Judge-y· transparency in the courtroom

Hon. Karl Schmidt

District · Minnesota

725 Courthouse Square, Suite 406, St. Cloud, MN 56302

★★★★☆ 4.2 1 review
Open in Judge-y app →

Recent reviews

★★★★☆ Litigant

Judge Karl Schmidt exemplifies judicial integrity and respect for constitutional protections. In my experience, he ensured that due process was followed, recognized procedural errors, and acted to correct them. His conduct reflected a deep understanding of the law and a commitment to fairness. Unfortunately, subsequent administrative actions and other officials did not uphold the same standards, but Judge Schmidt’s rulings stood out as lawful and principled. Legal Knowledge: Applied procedural law correctly, ensuring proper service and adherence to rules. Fairness & Impartiality: Demonstrated consistent respect for due process and constitutional rights. Judicial Temperament: Maintained professionalism and calm demeanor even under administrative pressure. Communication: I regret that I never received Judge Schmidt’s order at the time it was issued. I believe this was an administrative oversight rather than his fault. Had I known proceedings were continuing regarding me and my children, I would have participated and ensured clarity. Despite that, Judge Schmidt’s approach reflected respect for due process and constitutional protections, even when others in the system did not uphold those standards. Timeliness: Another issue that deeply affected my ability to participate was the incorrect suggestion that I had been evading service. That claim was never true, and I was never given an opportunity to respond to Judge Schmidt or correct that false framing. Yet that narrative became the basis for using service by publication — and even then, the publication was not allowed to run the required three‑week course.Because the court relied on this inaccurate assumption, my later motions to address and correct the improper service were dismissed as if the underlying issue had already been resolved. In reality, the court’s own misunderstanding created the very barrier that prevented me from being heard. This was not due to any action by Judge Schmidt; rather, it stemmed from administrative and procedural failures that were never corrected.