Nelson, Domestic Abuse Claims, and a Record of Unresolved Allegations

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

John Nelson, the mayor of Franklin, has faced a series of serious allegations spanning both his personal life and law enforcement career. While a 2023 domestic incident at his home did not result in charges against him, subsequent claims, firsthand accounts, and a documented history of unresolved misconduct investigations raise broader questions about a pattern that has yet to be fully examined.

Nelson has denied all allegations of misconduct and wrongdoing.

The 2023 Domestic Incident

On August 28, 2023, police were called to Nelson’s residence in Franklin in what was classified as a domestic violence-related disorderly conduct incident. Due to Nelson’s position as an elected official, the Franklin Police Department requested that the Greenfield Police Department handle the investigation to ensure neutrality.

👉 Greenfield Police Report

According to the police report, Nelson’s ex-wife, Jacqueline Nelson, alleged that he had physically assaulted her, claiming she was thrown to the ground, held by the throat, and struck multiple times. However, officers noted inconsistencies in her account and described her statements as scattered.

Nelson told officers that Jacqueline had entered his home without permission using a garage code and became aggressive. He stated that any physical contact was limited to separating her from another individual inside the residence.

That third individual was identified as Jacquelynn Evans, Nelson’s girlfriend at the time, who was present in the home at the time. Evans, who works as a bartender at the Irish Cottage II in Franklin, told police that Jacqueline forced entry into a bathroom where she had retreated and physically attacked her. She reported hearing Nelson repeatedly tell Jacqueline to leave the home.

Officers documented visible scratches and bleeding on Nelson’s arms and hands. No visible injuries were observed on Jacqueline at the scene.

Jacqueline Nelson was ultimately arrested for disorderly conduct related to domestic abuse. John Nelson was not charged. According to the report, Nelson told officers he did not want her prosecuted and “just wanted her to get some help.”

The case was referred to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office, but no prosecution followed.

Beyond the Police Report

While the police report reflects the outcome of a single incident, subsequent allegations raise additional concerns that were not part of that investigation.

In 2024, I met with Jacqueline Nelson at First Watch in Oak Creek. During that meeting, she made direct allegations that John Nelson had physically abused her, referring to him as a “wife beater.” She showed photographs on her phone that she said documented injuries — including blackened bruising and cuts to her face and neck — which she attributed to Nelson.

I personally observed these images at the time. Additionally, I have confirmed that at least two other individuals have also seen the same photographs.

These allegations, and the images described, were not part of the August 2023 police report.

A Broader Pattern in Law Enforcement Career

The concerns surrounding Nelson are not limited to this incident.

During his time with the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office, Nelson was the subject of an internal investigation involving misconduct allegations. He resigned from the department before the investigation was completed, preventing any final determination from being publicly established.

Years later, while serving as a lieutenant with the Waterford Police Department, Nelson again became the subject of a formal investigation. The allegations — reported by multiple news outlets and discussed publicly — included claims of sexual harassment, inappropriate conduct toward female officers, and creating a hostile work environment.

The number of allegations was significant, with reporting indicating nearly 20 separate claims.

Nelson was placed on administrative leave during that investigation. However, he ultimately retired before the investigation concluded.

Public Scrutiny and Denial

In response to the growing controversy, Nelson held a public town hall meeting in 2025 to address the allegations tied to his time in Waterford.

At that meeting, Nelson denied all allegations, characterizing them as false and politically motivated attacks.

However, reporting from multiple outlets indicated that the complaints came from multiple officers, with some suggesting that fear of retaliation may have contributed to delays in reporting.

As with his prior position at the Sheriff’s Office, the investigation into Nelson’s conduct in Waterford ended without a formal conclusion following his departure.

A Pattern of Unresolved Allegations

Taken together, the record presents a consistent pattern:

• Multiple misconduct investigations across different agencies

• Repeated departures from positions before investigations were completed

• Allegations involving harassment, inappropriate conduct, and abuse

• At least one documented domestic disturbance involving conflicting accounts

• Additional firsthand allegations and photographic evidence not included in official reports

While the August 2023 police report did not result in charges against Nelson, the broader context raises questions about whether all allegations involving him have been fully documented, investigated, or resolved.

Unanswered Questions

The combined record leaves several key questions:

• Were there additional incidents of alleged abuse that were never formally reported?

• Why were alleged injuries documented in photographs not part of any official investigation?

• Does the repeated pattern of resignation during active investigations prevent full accountability?

• Have all individuals with knowledge of these incidents been fully heard?

Conclusion

John Nelson has consistently denied wrongdoing. However, the combination of a documented domestic incident, subsequent firsthand allegations, and a career marked by unresolved investigations presents a pattern that warrants further scrutiny.

At minimum, the record suggests that multiple serious allegations — across personal and professional contexts — have never reached a definitive public resolution.

Editorial: When Allegations Follow a Pattern, the Public Deserves Answers

At some point, the question stops being about any single allegation — and starts being about the pattern.

Franklin Mayor John Nelson has repeatedly found himself at the center of serious accusations, both in his professional career and personal life. On their own, any one of these incidents might be explained away, disputed, or dismissed as unproven. But taken together, they tell a different story — one that deserves closer scrutiny from the public.

The August 2023 domestic incident at Nelson’s home is a prime example. The official police report did not result in charges against Nelson, and in that moment, the available evidence appeared to favor his version of events. That fact matters, and it should be acknowledged.

But it is not the whole story.

Outside the confines of that report are additional allegations — including claims from his ex-wife, supported by photographs that multiple individuals have now seen, depicting injuries she attributed to Nelson. Those images were never part of the police investigation. That gap alone raises serious questions.

More importantly, this incident does not stand alone.

During his time with the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office, Nelson was under investigation before resigning prior to its conclusion. Years later, as a lieutenant in Waterford, he again became the subject of a formal investigation involving nearly 20 allegations, including sexual harassment and misconduct. Once again, he left his position before the investigation was completed.

This is not coincidence. It is a pattern.

Investigation. Allegations. Departure before resolution.

That pattern matters because it prevents something critical: accountability. When investigations end without conclusions, the public is left without answers. Allegations remain unresolved. Facts remain incomplete. And those in positions of authority are able to move forward without a clear determination of what occurred.

Nelson has denied all allegations against him, and that denial is part of the record. But denial alone does not resolve the underlying questions — especially when those questions arise repeatedly across different roles, departments, and contexts.

Public officials are held to a higher standard for a reason. Trust is not just about what can be proven in a single report or investigation — it is about confidence in judgment, conduct, and transparency over time.

When the same types of concerns surface again and again, the burden shifts. It is no longer enough to point to the absence of a single charge or a single finding. The public has a right to ask whether the full picture has ever truly been examined.

At minimum, the record surrounding John Nelson shows this: multiple serious allegations, across multiple settings, that have never reached a definitive public resolution.

That should concern anyone who believes in accountability in public office.

Because when patterns emerge and questions go unanswered, the issue is no longer just about the past — it is about whether the public can trust what remains unresolved.

This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.

Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.

🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.

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.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/

Franklin Police & Fire Commission Co-Chair Resigns After Complaint Targets Mayor Nelson’s Alleged Influence

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

A formal complaint alleging political influence, selective enforcement, and investigative misconduct inside the Franklin Police Department has now triggered something rare—and significant: the resignation of the Co-Chair of the Police & Fire Commission.

But the resignation did not come over what the complaint alleged.

It came over how the system handled it.

The complaint, filed January 31, 2026, outlines what it describes as a pattern of conduct involving political involvement in policing decisions and loss of investigative independence  . A supplemental filing adds internal communications obtained through public records requests showing direct contact between elected officials and police leadership during periods when enforcement activity escalated .

Those allegations alone raise concerns.

What followed inside the oversight body raised even more.

A Pattern, Not a Single Incident

The complaint does not rely on a single continuous sequence. Instead, it presents multiple episodes involving police engagement, investigative activity, and enforcement decisions.

According to the complaint:

• In some instances, police or prosecutors declined to pursue charges after review

• In other instances, enforcement action proceeded through separate mechanisms, including municipal processes

• Across these episodes, escalation is alleged to have occurred after involvement by elected officials, rather than through independent law enforcement judgment 

Taken together, the complaint argues these events show:

a pattern of selective enforcement and politically influenced policing.

It further alleges that:

• Residents critical of city leadership were investigated or cited

• Comparable conduct by elected officials was not treated the same way

That disparity is presented as evidence that enforcement was not applied uniformly, but instead influenced by political context  .

Internal Communications and Political Coordination

A supplemental filing strengthens those claims with internal records obtained through public records requests.

According to that filing:

• Emails show communication between Mayor John Nelson and Police Chief Craig Liermann

• Additional exchanges involved other elected officials and police leadership

• These communications occurred “contemporaneously with, or immediately preceding, enforcement actions” 

The filing also describes a targeted internal records request initiated by Nelson seeking:

• Communications involving specific named critics

• Emails tied to a local news outlet

Rather than a broad inquiry, the request focused on identified individuals and was processed through city administrative channels  .

The complainant argues these records show:

coordination between political leadership and police during key enforcement periods.

The Administrative Center: Kelly Hersh

At the center of the administrative process is City Administrator Kelly Hersh, whose office plays a key role in the flow of information across city government.

Records place Hersh:

• In email communications with Mayor Nelson and other officials 

• Within the administrative chain through which records requests were processed

• Involved in distributing complaint materials and coordinating Commission scheduling

Hersh also has documented political ties to Nelson, including prior involvement in his campaign and her appointment after he took office.

As Director of Administration—the city’s chief administrative officer—her position places her at the center of:

• communication between departments

• records handling

• and the administrative processing of complaints

The complaint does not allege specific misconduct by Hersh. However, it raises the question of whether:

administrative processes operating under politically connected leadership remained independent during the events described.

Breakdown Inside the Oversight Body

The concerns did not stop with policing or administration. They extended directly into the Police & Fire Commission itself.

On February 28, Commission President Franco Mineo informed the complainant that he was recusing himself due to a conflict of interest and that Vice President (later Co-Chair) Thomas Klusman would serve as the Commission’s point of contact.

Nearly one month later, on March 23, when the complainant followed up, Klusman responded that he:

• he was not serving in that role and had resigned from the commission

Mineo later stated he was “looking into the issue,” without explaining how the reassignment occurred without the knowledge of the official identified as responsible.

For nearly a month, the complaint remained in limbo—assigned to a commissioner who in his letter identified that he received some part of the letter on February 18 from Mr. Mineo, by his own account, had never been  "assigned" the matter by Chair Mineo.  Chair Mineo continued to control the agenda and scheduling.

Resignation at the Top

Klusman’s resignation reveals that the breakdown was not limited to communication—it extended to the integrity of the complaint process itself.

In his resignation letter, Klusman identifies multiple failures:

• The complaint was not properly distributed to all commissioners, including himself

• It was not placed on an agenda for timely review

• There was a significant delay in addressing it

• Sensitive materials were shared beyond appropriate channels, including with individuals connected to the complaint

👉 KLUSMAN RESIGNATION LETTER 

Drawing on more than 25 years of law enforcement experience, including internal affairs work, Klusman described these issues as violations of basic investigative standards.

He did not resign over the allegations.

He resigned over the process.

Rather than participate in what he viewed as a compromised system, he stepped down.

As Co-Chair of the Commission, his resignation carries particular weight:

it reflects a loss of confidence in the system responsible for ensuring police accountability.

A System Under Strain

Taken together, the complaint, supplemental filing, internal communications, and resignation point to a system under strain:

• Political officials communicating with police leadership during enforcement periods

• Administrative systems handling records, communications, and complaint materials

• Investigative activity that did not result in charges, alongside continued enforcement actions

• Oversight mechanisms that failed to process a formal complaint in a coordinated or timely manner

The complaint also raises concerns about:

• monitoring of communications without resulting charges

• delays in records production

• and refusal to revisit investigative decisions

The Question Facing Franklin

Police & Fire Commissions are designed to ensure independence—to act as a safeguard between political authority and law enforcement power.

But in this case, the concern is not just what was alleged.

It is how the system responded.

Bottom Line

This is no longer just a complaint about policing.

It is a convergence of:

• alleged political influence

• administrative involvement at the highest levels of city government

• documented communication between officials and police leadership

• and a resignation from within the oversight body itself

Whether the allegations are ultimately substantiated remains to be determined.

But one fact is already clear:

When the leadership of the oversight body resigns over process concerns, the issue is no longer just the complaint—it is the integrity of the system reviewing it.

This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.

Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.

🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.

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.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/

WI ELECTIONS & ETHICS COMPLAINTS FILED: NELSON CAMPAIGN ACCUSED OF FALSE ENDORSEMENT IN MAILER

 

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Two formal complaints have now been submitted to state authorities regarding a campaign mailer distributed by the Friends of John Nelson committee to households across Franklin.

The complaints—filed with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission and the Wisconsin Elections Commission—allege that the mailer contains a false statement presented to voters as fact, along with additional misrepresentations about the nature of published materials.

Copies of both complaints have also been provided to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office for Public Integrity review.

At the center of both complaints is a single, explicit claim printed on the mailer:

“ENDORSED BY BUSALACCHI”

In context, that statement refers to an alleged endorsement of John Nelson’s opponent, Basil Ryan.

That statement is false.

I did not endorse Basil Ryan—or any candidate.

As of this week, the race has further changed with former Franklin Mayor Steve Olson announcing a write-in candidacy, underscoring the evolving nature of the election and further highlighting the inaccuracy of any claim of endorsement.

BACKGROUND: “FAKE NEWS” — WITHOUT A SINGLE CORRECTION

This filing does not occur in a vacuum.

For months, Mayor John Nelson and others have publicly dismissed Franklin Community News as “fake news,” while continuing to attack its reporting.

In response, prior reporting challenged those claims directly:

• Identify one false statement

• Provide a correction

• Show the evidence

That has not happened.

Instead, the pattern has been:

• Label reporting as “fake”

• Avoid addressing specific facts

• Attack the source rather than the record

The current mailer represents a shift from rhetoric to something more concrete:

👉 A printed claim delivered to every household as fact

TWO COMPLAINTS — TWO LEGAL TRACKS

While both complaints arise from the same mailer, they address different areas of Wisconsin law.

ETHICS COMMISSION COMPLAINT (CHAPTER 11)

False Attribution in Campaign Communication

The complaint filed with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission focuses on campaign communication law, specifically:

👉 Wis. Stat. § 11.1303

This statute prohibits false representations in campaign communications, including falsely attributing endorsement or approval.

The complaint alleges that:

• The mailer explicitly attributes an endorsement that did not occur

• The statement is not implied—it is direct and unambiguous

• The use of my name creates a false impression of political support

The complaint further notes that:

• A campaign disclaimer does not excuse false statements

• Wisconsin law explicitly provides that disclaimers do not shield false or misleading representations

This filing asks the Ethics Commission to determine whether the campaign violated state campaign communication laws.

ELECTIONS COMMISSION COMPLAINT (CHAPTER 12)

False Representation Affecting an Election

A second complaint has been filed with the Wisconsin Elections Commission under:

👉 Wis. Stat. § 12.05

This statute prohibits knowingly making a false statement pertaining to a candidate that is intended or tends to affect voting at an election.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission has authority under Wis. Stat. § 5.05 to investigate such matters, issue subpoenas, and pursue enforcement actions.

KNOWLEDGE AND CONTEXT MATTER

The mailer does not simply make a claim—it also states:

“Residents deserve background information on retaliation brochure”

This language shows the mailer was created in direct response to a publication associated with me.

That matters.

Because it demonstrates:

• The campaign was aware of the publication’s content and nature

• Despite that awareness, it still printed:

  “ENDORSED BY BUSALACCHI”

The Elections Commission complaint states that this supports a reasonable inference that the statement was made:

• With knowledge of its falsity, or

• With reckless disregard for the truth

WHAT THE PUBLICATION ACTUALLY WAS

The publication referenced in the mailer was an informational advocacy card distributed to Franklin households, and it included the Franklin Community News name and logo.

It was based entirely on:

• Public records

• Court filings

• Police reports

• Verified media sources

Under Wisconsin law, this type of communication constitutes issue advocacy, not voter advocacy.

Issue advocacy provides information about public officials or public matters but does not advocate for the election or defeat of any candidate.

By contrast, voter advocacy—also known as express advocacy—includes communications that explicitly urge voters to support or oppose a candidate using language such as “vote for,” “elect,” or “defeat.”

The publication at issue did not contain any such language and did not instruct voters how to vote.

Accordingly, it was informational in nature and did not constitute an endorsement of any candidate.

The campaign mailer’s statement “ENDORSED BY BUSALACCHI” misrepresents that distinction by converting informational content into a false claim of political endorsement.

WHY THIS MATTERS

This is not about political disagreement.

It is about whether campaign communications sent to voters are accurate.

When a mailer:

• Attributes an endorsement that did not occur

• Misrepresents the nature of documented information

• Presents those claims as fact

…it raises legitimate legal and public accountability questions.

ADDITIONAL REVIEW — PUBLIC INTEGRITY

In addition to the filings with state agencies, copies of both complaints have been provided to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office for Public Integrity.

This allows for review of whether the conduct described may also implicate enforcement under Wisconsin law beyond administrative proceedings.

POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES UNDER WISCONSIN LAW

Under Wisconsin law, violations related to campaign communications and election conduct may result in:

• Administrative enforcement actions by the Ethics or Elections Commission

• Civil forfeitures or penalties

• Referral for further review where appropriate

Under Wis. Stat. § 12.05, false representations affecting an election may also be subject to penalties under Wis. Stat. § 12.60, including fines of up to $1,000, imprisonment of up to 6 months, or both, where applicable.

Any determination regarding violations or enforcement rests with the appropriate state authorities following review.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Each complaint now proceeds on its own track:

• The Ethics Commission will review whether the mailer violates campaign communication laws under Chapter 11

• The Elections Commission may investigate whether a false statement affected voters under Chapter 12

Both agencies have authority to:

• Conduct investigations

• Request records

• Pursue enforcement actions

FINAL POINT

This ultimately comes down to a single, verifiable issue:

A campaign mailer told voters:

“ENDORSED BY BUSALACCHI”

That statement is not true.

The question now before state authorities is whether that matters under Wisconsin law.

FULL COMPLAINTS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

For full transparency, copies of the filed complaints and supporting materials are available for public review:

• Wisconsin Ethics Commission Complaint (Chapter 11 — False Attribution):

  👉 Nelson Ethics Commission Complaint

• Wisconsin Elections Commission Complaint (Chapter 12 — False Representation):

  👉 Nelson Election Commission Complaint

Readers are encouraged to review the filings and underlying records directly.

This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.

Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.

🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.

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.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/

FCN “Fake News”? JOHN NELSON - Then Prove It: A Response to Nelson’s Mailer

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

A review of public records, court filings, and official complaints raises questions the mailer does not answer.

A political mailer—authorized and paid for by Friends of John Nelson—was sent to every household in Franklin.

That mailer makes a direct claim:

that I endorsed a political candidate.

That claim is false.

I did not endorse any candidate.

For the record, I am not running for Mayor—I am responding because the truth matters.

This is about whether residents can review public records and ask questions without being misrepresented or targeted.

And more importantly, the mailer does not address the documented information it is trying to discredit.

WHAT I ACTUALLY DID

I helped produce an informational publication.

It did not endorse any candidate.

That publication was based entirely on:

• Public records

• Court filings

• Police reports

• Verified media sources

Every statement included citations and supporting documentation made available to the public.

As the designer of the publication, I permitted the use of the Franklin Community News name, logo, and my P.O. Box for contact purposes.

That reflects my role in producing an informational publication—not an endorsement of any candidate.

This was not advocacy.

This was not a campaign piece.

It was an information publication.

Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the publisher of Franklin Community News, focused on government transparency, accountability, and public records.

His work involves presenting documented information for public review—not endorsing candidates.

FULL TRANSPARENCY — SOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC

A corresponding website was created:

👉 https://www.johnnelsonforfranklin.com/

The site includes:

• Public records

• Court filings

• Media reports (Fox 6, TMJ4, WISN, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, CBS 58, Urban Milwaukee)

• Source documentation

It clearly states:

• Not affiliated with any candidate

• Independent political commentary protected by the First Amendment

Residents are not asked to believe anything.

They are given the records.

WHAT THE MAILER DOES NOT ADDRESS

On September 22, 2025, I filed a verified petition:

Case No. 2025JD000011

Requesting a John Doe investigation into:

• Misconduct in public office

• Conspiracy

• Retaliation

Naming:

• Mayor John Nelson

• Supervisor Steve Taylor

• Supervisor Kathleen Vincent

• Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann

• Mike Zimmerman — CEO, ROC Ventures

• District Attorney John Chisholm

This filing is supported by:

• Affidavits

• Police reports

• Transcripts

• Open records

FORMAL COMPLAINTS

A formal complaint filed January 31, 2026 documents:

• Improper political influence over police

• Selective enforcement

• Failure to investigate elected officials

• Withholding of records

• Loss of investigative independence

An Internal Affairs complaint filed December 12, 2025 further documents:

• Failure to investigate misconduct

• Selective enforcement favoring elected officials

• Escalation of cases without new evidence

• Political involvement in police activity

• Withholding of reports and missing evidence

• Efforts to contact and influence my employer

• Actions tied directly to protected speech

RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC CLAIMS IN THE MAILER

The mailer references legal matters without providing context.

RESTRAINING ORDER MATTERS

The restraining order referenced in the mailer:

• Was not based on physical contact or harm

• Was not directed at any individual through physical interaction

• Involved allegations tied to speech and online activity

There were:

• No allegations of violence

• No evidence of stalking

• No direct or indirect contact resulting in harm

An open records response from the Greendale Police Department confirms:

No reports, citations, charges, warnings, arrests, or convictions indicating stalking.

ADDITIONAL PROCEEDINGS

The mailer references additional proceedings involving the same individual.

These matters are based on:

• Allegations tied to speech and public activity

• Not physical conduct

• Not threats resulting in harm

DISORDERLY CONDUCT CLAIM

The mailer states that I was found guilty of disorderly conduct.

What is not explained:

• The underlying complaint was filed following involvement by elected officials, including:

  • Michelle Eichmann

  • John Nelson

  • Steve Taylor

• The matter involved speech and public criticism

• Police initially determined:

  • No threat existed

  • The speech was protected

After that:

• The matter was escalated

• The District Attorney declined charges

• A municipal citation was issued afterward, as reflected in the record, including statements in the transcript indicating it was issued by order of John Nelson

WHAT THE MAILER OMITS

The mailer presents outcomes without explaining:

• What the underlying conduct actually involved

• How these matters developed

• The role of speech and public activity in each case 

KEY POINT

These matters were not based on violence or harm.

They were tied to speech, online activity, and public criticism.

CLOSING LINE

The mailer lists outcomes without context.

The full record shows how those outcomes were reached—and what they actually involved.

CURRENT LEGAL STATUS

It is also important to understand the current procedural status of the matters referenced in the mailer.

• The conviction referenced in the mailer is currently under appeal

• A motion to dismiss is pending on the current charge identified in the mailer

• A writ of certiorari has been filed regarding the disorderly conduct citation referenced in the mailer and is currently pending before a judge

These matters are actively under judicial review and are not final.

The mailer presents these matters as settled, while multiple proceedings—including those tied directly to the charges it highlights—remain under active judicial review.

ROLE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS

Records, affidavits, and police reports show that the following elected officials were connected to matters underlying the allegations referenced in the mailer:

• John Nelson

• Steve Taylor

• Kathleen Vincent

• Michelle Eichmann

The record reflects:

• Their names appearing in police reports tied to these incidents

• Their involvement in communications related to these matters

• Statements attributed to these individuals describing interaction with law enforcement and the District Attorney’s office

In multiple instances:

• Police reports reference these individuals directly

• Complaints and allegations involve issues tied to speech and public activity

• Subsequent enforcement actions occurred following continued involvement reflected in the record

PATTERN OF INVOLVEMENT

This is not based on a single incident.

Across multiple matters, the same individuals appear:

• In reports connected to the underlying allegations

• In communications tied to enforcement decisions

• In sworn affidavits describing involvement in legal outcomes

• In public statements related to these cases

WHY THIS MATTERS

These matters involve:

• Speech

• Public criticism

• Reporting on local government

The repeated appearance of the same elected officials in matters tied to those activities raises legitimate concerns about:

• The role being played in these cases

• The interaction between political officials and enforcement actions

• Whether these matters developed independently or through continued involvement reflected in the record

KEY POINT

These matters did not arise in isolation.

They reflect repeated references to and involvement by elected officials in incidents tied to speech and public activity.

CLOSING LINE

When the same officials appear across multiple reports, complaints, and proceedings connected to protected activity, it raises a fundamental question about how these cases developed—and why.

EMPLOYMENT IMPACT

Records, including emails and transcripts, show efforts were made to influence my employment at Milwaukee Area Technical College.

Despite that:

• I was not terminated

• I retired with full pension and benefits

SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT

Residents who criticized officials were cited.

Those officials were not.

WHAT THE MAILER LEAVES OUT

The mailer highlights:

• A restraining order

• Court proceedings

• Jail time

It omits:

• How those actions began

• Who was involved

• What the records show

“FAKE NEWS”? THEN PROVE IT

The term “fake news” has been used repeatedly.

But when asked—directly and repeatedly—to identify what is false, there has been no answer.

Not one correction.

Not one identified inaccuracy.

If the information is false, the response should be simple:

• Identify the claim

• Provide the correction

• Show the evidence

That has not happened.

Instead:

• The question is avoided

• The messenger is attacked

• The issue is deflected

The mailer does not identify a single false statement.

It avoids the facts.

THE QUESTION REMAINS

What specific fact is false?

That question has been asked repeatedly.

It has not been answered.

FINAL STATEMENT

I presented documented information.

In response:

• I was targeted

• Charged

• Incarcerated

• Publicly attacked

This was not about safety.

This was not about correcting misinformation.

This was about silencing criticism.

I did not endorse any candidate.

And I will not be silenced.

This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.

Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.

🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.

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.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/