to handle some set of duties, like preliminary hearings, all the way up to full trials, depending. They're essentially what are usually called magistrates, although they might have some specifically Wisconsin quirks.
Judges operate on their own schedule and things like emergency hearings that go to court immediately break it. So they use magistrates. If you lose, you can appeal to the judge who they're operating under, and the judge will review the matter de novo.
This means Pat could have another hearing on this, but I think that would be stupid. He was asking for emergency relief, and even if he got that in a summary hearing, it would just result in the initial order being issued, which would then be nearly immediately subject to review in a full hearing.
I'm pretty sure Nadolsky consented to that, but many of these kind of hearings are ex parte, the defendant has never even been served, and isn't served until after it's granted. These emergency orders dissolve automatically after a short period of time because they're ex parte, raising serious due process issues.
So these emergency orders generally don't count against your permanent gun rights and other things if they're immediately dissolved. I think there was little danger of losing gun rights in this case, but if you care about those rights, you have to take any threat to them very seriously.
Attached is the form order you'd get if the judge signed it. As you can see there actually is a checkbox for whether your firearm rights are restricted in the interim, which is also, according to the form, no more than 14 days after the grant of the TRO.
At that time, the defendant has a right to challenge the decision in a full injunction hearing, in which the court decides whether to issue a temporary injunction pending the rest of the trial, after which the court decides whether to make it permanent, or for some limited period of time.
The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order, or vacate it under changed circumstances.
So if Pat did get de novo review of this, he'd just get the TRO at the very beginning and then have to go for a full injunction within 14 days if Nadolski fights it. That will involve a plenary hearing and if Pat can't manage to get his shit together enough to handle a hearing that women with the shit beat out of them manage to do without lawyers every day, he's genuinely out of his element.
this transcript has me in fucking stitches. the judge absolutely roasted the two of them and having none of it.
Nadolski scored some points by admitting his behavior was foolish. Not trying to bullshit the judge can make a huge difference if his decision is based on the credibility of the parties.