“Clean and Innocent”? State Review Sought in John Doe Case Involving Nelson, Taylor and Vincent

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

NOT SO FAST

Celebrating a little early Steve "It's all Fake News" and Kathleen "It's All a LIE!" Vincent.

A Milwaukee County John Doe case involving multiple local officials has been marked “closed” in the court system—but official records show the matter has not been resolved and has instead been formally referred to the Wisconsin Department of Justice for potential state-level review.

On March 31, 2026—the same day the case was administratively closed in CCAP—the Milwaukee County District Attorney notified the court that his office had requested the Wisconsin Department of Justice to assume responsibility for handling the case.  

That same day, the Chief Judge’s office confirmed the request and stated the court would “provide a prompt update once we hear back from the DOJ.”  

Together, these records show that the case was not concluded on its merits, but instead transitioned out of the local court process and into potential state-level review.

A Formal Process—Not a Dismissal

The John Doe petition followed a defined statutory path under Wisconsin law.

After the filing in September 2025, the Chief Judge referred the matter to the Milwaukee County District Attorney pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 968.26(2)(am) for review.  

That step required the District Attorney to evaluate the materials and determine whether further action was warranted.

Over the following months, additional filings were submitted, including amended and supplemental materials expanding the scope of the allegations and supporting documentation.

The March 31, 2026 referral to the Department of Justice represents the next step in that process—not its conclusion.

What “Closed” Actually Means

The “closed” designation in CCAP reflects an administrative disposition, not a legal determination.

According to the Clerk of Courts for Chief Judge Carl Ashley, John Doe filings that do not proceed to a formal inquiry are often administratively closed after a period of time as part of routine case management. This type of closure is procedural, not substantive, and Wisconsin law does not impose a fixed deadline requiring it. No court ruling was issued addressing the substance of the claims.

In this case, the administrative closure occurred simultaneously with the District Attorney’s request to the DOJ, underscoring that the matter was not decided but redirected.

Referral to the Department of Justice

The District Attorney’s letter makes the status of the case clear:

the office has “formally submitted a request to the Department of Justice to assume responsibility for handling the above-referenced case”  

The court separately confirmed it is awaiting a response from the DOJ, indicating that the next decision rests with the state.

Such referrals typically occur when a matter involves:

• multiple public officials
• potential conflicts within the local jurisdiction
• or issues requiring independent review

At this stage, no determination has been made. The matter remains under consideration.

Individuals Named in the John Doe Petition

The John Doe petition identifies several public officials and individuals in connection with the allegations described in the filing.

Those named include:

• Steve Taylor – Milwaukee County Supervisor
• Kathleen Vincent – Milwaukee County Supervisor
• John Nelson – Mayor of Franklin
• Michelle Eichmann – Franklin Alderwoman
• Mike Zimmerman – Business owner
• John Chisholm – Former Milwaukee County District Attorney
• Hannah Dugan – Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge
• Joe Russ – Community member and social media administrator
• Grant Johnson – Individual referenced in the filing

No court has made findings regarding any of the individuals identified in the petition, and the allegations

What the John Doe Petition Alleges

The petition outlines a series of allegations describing what is characterized as a coordinated pattern of conduct involving public officials, law enforcement, and related individuals.

According to the filings, the allegations include:

• Use of legal processes, including restraining orders and related actions, in ways alleged to impact protected speech
• Filing and use of reports and complaints that are described as incomplete, inconsistent, or misleading
• Influence over how investigations and enforcement decisions were initiated and carried out
• Use of information and materials in court proceedings without full disclosure
• Coordination between multiple individuals across different roles and institutions
• Actions taken in response to reporting, public commentary, and civic activity

The filings frame these issues not as isolated incidents, but as part of an alleged continuing pattern involving process, decision-making, and institutional response.

Supplemental Filings and Additional Evidence

Subsequent filings expanded on the original petition with additional materials obtained through public records requests, testimony, and documentation.

According to those filings, the additional materials include:

• Police reports in both redacted and unredacted form
• Audio recordings and interview evidence obtained after initial denials
• Sworn testimony from law enforcement personnel
• Internal communications relating to how complaints were handled
• Affidavits from multiple individuals confirming facts

These materials are presented as providing additional factual context and support for the broader claims outlined in the petition.  

Alleged Procedural and Structural Concerns

The filings also raise broader concerns about how the matter was handled across multiple stages.

These include:

• Questions regarding the interpretation and application of underlying legal orders
• Claims that decisions were based on incomplete or inconsistent documentation
• Allegations of overlapping roles and potential conflicts of interest
• Concerns about coordination occurring outside traditional investigative processes

Taken together, the filings frame the issue as involving not only specific actions, but also how legal and governmental processes were applied.

Additional Allegations of Ongoing Activity

A December 2025 submission to the court and related oversight bodies further expands on the claims, describing what is characterized as continued activity occurring alongside legal and administrative proceedings.

According to that filing, the petitioner alleges:

• Actions occurring in close proximity to ethics-related proceedings
• Use of public communications and reporting as the basis for further responses
• Continued involvement by individuals connected to the underlying matter

The submission presents these developments as part of the same broader pattern described in earlier filings and reinforces the request for independent review.  

Public Statements and Ongoing Discussion

Public discussion of the case has continued following the March 31 filings, including social media commentary from individuals named in the John Doe petition.

Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor has referenced the matter in posts on both his personal social media page and in the “Greendale Under the Bubble” Facebook group in a manner suggesting the case had been resolved seeming to celebrate a bit early with County Supervisor Kathleen Vincent at Ray and Dot's in Greendale.

However, official court records and correspondence from both the District Attorney and the Chief Judge’s office indicate that the matter has been referred to the Department of Justice and remains under review.

The administrator of the “Greendale Under the Bubble” group, Joe Russ, is also named in the John Doe petition. No court has made findings regarding any individuals identified in the filing.

What Happens If the State Moves Forward

If the Wisconsin Department of Justice determines that further action is warranted, the case would not resume under the original John Doe filing.

Instead, it would proceed through a new legal pathway, which could include:

• A formal criminal case filed in circuit court
• A state-led investigation conducted outside of court
• Or the initiation of a new proceeding under state authority

The current administrative closure does not prevent further action. It reflects only that the original filing is no longer being handled as an active court inquiry.

What Happens Next

The Wisconsin Department of Justice now has discretion to determine whether to:

• conduct further review
• request additional information
• initiate an investigation
• or decline to proceed

There is no required public timeline for that decision.

Until that determination is made, the central issue raised by the John Doe petition remains unresolved.

Bottom Line

The record is clear:

The case was administratively closed the same day it was formally referred to the State of Wisconsin.

That is not the end of the matter—it is a transition point.

And for now, both the court and the District Attorney are waiting for what comes next.

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/