In my experience, Judge Raupp created significant barriers to meaningful participation. He frequently limited my ability to speak, present evidence, or correct factual misunderstandings. When I attempted to raise procedural issues, he cut me off or dismissed the concerns without review. This made it extremely difficult to ensure the court had accurate information before making decisions. Legal Knowledge: In my experience, Judge Raupp did not consistently demonstrate strong command of the procedural rules that protect litigants’ rights. Key statutory requirements — such as proper service, notice, and the opportunity to be heard — were not fully examined before he allowed the case to move forward. This created situations where decisions were made without verifying that the legal prerequisites had been met. Fairness & Impartiality: In my experience, Judge Raupp did not provide a fair opportunity to be heard. When I attempted to present evidence, raise objections, or clarify procedural issues, I was frequently interrupted or prevented from speaking. This limited my ability to ensure the court had accurate information before making decisions. Judicial Temperament: In my experience, Judge Raupp’s demeanor often felt abrupt and dismissive. When I attempted to speak, clarify facts, or raise procedural concerns, he frequently interrupted or shut down the discussion. This created the impression that he was impatient with self‑represented litigants and not open to hearing the full context before ruling. Communication: In my experience, Judge Raupp did not communicate expectations, decisions, or procedural requirements clearly. Key rulings were made without explanation, and prior directions were sometimes vacated or changed without stating the reason. This lack of clarity made it difficult to understand the status of the case or what the court required from me. Timeliness: In my experience, Judge Raupp did not manage statutory timelines in a way that protected due‑process rights. Key deadlines related to service, notice, and hearing scheduling were allowed to pass or were altered without ensuring that the required steps had been completed. This resulted in hearings occurring without proper notice and without verifying that I had been legally served.