Neupert has ethical issues. He has issues with truth-telling. He demonstrates poor judgment and even poorer timing. He has no judicial experience unless you count his time substituting for Rick Porter- -at taxpayer expense.
One ethical issue involves a lawsuit brought by Neupert against a local resident. While Neupert was working in the previous re-election campaign for Rick Porter he filed suit against Richard Wade demanding $766 for a veterinarian bill because Wade’s dog bit Neupert’s dog. Never mind the fact that the dogfight was initiated when Neupert’s dogs were on Wade’s property uninvited. While not at fault as soon as the vet bill was due Wade offered to pay half of it.
Neupert wouldn’t stand for it and, for the $380 still on the table, he filed suit in Porter’s court–while working in Porter’s re-election campaign. Neupert did not ask his buddy Porter to recuse for possible bias. They were going to take Wade for a ride on the “good ole boy bus.”
Wade is not your average defendant. He is a retired police sergeant. He knows his way around a courthouse and knows what justice is supposed to look like.
The lawsuit went to mandatory mediation where Wade again offered to cover half the vet bill. Neupert again refused and again sought “justice” in Porter’s court.
Once again Porter is on the bench when the case comes back for trial. By this time Wade is wise to the ways of this charade and bounced Porter from his case with an affidavit of prejudice.
Porter then brings in Judge Jill Landis from Jefferson County. She too is listed as active on Porter’s re-election campaign. Now we have the scenario where two members of Porter’s campaign are aligned against Wade for a paltry $380 veterinarian bill. Neither does Neupert ask Landis to recuse for appearance of bias. Wade questions Judge Landis who denies she is on Porter’s re-election campaign and assures Wade she will act in an unbiased manner–and she does.
She shoots down Neupert’s legal arguments explaining to him that his supposed precedent-setting cases are about dogs attacking livestock and not about dogfights. Case closed. Even so, Wade once again offers to pay half the vet bill–and does.
It is still a mystery as to why Judge Jill Landis is listed by Neupert as active in Porter’s Campaign when she denies knowing her name is on the forms filed with the Election Commission. She did point out her name is misspelled on the form.
In summary: Neupert demonstrates poor judgment by bringing a case before his buddy Porter without asking him to recuse.
He shows poor timing– bringing a case fraught with potential embarrassment just before Porter’s re-election. He shows poor grasp of the law by bringing two supposedly precedent setting cases into his argument which have no bearing whatsoever on his case. He shows poor ethical decision-making by bringing a case before his buddy, Porter while simultaneously working to get Porter re-elected.
Finally, he shows he is truth-challenged. Recently Neupert appeared before a group of senior citizens seeking their vote. When asked about the dog-bite case he suggested he could not discuss it because there was a confidentiality agreement within the settlement. He further suggested Wade could not be trusted because he had violated a confidentiality agreement that never existed.
Surely this is not the man you want anywhere near the halls of justice and certainly not on the bench.