The Wisconsin judge presiding over a criminal case targeting attorneys who represented the 2020 Trump campaign allegedly had outside help from a former judge with a "grudge," according to court documents unsealed Tuesday.
Explosive filings made public in Dane County Circuit Court lay out accusations of judicial misconduct against Circuit Judge John Hyland, who is overseeing felony charges brought by Democrat Attorney General Josh Kaul against Donald Trump-aligned attorneys and a campaign aide.
The defendants — Trump recount counsel Jim Troupis, attorney Kenneth Chesebro, and former Trump aide Michael Roman — argue the prosecution is political "lawfare" timed for maximum impact heading into an election cycle.
At the center of the new dispute is an August order that rejected the defendants' attempt to dismiss the case.
According to the unsealed motion described by The Federalist, Troupis' counsel alleges retired Dane County Judge Frank Remington played a substantial role in drafting that ruling — a claim the defense says would violate judicial ethics and Wisconsin law, and create an appearance of bias given Remington's alleged personal animus toward Troupis.
"Judge Remington was (to put it mildly) not a fan of my client," Troupis attorney Joe Bugni wrote in the court filings, according to The Federalist.
Bugni contends Remington had reason to hold a "grudge" from their time in practice and as colleagues on the bench.
To support the allegation, the defense enlisted Georgetown University forensic linguistics expert Natalie Schilling, who reviewed Hyland's order and compared it to prior writings attributed to Remington.
Schilling concluded the decision bore a "distinct style," including a first-person structure and "sardonic tone," that she said matched Remington's prior orders.
The defense also claims a law clerk's name — identified as Remington's son — appeared in the order's metadata, raising further questions about who authored or circulated drafts.
Hyland rejected the accusations and refused to step aside, according to an Associated Press report.
In a written decision, Hyland said he was "satisfied that no person other [than] the assigned staff attorney and I had a hand in drafting or editing" the August ruling.
He also said he harbored "no personal animus or prejudice toward any of the litigants" and could be fair and impartial.
The judge also declined to cancel or delay proceedings, keeping a preliminary hearing on track as the case moves forward.
The defendants face 11 felony charges each tied to the alternate-elector strategy pursued during Trump's challenge to the 2020 results in Wisconsin — charges they argue criminalize legal advocacy and political activity.
While legacy outlets describe the matter as a "fake elector" scheme, conservatives note similar theories and legal contingencies have surfaced in prior disputed elections, and argue the aggressive prosecutions are selectively aimed at Trump's allies.
The defense is now signaling a broader fight ahead — not only over the facts, but over whether a deeply liberal venue can deliver what Americans increasingly doubt is possible in high-profile political cases: a truly fair trial.
Newsmax Wires contributed to this report.
Charlie McCarthy ✉
Charlie McCarthy, a writer/editor at Newsmax, has nearly 40 years of experience covering news, sports, and politics.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.