DA Review Exposes Franklin’s Retaliation Machine: Police Surveillance and a Weaponized Restraining Order at the Center of Wisconsin’s SLAPP Crisis
by Dr. Richard Busalacchi – Franklin Community News
FAST FACTS
-
DA Review Confirmed: Open records show the Milwaukee County DA’s Office is reviewing Mayor John Nelson’s conduct, first reported by FCN on Oct. 28, 2025 and picked up by TMJ4 the next day.
-
Anti-SLAPP Spotlight: Days earlier, Rep. Jim Piwowarczyk warned Wisconsin is seeing “frivolous lawsuits targeting First Amendment-protected speech” used to silence activists and journalists.
-
Alleged Retaliation: Within 24 hours of the DA review going public, Nelson posted booking photos, attacked the reporter, and — according to filings — officials circulated restricted law-enforcement images.
-
Weaponized Restraining Order: Court records show a single misdemeanor based solely on speech. Filings say the restraining order was obtained with help from Nelson, Taylor, Vincent, and Zimmerman — then used to reframe criticism as criminal conduct.
-
Unauthorized Surveillance: A Supplemental John Doe filing alleges Franklin Police accessed and forwarded the reporter’s recorded jail calls without subpoena or jurisdiction, at Nelson’s direction.
From Regional Story to Retaliation — and the Making of a SLAPP Case
A small-town investigation became a textbook example of how retaliation can evolve into a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).
What followed in Franklin — the Facebook attack, the posting of booking photos, the alleged circulation of restricted law-enforcement database images, and the unauthorized access and sharing of my recorded jail calls by Franklin Police despite having no jurisdiction over the underlying case — became a real-time illustration of the very abuses Piwowarczyk said his anti-SLAPP bill was designed to prevent. Rather than address the filings or correct the record, Nelson targeted the reporter who broke the story and, according to sworn filings, continued to solicit information from police unrelated to any active investigation. It was a textbook SLAPP response: when the facts are uncomfortable, the process becomes punishment, and criticism of public officials becomes the target of official power.
Within twenty-four hours, regional media confirmed that the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office was reviewing those filings, turning a city story into a regional issue about government accountability and free speech.
Rather than engage the evidence or clarify the record, Mayor Nelson responded with personal attacks on the reporter.
That reaction—public shaming after lawful reporting—mirrors many SLAPP cases: the process itself becomes punishment, and speech about public officials becomes the target of official power.
What Is a SLAPP — and Why It Matters Here
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation is any legal or procedural action intended not to win on the facts but to intimidate or exhaust someone for exercising First-Amendment rights.
Most states with anti-SLAPP statutes let judges dismiss these actions early and award fees to the target; Wisconsin does not.
That gap leaves citizens and journalists exposed when legal tools are turned against criticism.
The problem came into focus after a recent press release confirmed the DA’s review of conduct described in the filings first reported by Franklin Community News, coverage that regional outlets expanded the next day.
The Facebook Attack
The day after that press-release coverage spread, John Nelson posted on a community Facebook page, naming the reporter, citing the pending appeal, and publishing booking photos while calling him a “convicted criminal.”
The image above lawfully obtainable, but their timing and intent—coming just one day after the DA-review coverage—showed deflection and retaliation from Nelson, not transparency. The image below, allegedly obtained by Nelson and shared with Supervisor Taylor, Supervisor Vincent and Alderwoman Eichmann was obtained by taking a "picture" of a law enforcement only secure system.
Residents quickly labeled the post “vindictive” and “unprofessional.” The comments didn’t rebut facts—they illustrated the pattern described in the filings: retaliation following exposure.
The Covert Retaliation: Sharing Law-Enforcement Data
Sworn statements in John Doe Case No. 2025JD000011 allege that restricted database images containing personal information, believe to be obtained unlawfully by Mayor Nelson and shared with Supervisors Taylor and Vincent in addition to Franklin Alderwoman Eichmann, months before the post.
The filings claim this conduct misused public resources and violated privacy protections.
Court filings show that the 2024 case produced a single misdemeanor conviction for allegedly violating a restraining order.
The reporter was never charged with harassment, stalking, threats, or violence; the prosecution rested entirely on written expression and online commentary—speech protected by the First Amendment.
According to the filings, the restraining order itself was not obtained in isolation.
Vincent later told colleagues that she, Supervisor Taylor, Mayor Nelson, and Mike Zimmerman CEO of ROC Ventures, helped the complainant secure the order.
A transcript excerpt from the Waterford investigation records have Nelson stating:
The SLAPP Pattern
The documents outline a governmental SLAPP: using restraining orders, citations, prosecutions, and social-media attacks to punish speech rather than to resolve genuine legal disputes.
Escalation Through Process — Charges, a Warrant, and What Judge Yamahiro May Decide Next
The filings argue that the restraining order at the heart of this case has been repeatedly used as a political weapon rather than a legitimate protective measure. That became unmistakable when charges were filed and a warrant was issued, only to be removed the very next day. Nothing about the underlying facts changed in those 24 hours — the filings frame the episode as an attempted escalation, followed by a retreat once scrutiny intensified. It is the precise pattern Representative Piwowarczyk warned about: the use of legal process itself as punishment.
In fact, the prosecution never claimed harassment, stalking, violence, contact, or pursuit. The entire basis was speech — written commentary and online criticism — conduct typically protected by the First Amendment. The filings argue the restraining order became the mechanism to reframe speech as criminal conduct, and later as justification for escalating actions like the warrant and the posting of booking photos.
What Judge Yamahiro’s Upcoming Conference Could Determine
With the matter now before Judge Glenn Yamahiro, the upcoming status conference is not a procedural formality — it could define the trajectory of the entire case. Based on what is typically within the court’s authority at this stage, several outcomes are possible:
1. A ruling on whether the injunction (or requested injunction) will move forward or be dismissed.
If the court finds that the filings demonstrate misuse of process, lack of legal basis, or retaliatory motive, Judge Yamahiro could deny the injunction or vacate components of it.
2. A determination on whether the restraining order was improperly obtained or applied.
The judge may examine:
• whether the order met statutory criteria,
• whether key statements or evidence were misleading or incomplete,
• and whether political or professional assistance compromised the integrity of
the process.
This could result in modification, limitation, or full dismissal of the order.
3. A directive requiring parties to produce additional evidence or sworn statements.
This may include transcripts, communications, metadata, or other documents relevant to:
• the warrant issuance and withdrawal,
• the decision-making behind the charges,
• and the alleged involvement of public officials.
4. Consideration of sanctions or referrals.
If the court concludes that the legal process was abused or weaponized, Judge Yamahiro could:
• issue sanctions,
• make referrals to professional oversight bodies,
• or schedule an evidentiary hearing on potential misuse of office.
5. Scheduling of a full evidentiary hearing.
If the court believes the allegations raise substantial questions, he may order a hearing with testimony, evidence, and cross-examination — effectively putting the restraining order and the surrounding actions on trial.
Why This Moment Matters
The overnight filing and removal of charges underscores the filings’ argument: that the restraining order was never supported by harassment, stalking, or threats — instead, it was leveraged to justify political retaliation. Judge Yamahiro’s upcoming conference is the first time a court will meaningfully evaluate not just the order itself, but the pattern of escalation built around it.
It is, in many ways, the inflection point of the entire case.
New Evidence: Franklin PD’s Unauthorized Access to Jail Calls — and Nelson’s Alleged Role
Recent filings in the Supplemental John Doe Petition add a new and deeply concerning layer to the pattern of retaliation. According to Exhibits 65–80, Franklin Police detectives accessed and forwarded the reporter’s recorded jail calls to Milwaukee County prosecutors without a subpoena, without jurisdiction, and without any lawful predicate.
This is especially significant because the restraining-order case was never a Franklin Police Department case.
It originated with the Greendale Police Department, was investigated by Greendale officers, and was referred to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office without any involvement from Franklin PD.
Yet, the records show that Franklin PD — particularly Detective Brian Zalewski — continued monitoring, collecting, and forwarding information anyway, even after sentencing, without referral or authority. According to the filings, this occurred not because Greendale requested assistance, but because Mayor John Nelson allegedly directed Franklin PD to stay involved, monitor communications, and feed information to ADAs Witte and Schoepp.
One email chain cited in the petition shows Zalewski sending recordings and summaries to ADA Witte, who responded that while the information was “good to know,” she wanted to be “kept updated” — despite the case being fully resolved and wholly outside Franklin’s jurisdiction. The petition describes this as unauthorized surveillance of protected speech and an illegal search under Wisconsin’s wiretap statutes.
Crucially, the jail-call summaries included no threats, no harassment, and no unlawful content — only expressions of frustration and commentary about public officials. Even so, the recordings were collected, reviewed, shared, and used to maintain political pressure long after the legal case had ended.
This new evidence supports the filings’ broader allegation: that the restraining order was used as an entry point for a larger campaign of political retaliation, and that Franklin PD acted not as an independent law-enforcement agency, but as an extension of Mayor Nelson’s ongoing efforts to “keep tabs” on a critic. The petition explicitly claims that Nelson maintained direct contact with detectives, requested investigative updates, and even influenced revisions to probable-cause narratives — actions that, if proven, would represent a profound misuse of public office.
Once again, this behavior tracks the exact dynamic that Rep. Piwowarczyk warns against in his anti-SLAPP legislation: the weaponization of legal process to punish protected expression.
The South Milwaukee Motion — Blueprint for Abuse
The South Milwaukee Motion to Dismiss (Aug 18 2025) recounts that Mayor Nelson, County Supervisor Taylor, and Franklin Alderwoman Eichmann pressed police to issue a disorderly-conduct citation after prosecutors declined charges over a political blog.
Direct comments from Nelson and Eichmann in the police report also included in the motion:
The police report and motion also notes that Supervisor Taylor directed police to reference the previous complainant—though she had no link to the blog—so she could testify at a later hearing.
Subsequent motions seek findings of bad-faith prosecution and ethics referrals, arguing that due process was turned into punishment.
Public vs. Private Retaliation
The filings describe twin strategies—public attacks meant to discredit reporting and private influence over law-enforcement and administrative processes.
Legislative Context — Wisconsin’s Chance to Act
Proposed adoption of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act would let courts dismiss meritless speech-targeted actions early.
The filings suggest reform must also address retaliatory prosecutions and official misuse of power.
The Constitutional Stakes
When authority is used to punish critics, the First Amendment’s guarantees are inverted; free expression becomes a liability.
Conclusion — From Regional Story to Statewide Reckoning
The court filings contend that coordinated actions by multiple officials transformed judicial process into a political weapon.
They invoked a single mother of two and the resulting conviction to rationalize continued retaliation.
Repeated claims of “fake news” remain unsupported; requests for corrections have gone unanswered.
The documents argue that comprehensive anti-SLAPP reform is the only way to prevent similar abuses of process in Wisconsin.
Author’s Note
He advocates for expanded anti-SLAPP and due-process reforms in Wisconsin.
“The greater good isn’t a slogan — it’s a responsibility. The truth is the foundation on which democracy stands.”
Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.
Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.
💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.
Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable
— for the greater good.
© 2025 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.
Comments
Post a Comment