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.

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/