The Wisconsin Judicial Commission has again filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Supreme Court against Winnebago County Circuit Court Judge Scott Woldt, alleging the judge “engaged in misconduct,” by making degrading comments during his 2023 campaign and subsequently threatening lawyers who practiced in his court, as well as by making  condescending comments to a psychiatrist of Filipino descent offering expert testimony.

In a statement to the media, Judge Woldt’s legal counsel has disputed the allegations against him.

This is the second time Judge Woldt has had a complaint lodged by the judicial commission to the state’s highest court. In 2021, he was suspended for one week without pay due to a series of incidents from 2009 to 2016 involving “undignified” language he used in court and an incident where he revealed to visiting high school students a gun that he had in his possession.

The latest complaint filed on Aug. 3 cites three different issues.

On March 9, 2023, Woldt was interviewed on the “Eye on Oshkosh” YouTube platform, responding to questions during his campaign for another term as judge. During the interview, he was asked about tattoos on his body, and he explained the tattoos helped him avoid being recognizable as a judge, and he also noted that several death threats had been made against him.

Woldt said when asked in public whether he is a judge, his response would be, “I’m a sanitational (sic) engineer. I deal with society’s garbage.”

The WCF found Woldt’s language clashed with Supreme Court rules that compel judges to “promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” and “observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved.”

The complaint also alleges that after Woldt won his April 2023 reelection, three attorneys say Judge Woldt was resentful of them for not supporting his campaign and implied there would be retribution in his court.

Some of the allegations stem from an April 25, 2023 after-work social event at the Ruby Owl Tap Room near the courtroom. The complaint said the judge told a public defender, “Your office [the Public Defender’s office] has made some grave mistakes, and you made the worst [by not endorsing his campaign].”

The complaint says another attorney tried to shake Judge Woldt’s hand, but Woldt said the attorney had a campaign sign for Woldt’s opponent in his yard and reportedly said there would be consequences for supporting the opponent, reportedly adding, “You’re dead to me,” and advising the attorney to inform his clients of this position between the attorney and the judge.

The complaint states that the attorney asked Woldt how the situation could be made right, and the Judge reportedly responded: “This election personally cost me $28,000; write out a check and we are all good.”

According to  a May 1, 2024 story in the Oshkosh Herald by Bethanie Gengler, “the state judicial ethics panel has rarely acted on complaints,” notes an attorney by the name of Mathew Goldin from Oshkosh had filed a formal request for investigation to the judicial commission over a request for funds from Woldt. The investigation request became public when it was filed as an exhibit to a motion to have Woldt substituted as the presiding judge in a case involving Goldin.

The August 3 complaint cites another attorney who said he had declined a request by Judge Woldt for a campaign contribution, and later, when the attorney visited the judge in his chambers, Woldt reportedly told him “the free passes” for being late to court were no longer going to be offered.

The third situation involves a civil commitment case where the complaint describes an “experienced and local psychiatrist” of Filipino descent, acting as an expert witness, who was questioned by Woldt whether the doctor understood English or had hearing difficulties because Judge Woldt perceived she hadn’t stood up when Woldt entered the court.

The complaint cites Judge Woldt as saying, “From now on, when you come into a court of law and the bailiff says all rise, you better get off your butt. Do you understand me?”

The complaint cites probable cause with five Supreme Court rules that require judges to the following:

* 60.02: “to personally observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary will be preserved.”

* 60.03 (1): “to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

* 60.04 (1) (d): “to treat those with whom they deal in an official capacity with patience, dignity, and courtesy.”

* 60.04 (1) (e): “to perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.”

*60.05 (1): “to conduct all of their extra-judicial activities so that they do not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge or demean the judicial office.” 

The complaint said Judge Woldt was given notice of the allegations and had an opportunity in writing and a formal appearance before the judicial commission to present his side before the complaint was filed.

In response to media requests for a statement, Judge Woldt’s attorney provided the following statement:

“Judge Woldt has vigorously contested these charges since they were first raised and denies any wrongdoing of any kind. He has fully and properly performed his duties as a judge and, in his statements as a private citizen, has done nothing that any private citizen would not have done in exercising his constitutional right of free speech. He looks forward to complete exoneration consistent with the earlier determination by the bipartisan Election Commission, which rejected the similar complaints filed with it.”