¶2 Resch fails to sufficiently develop any legal argument based on concrete references (much less based on proper citations) to pertinent portions of the record and the application of governing legal authority, and I reject her arguments on that basis. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (court of appeals may decline to review inadequately developed issues). Any other approach would require me to abandon my neutral judicial role by becoming Resch’s advocate.
Resch also failed to preserve the issues for appeal because she didn’t give the circuit court an opportunity to address the argument first. (¶3).
Resch was pro se in the trial court and on appeal. While some latitude is granted to pro se litigants, “Resch is not entitled to have this court construct potentially viable legal arguments in her favor, essentially working from scratch based on the record. And I note that this court allowed Resch two chances to submit an adequate brief, which is one more chance than most appellants have.” (¶4).