Former Milwaukee County Judge Receives $5,000 Fine in Federal Case; Wisconsin Appeal Continues in Case She Presided Over
By Richard Busalacchi
Publisher, Franklin Community News
"The interest of the community is that the Court gives orders... that the public understands that the Court will enforce injunction orders... For the confidence of the community that when the court says something, they mean it."
— Judge Hannah Dugan, November 22, 2024
Those were the words of then-Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan as she sentenced me to 75 days in the Milwaukee County House of Correction, rejecting a joint recommendation from both the prosecution and defense that I receive probation. I ultimately served 35 days after receiving good-time credit, but the conviction and sentence continue to be challenged through Wisconsin's appellate courts.
Today, Judge Dugan returned to court—not as the judge imposing sentence, but as the defendant.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman sentenced Dugan to a $5,000 fine and imposed no prison sentence following her federal conviction. In explaining the sentence, Judge Adelman cited Dugan's decades of public service, lack of prior criminal history, and concluded that incarceration was unnecessary under the circumstances. News reports indicate the court viewed her conduct as a significant departure from an otherwise law-abiding life.
Although the two cases are legally unrelated, the juxtaposition is striking. One courtroom involved Judge Dugan explaining why incarceration was necessary to preserve respect for court orders. The other involved Judge Adelman concluding that a financial penalty—not incarceration—was the appropriate punishment for a former judge.
A Case That Is Still Active
My criminal conviction remains under review by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in State of Wisconsin v. Richard Alan Busalacchi, Case No. 2026AP001341-CR.
The appeal challenges both my conviction and the sentence imposed by Judge Dugan.
In addition, my attorney, Kevin Scott, has confirmed that he intends to file a motion in Milwaukee County Circuit Court seeking to vacate the underlying harassment injunction and stay its enforcement pending further proceedings. That motion presents legal issues separate from those currently before the Court of Appeals.
Judge Dugan's Sentencing Philosophy
On November 22, 2024, Judge Hannah Dugan rejected a joint recommendation from both the prosecution and defense that Busalacchi receive probation.
Instead, she imposed a sentence of 75 days in the Milwaukee County House of Correction.
Busalacchi ultimately served 35 days after receiving good-time credit.
During sentencing, Judge Dugan repeatedly emphasized that the integrity of the judicial system depended upon enforcement of court orders.
She stated:
"The seriousness of the offense is that we have an injunction in place, and it's violated."
She continued:
"The public understands that the Court will enforce injunction orders... when the court says something, they mean it."
Judge Dugan also expressed concern that failing to enforce injunctions would undermine public confidence in the courts.
"We have too many people that don't get injunctions because they think they're not worth anything... that's not in the interest of the community."
Although the court acknowledged that I had no prior criminal record, decades of public service, significant volunteer experience, and a long employment history, Judge Dugan concluded that incarceration—not probation—was the appropriate sentence.
Two Sentencing Hearings
Nearly twenty months later, Judge Dugan appeared before a federal judge for sentencing in her own criminal case.
Judge Adelman imposed a $5,000 fine and no prison time. According to reports from the sentencing hearing, the court relied on several mitigating considerations, including Dugan's lifetime of public service and lack of criminal history.
Both sentencing hearings involved courts weighing punishment, deterrence, public confidence in the judicial system, and the personal history of the defendant.
The outcomes, however, were different.
| Richard Busalacchi | Hannah Dugan |
|---|---|
| Judge: Hannah Dugan | Judge: Lynn Adelman |
| Sentence imposed: 75 days House of Correction | Sentence imposed: $5,000 fine |
| Time actually served: 35 days (good-time credit) | No incarceration |
| Joint recommendation: Probation (rejected) | Court imposed a non-custodial sentence |
| Appeal pending | Federal judgment entered |
The Timeline
May 1, 2023
Fourteen days before the injunction hearing, Franklin Mayor John Nelson submitted a written request to the Greendale Police Department seeking police reports, CAD notes, booking photographs, and other records relating to me dating back to January 1, 2022. The request is dated May 1, 2023.
May 15, 2023
The harassment injunction was issued.
Subsequent Events
A verified John Doe petition later filed by Busalacchi alleges that the restraining-order process, criminal prosecution, and sentencing were influenced by a coordinated effort involving several public officials acting under color of law. The petition seeks appointment of a special prosecutor and a John Doe investigation. Those allegations have not been adjudicated.
July 2024
During a sworn deposition in a separate matter, Mayor Nelson acknowledged assisting in obtaining the underlying injunction and testified that he later contacted Milwaukee Area Technical College regarding Busalacchi's employment.
Nelson also acknowledged meeting with Busalacchi and arranging a meeting with the Franklin Police Chief. The parties dispute the purpose and significance of those discussions.
November 22, 2024
Judge Hannah Dugan imposed a 75-day House of Correction sentence after rejecting the parties' recommendation for probation. Busalacchi ultimately served 35 days after receiving good-time credit.
Following the Sentencing
The John Doe materials include a contemporaneous text message in which the sender recounts that Franklin Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann allegedly stated that Steve Taylor had "worked it out (timed it with Chisholm) so Rich would be locked up over Christmas." The message is included among the materials supporting the John Doe petition. The allegations reflected in that message have not been adjudicated.
2026
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reopened Busalacchi's appeal.
Attorney Kevin Scott has confirmed that he intends to seek an order vacating the underlying injunction and staying its enforcement.
The verified John Doe petition remains pending.
The Public Debate Continues
As Judge Dugan awaited federal sentencing, discussion of Busalacchi's case continued publicly.
On July 7, 2026, Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor posted on the Franklin WI Political Debate Facebook page referring to Busalacchi as a "convicted criminal who was a resident of MY county jail." Franklin Community News has preserved a screenshot of the post.
Taylor's statement came while Busalacchi's conviction remains on appeal and while additional legal proceedings challenging the underlying injunction are being prepared.
Taylor is among the public officials identified in Busalacchi's verified John Doe petition. Taylor has denied wrongdoing, and the allegations contained in the petition have not been adjudicated.
A Sworn Affidavit Raises Additional Questions
The verified John Doe petition is supported by multiple exhibits, including a sworn affidavit from an individual who describes conversations and observations involving public officials before and after the injunction proceedings. The affidavit was submitted to support the petition's request for a judicial investigation under Wis. Stat. § 968.26. The statements contained in the affidavit are allegations submitted in support of that request and have not been adjudicated.
According to the affidavit, Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor allegedly discussed efforts related to the underlying injunction and subsequent criminal proceedings. The affidavit also alleges that Milwaukee County Supervisor Kathleen Vincent was present during certain conversations and describes statements concerning contacts with the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office and other public officials.
The affidavit further recounts an incident in which the affiant reports that Judge Hannah Dugan was asked about the pending case and allegedly declined to discuss it because she was the presiding judge.
Those statements are among the materials supporting the pending John Doe petition, which asks a court to determine whether further investigation is warranted. No court has made findings regarding those allegations.
Sworn Deposition Testimony
Among the records now available is sworn deposition testimony given by Franklin Mayor John Nelson during a separate Waterford Police Department investigation.
During that testimony, Nelson acknowledged under oath that he assisted in obtaining the underlying harassment injunction.
When asked whether he helped obtain it, Nelson testified:
"I helped her obtain it against him."
Nelson also acknowledged contacting Milwaukee Area Technical College regarding Busalacchi's employment after receiving an email from Busalacchi's MATC account.
Later in the deposition, Nelson acknowledged meeting with Busalacchi and arranging a meeting with the Franklin Police Chief. The parties dispute the purpose and significance of those discussions.
The Questions That Remain
The issues surrounding my case have not been resolved.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals will determine the legal issues raised in my appeal.
The Circuit Court will ultimately determine the merits of Attorney Kevin Scott's anticipated motion to vacate the injunction and stay its enforcement.
Separately, the verified John Doe petition asks whether additional investigation is warranted into allegations that public officials misused governmental authority during the events leading to the injunction, prosecution, and sentencing. Those allegations remain unadjudicated.
Judge Hannah Dugan's federal conviction neither proves nor disproves those allegations, nor does it determine the outcome of my appeal.
What today's sentencing does provide is an opportunity to reflect on the principles Judge Dugan herself articulated from the bench.
When she sentenced me, she emphasized that public confidence in the courts depends upon accountability and respect for judicial orders.
Those same principles apply to everyone entrusted with the administration of justice.
A Reflection on Judicial Accountability
When Judge Dugan sentenced me, she emphasized that the community must have confidence that courts enforce their orders and that "when the court says something, they mean it."
Judge Adelman, sentencing Dugan in federal court, concluded that the purposes of sentencing were satisfied without imprisonment and imposed a financial penalty instead.
The two proceedings reached different outcomes, but both underscore an enduring principle:
Public confidence in the justice system depends on accountability, transparency, and the consistent application of the rule of law.
Editor's Note
Richard A. Busalacchi is the publisher of Franklin Community News and the defendant-appellant in Wisconsin Court of Appeals Case No. 2026AP001341-CR. His appeal remains pending. The allegations described in the verified John Doe petition are contained in a court filing seeking further investigation and have not been adjudicated by any court. Former Judge Hannah Dugan's federal criminal case is unrelated to Busalacchi's appeal, except that she presided over his criminal sentencing.
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.
💬 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment