Newly unsealed court filings out of Wisconsin dropped a political bombshell Tuesday, detailing serious allegations of judicial misconduct by Dane County Circuit Court Judge John Hyland — the man presiding over one of the Left’s latest lawfare operations against Trump-world attorneys. According to the filings, Hyland didn’t even write his own ruling. Instead, he allegedly outsourced the job to a retired judge with a long-standing grudge.
And when asked to step aside because of it?
Hyland essentially shrugged and said: Trust me.
(Which in Dane County might be the least reassuring phrase a litigant could hear.)
A Judge With a “Grudge” — And a Conveniently Timed Election-Year Trial
Trump’s former Wisconsin recount attorney Jim Troupis — along with co-defendants Kenneth Chesebro and Trump aide Michael Roman — face outrageous, politically-charged forgery and fraud accusations for pursuing a routine and historically used legal strategy: filing contingent electors while an election challenge was pending.
Democrats suddenly call it a “fake elector scheme,” despite their own party using the tactic in past elections.
And in perfect coincidence — one that would shock absolutely no one paying attention — the trial timetable is positioned right in prime election-year territory leading into 2026.
The Smoking Gun: Someone Else’s Style, Someone Else’s Keyboard
According to the newly unsealed documents, Hyland’s August order rejecting the defense’s dismissal motion wasn’t his work. Instead, it showed the fingerprints — stylistic, structural, and apparently literal — of retired Judge Frank Remington, a man who, according to the filings, was “not a fan” of defendant Jim Troupis back when they served on the same bench.
Defense attorneys didn’t just make the claim — they brought in an expert: Georgetown linguistics professor Natalie Schilling, one of the field’s leading forensic specialists.
Her analysis? Hyland’s ruling was dripping with Remington’s “distinct style” and “sardonic tone,” almost as if it had been copied-and-pasted from the retired judge’s playbook.
One more detail:
Metadata from the order contained the name of Remington’s son — who had clerked on the case.
That’s not just a red flag. That’s an air-raid siren.
The Judge’s Response? Nothing to See Here
Hyland’s reaction to all this? A flat denial.
He insisted that no one other than himself and his staff attorney wrote the ruling, and he assured defendants he harbors no animus toward them.
Translation:
Ignore the fingerprints, the stylistic match, the metadata, and the conflict of interest — because I said so.
The Fog of Partiality
Let’s be honest: in deep-blue Dane County, the idea that Trump allies will get a neutral courtroom is about as believable as Adam Schiff apologizing for the Russia hoax.
And that’s exactly what this case is — a local chapter in the Democrats’ broader lawfare campaign. A political redo of 2020 designed to drag Trump’s allies through the courts during peak campaign season, remind voters of the “threat to democracy” narrative, and keep the media feeding frenzy alive as long as possible.
Attorney General Josh Kaul, who waited years to file these charges — and waited until Trump locked up the GOP nomination — wants this trial in the spotlight right as Americans head into the 2026 midterms.
Convenient timing. Too convenient.
The Stakes
Troupis, Chesebro, and Roman could face decades in prison for something that has been treated as standard legal procedure in past elections — all because this time the Democrats decided it was criminal.
And now, with mounting evidence that the presiding judge relied on someone with an open, documented personal grudge against a defendant, the defense argues that any promise of a “fair trial” in Dane County is a political fairy tale.
The Left keeps calling it justice.
But the fingerprints — stylistic and metadata alike — tell a very different story.
