By Jim Fetzer, Ph.D.
[Editor’s note: For a review of the book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook (2015; 2nd ed., 2016), see “Brian Wright, Review: Nobody Died at Sandy Hook”. For a report on the trial for damages (from someone who was there), see Kevin Barrett, “The Legal Lynching of a Truth-Seeker: Jim Fetzer’s Stalinist-Style Show Trial”.]
For most Americans, the courtroom is the place where facts matter, evidence is heard, and disputes are resolved through a fair and transparent process. But after eight years navigating the Wisconsin courts as a pro se litigant, I have learned a more sobering truth: procedure can be used not to illuminate facts, but to avoid them. And when that happens, the right to be heard becomes a formality rather than a safeguard.
My experience is not unique. It is, however, unusually well‑documented — and raises troubling questions about how Wisconsin courts handle evidence, how they treat unrepresented litigants, and how easily the judicial system can close its doors without ever confronting the issues before it.
In 2019, the Dane County Circuit Court granted summary judgment against me in a defamation case. Summary judgment is supposed to be used sparingly, and only when there are no disputed facts. Yet in my case, the court refused to admit or consider the evidence I submitted, then declared there were “no disputed facts” because the evidence had been excluded. That is not a neutral application of the law. It is a procedural maneuver that effectively turned summary judgment into a non‑jury trial — without the safeguards of a trial, without the rules of evidence, and without the opportunity to present a defense.
When a court can exclude evidence and then rule that no dispute exists, the process becomes circular. And when the court openly states that broader factual questions are “for another day and another place,” but that “other day” never arrives, the litigant is left with no avenue to be heard.
After the circuit court’s ruling, I appealed. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in 2021. When I later filed a Motion to Open Judgment based on extrinsic fraud — a doctrine that allows courts to revisit judgments when a party has been prevented from presenting a full defense — the circuit court denied it. I appealed again.
This time, the Court of Appeals did not issue a full opinion. Instead, it used summary disposition, a procedural shortcut intended for simple cases where the outcome is obvious. My appeals were dismissed in a few pages, without oral argument, without addressing the substance of the issues, and without engaging the procedural irregularities I raised. Two appeals. Two summary dispositions. No meaningful review. When appellate courts rely on shortcuts, the promise of review becomes hollow.
Throughout this process, I have been reminded repeatedly that pro se litigants face steep disadvantages. Courts expect perfect procedural compliance from people with no legal training. Judges often assume pro se arguments are “undeveloped,” even when supported by documents. Evidence can be excluded on technical grounds, then the absence of evidence is used against you. Appellate courts can dispose of your case without ever reaching the merits. This is not a complaint. It is a structural reality — one that affects thousands of Wisconsin citizens every year. When the system is not designed for unrepresented people to succeed, justice becomes a privilege rather than a right.
In April 2026, I reached out to the Dean of the University of Wisconsin Law School. I asked whether the school — or any faculty member — might be interested in examining my case as a live example of procedural breakdown in Wisconsin courts. The Dean declined, through a staff member, eight days later. This was disappointing not because I expected representation, but because the case presents a rare opportunity for students and scholars to study how summary judgment, evidentiary exclusion, and appellate shortcuts can combine to undermine due process. If the state’s flagship law school will not engage with real‑world examples of judicial dysfunction, who will?
My case is one example, but the implications are broader. Wisconsin courts increasingly rely on summary judgment, unpublished opinions, summary disposition, and procedural shortcuts to move cases quickly through the system. Efficiency is important. But efficiency cannot come at the expense of fairness. When courts refuse to consider evidence, refuse to allow discovery, and refuse to engage with the issues on appeal, the right to be heard becomes an illusion. And when institutions that should care — including law schools — decline to engage, the problem deepens.
The Wisconsin judiciary must confront these issues openly. We need clearer standards for summary judgment, limits on the use of summary disposition, meaningful appellate review, and a commitment to ensuring that pro se litigants are not shut out of the process. These are not partisan demands. They are the foundation of due process. If Wisconsin is to maintain public trust in its courts, it must ensure that justice is not only done, but seen to be done — and that every citizen, represented or not, has a fair chance to be heard.
Jim Fetzer, Ph.D., McKnight Professor Emeritus on the Duluth Camus of the University of Minnesota, resides in Oregon, WI.
