IRISH COTTAGE SUES CITY OF FRANKLIN, WINS TEMPORARY COURT ORDER AS 30-DAY LICENSE SUSPENSION WAS SET TO BEGIN
Emergency order granted one day before suspension; court docket notes presence of attorney with prior ties to Mayor John Nelson, Supervisor Steve Taylor and Irish Cottage counsel
By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
The Irish Cottage's 30-day liquor-license suspension was scheduled to begin September 1.
Instead, one day before the suspension was to take effect, the Franklin establishment went to Milwaukee County Circuit Court, sued the City of Franklin and obtained an emergency temporary restraining order.
According to Milwaukee County Circuit Court records, Irish Cottage of Franklin LLC filed a petition for writ of certiorari against the City of Franklin on August 31, 2026, challenging the City's licensing action.
The case, Irish Cottage of Franklin LLC v. City of Franklin, Milwaukee County Case No. 2026CV008008, has been assigned to Circuit Court Judge Reyna Morales.
Court records show attorney David Halbrooks appeared for Irish Cottage at an emergency proceeding at approximately 3:18 p.m. August 31.
The docket states:
“Attorney David Halbrooks in court for Irish Cottage of Franklin LLC. Mike Maistelman in Court.”
Irish Cottage requested an ex parte temporary restraining order.
Judge Morales granted the request.
A hearing concerning the temporary restraining order is scheduled for September 18 at 10:30 a.m.
The temporary order does not resolve the merits of Irish Cottage's challenge or determine whether Franklin acted lawfully in imposing the suspension.
But its timing is significant.
The court intervened on the afternoon before Franklin's 30-day suspension was scheduled to begin.
WHAT EXACTLY DID THE JUDGE STOP?
That is one of the first questions that needs to be answered by the controlling written order.
The court docket indicates that a temporary restraining order was granted and that a proposed order was to be submitted. Court records further indicate that Document #9 controls because Document #8 contained an extra page.
The precise language of that signed order matters.
Until the controlling order is reviewed, it would be premature to characterize every action Franklin is prohibited from taking.
What is clear is that Irish Cottage sought emergency judicial intervention immediately before Franklin's suspension was scheduled to begin—and received it.
WAS FRANKLIN REPRESENTED AT THE EMERGENCY HEARING?
Another significant question concerns the City's participation.
The docket specifically identifies Halbrooks as appearing for Irish Cottage and separately records Maistelman's presence.
It does not identify City Attorney Christina Lucchesi or another Franklin attorney as appearing at the 3:18 p.m. proceeding.
That does not necessarily establish that Franklin received no notice.
An ex parte TRO can be considered without the ordinary notice and participation associated with a full hearing, and the docket alone does not establish what communications may have occurred before the proceeding.
But several questions remain:
When did Franklin first learn Irish Cottage was seeking an emergency court order?
Was the City given an opportunity to respond before the TRO was granted?
And, if Franklin had advance notice, why does the docket not identify a City attorney as appearing?
“MIKE MAISTELMAN IN COURT”
The docket contains another unusual detail.
It doesn't merely identify David Halbrooks as appearing for Irish Cottage.
It separately states:
“Mike Maistelman in Court.”
The distinction matters.
The docket expressly says Halbrooks was “in court for Irish Cottage of Franklin LLC.”
It does not say the same thing about attorney Michael Maistelman.
Franklin Community News therefore is not reporting that Maistelman represented Irish Cottage at the proceeding.
But his presence deserves attention because Maistelman has several documented professional relationships that provide relevant context.
MAISTELMAN RECENTLY REPRESENTED MAYOR JOHN NELSON
In January 2026, Maistelman represented Franklin Mayor John R. Nelson in an election-law dispute involving a challenge to Nelson's nomination papers for the April mayoral election.
In a January 11 email to Franklin's City Clerk, Maistelman submitted what he described as:
“Respondent John R. Nelson's Verified Response and Request for Dismissal”
and requested dismissal of the nomination-paper challenge.
That establishes a recent professional attorney-client relationship between Maistelman and Franklin's current mayor.
TAYLOR'S CAMPAIGN PAID MAISTELMAN'S FIRM
Maistelman also represented Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor's campaign during a 2024 nomination-paper dispute.
Urban Milwaukee reported that Taylor's campaign, represented by Maistelman, was prepared to challenge opponent Andrew Matias's nomination signatures before withdrawing its challenge after the Milwaukee County Election Commission rejected signatures Matias needed to remain on the ballot.
Official campaign-finance records provide an additional connection.
Friends of Steve F. Taylor reported paying Maistelman & Associates $1,000 on January 9, 2024 for “Election Commission Challenge/Meeting.”
Thus, Taylor's relationship with Maistelman isn't based merely upon the two men appearing at the same political event.
It was a documented professional relationship involving legal representation and a campaign payment.
A POLITICAL CONTRAST: REPUBLICAN BACKING AND A LAWYER WITH DEEP DEMOCRATIC TIES
There is another interesting political dimension.
Both Mayor John Nelson and Supervisor Steve Taylor received backing from the Milwaukee County Republican Party in connection with the 2026 spring election.
Taylor has publicly identified himself as a Republican and has been described by Wisconsin media as a conservative Republican.
At the same time, Taylor has faced criticism from some conservatives who question his Republican credentials—criticism commonly expressed through the political label “RINO,” or “Republican in Name Only.”
Yet when Nelson and Taylor encountered election-law disputes, both turned to Michael Maistelman.
That is noteworthy because Maistelman's professional history has long included extensive representation of Democratic candidates and political organizations.
As far back as 2005, the State Bar of Wisconsin reported that Maistelman had been recognized by Campaigns & Elections magazine for his work “representing Democratic candidates and organizations in election and campaign finance matters in Wisconsin.”
Federal Election Commission records also document Maistelman representing the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.
His election-law clients over the years have included prominent Democrats, including former Gov. Jim Doyle and Gov. Tony Evers.
Contemporary national reporting has described Maistelman as a Democratic elections lawyer in Wisconsin.
None of this means there was anything improper about Nelson or Taylor retaining him.
Election-law attorneys are hired for their expertise, and Maistelman has decades of experience in Wisconsin election and campaign-finance law. Lawyers also are not necessarily politically aligned with every client they represent.
But it provides additional context.
Two Franklin-area elected officials backed by the Milwaukee County Republican Party separately turned to an attorney with decades of documented professional ties to Democratic candidates and organizations for election-law representation.
Now that same attorney is specifically identified by the court as being present when Irish Cottage obtained emergency judicial relief against the City of Franklin.
Again, there is no evidence that Nelson or Taylor participated in, directed, financed or otherwise had anything to do with Irish Cottage's lawsuit.
Their previous relationships with Maistelman do not establish such a connection.
But they make his unexplained presence worthy of a straightforward question:
Why was Michael Maistelman there?
THE HALBROOKS CONNECTION MAY BE EVEN MORE RELEVANT
Maistelman's political relationships aren't the only reason his presence is noteworthy.
Perhaps more directly relevant to the Irish Cottage case is his history with Irish Cottage attorney David Halbrooks.
The two attorneys have previously worked together representing businesses challenging municipal liquor-license decisions.
In litigation involving Milwaukee's Texture Nightclub, Halbrooks and Maistelman represented the establishment in obtaining temporary judicial relief that allowed the nightclub to remain open while its licensing dispute proceeded.
The two attorneys also represented a tavern in Questions, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, litigation involving a 25-day Class B tavern and amusement-license suspension.
That case involved challenges to Milwaukee's licensing proceedings, including issues involving procedure, notice, evidence and findings.
The factual and legal circumstances are not identical to Irish Cottage's dispute with Franklin.
But the similarity in subject matter is difficult to ignore:
Halbrooks and Maistelman have previously worked together challenging municipal liquor-license actions.
Irish Cottage is now challenging Franklin's 30-day licensing suspension.
Halbrooks is identified as Irish Cottage's attorney.
And when Irish Cottage obtained emergency judicial relief on August 31, the court docket separately recorded:
“Mike Maistelman in Court.”
That makes the unanswered question about Maistelman's role considerably more significant than if he were simply an unrelated attorney sitting in the courtroom.
FRANKLIN JUST WENT THROUGH ANOTHER MAJOR LICENSE CASE
The Irish Cottage lawsuit also comes only weeks after Franklin exercised its licensing authority against another establishment.
On the Border provides an unusually recent comparison.
And Franklin's official records reveal a striking sequence of votes.
JUNE 2: FRANKLIN GRANTS ON THE BORDER'S LICENSES
On June 2, the Common Council considered On the Border's applications for its Class B combination liquor and entertainment/amusement licenses for July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027.
After returning from closed session, Alderwoman Mira Kresovic moved to approve the licenses.
Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann seconded the motion.
The vote was:
YES — Kresovic, Eichmann and Peccarelli
ABSTAIN — Kenney, Salous and Hasan
NO — None
The unusual 3-0-3 vote initially caused confusion.
The Council subsequently attempted to hold the matter until June 16.
But Franklin's own June 16 meeting materials state that the City Attorney reviewed the procedure and determined that the June 2 motion granting the licenses had passed.
Thus, on June 2:
Kresovic made the motion to grant On the Border's licenses.
Eichmann seconded it and voted yes.
EIGHT DAYS LATER, SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT CHANGED
On June 10, prosecutors filed a criminal complaint against the company operating On the Border alleging that it intentionally kept a place of prostitution.
That was material new information occurring after the June 2 licensing vote.
Franklin responded quickly.
On June 16, the Common Council moved forward with a process that could result in revocation. The City ultimately retained outside counsel to assist in developing the licensing complaint.
The matter proceeded to a formal hearing.
JULY 16: SIX HOURS OF TESTIMONY AND A REVOCATION
On July 16, the Common Council conducted an extensive licensing hearing concerning On the Border.
The proceeding lasted nearly six hours.
Law enforcement presented evidence.
The establishment was represented by counsel.
Council members heard testimony and arguments before entering closed session to deliberate.
When the Council returned to open session, Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann moved to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law arising from the hearing.
Alderman Nabil Salous seconded Eichmann's motion.
The vote was:
YES — Eichmann, Salous and Hasan
NO — Kresovic and Johnson
The motion carried 3–2, and On the Border's licenses were revoked.
The voting history is notable.
June 2
Kresovic moved to grant the licenses.
Eichmann seconded the motion and voted yes.
July 16
Eichmann made the motion approving the findings supporting revocation.
Kresovic voted no.
That reversal should not be presented without its important context.
A significant intervening event occurred between the votes: the June 10 criminal complaint against the business.
Council members also had the benefit of the evidentiary record developed during the subsequent licensing proceedings.
But the On the Border case establishes something else that is particularly relevant now.
FRANKLIN KNOWS HOW TO BUILD A FORMAL LICENSING RECORD
Whatever one thinks about the ultimate On the Border decision, Franklin created an extensive administrative record before revoking the licenses.
The proceeding included a formal complaint, notice, representation by attorneys, an extended evidentiary hearing, testimony, evidence, arguments, Council deliberations, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a recorded public vote.
Mayor Nelson himself publicly emphasized the importance of due process while the controversy was unfolding.
Franklin then conducted the formal hearing before imposing the ultimate licensing sanction: revocation.
That makes the comparison with Irish Cottage particularly important.
TWO LICENSE CASES. TWO DIFFERENT PATHS.
Within approximately three months, Franklin has confronted two consequential alcohol-licensing matters.
ON THE BORDER
Franklin granted the licenses.
Significant new information subsequently emerged.
The City initiated formal proceedings.
A lengthy evidentiary hearing was conducted.
Findings of fact and conclusions of law were adopted.
The licenses were revoked approximately six weeks after they had been granted.
IRISH COTTAGE
Franklin imposed a 30-day suspension of the establishment's licenses.
The suspension was scheduled to begin September 1.
On August 31, Irish Cottage filed a petition for writ of certiorari against the City.
That same afternoon, Irish Cottage requested emergency judicial relief.
Judge Morales granted a temporary restraining order.
The court docket identifies Halbrooks as appearing for Irish Cottage.
It separately records:
“Mike Maistelman in Court.”
And the next hearing is scheduled for September 18.
WHAT DID IRISH COTTAGE SAY FRANKLIN DID WRONG?
That may ultimately be the most important question in the entire case.
A certiorari proceeding allows a court to review a governmental decision. But Franklin Community News will not presume the precise legal grounds of Irish Cottage's challenge without reviewing the petition and supporting filings themselves.
The On the Border comparison nevertheless provides an important benchmark.
Only weeks ago, Franklin demonstrated that it can create a substantial quasi-judicial record before imposing a serious licensing sanction.
Now another Franklin licensing decision has reached Circuit Court—and a judge intervened before the punishment could begin.
That does not establish that Franklin violated Irish Cottage's rights.
It does mean the process Franklin used deserves careful scrutiny.
QUESTIONS THAT NOW NEED ANSWERS
The September 18 hearing may provide some of them.
Until then, several questions remain unanswered:
What precisely does Judge Morales' temporary restraining order prohibit Franklin from doing?
When did the City first learn that Irish Cottage was seeking emergency judicial relief?
Was Franklin given an opportunity to participate in the August 31 proceeding?
Why isn't a Franklin attorney identified as appearing at that proceeding?
What specific procedural or legal errors does Irish Cottage allege occurred during Franklin's licensing process?
How does the administrative record supporting Irish Cottage's 30-day suspension compare with the extensive record Franklin developed before revoking On the Border's licenses?
And then there is the question created by four words in the court docket:
“Mike Maistelman in Court.”
Maistelman recently represented Franklin Mayor John Nelson.
His firm was paid by Supervisor Steve Taylor's campaign for election-law representation.
He has decades of documented professional ties to Democratic candidates and organizations even as Nelson and Taylor received Milwaukee County Republican Party backing.
He has previously worked alongside Irish Cottage attorney David Halbrooks in municipal liquor-license litigation.
Yet the court docket does not identify Maistelman as counsel for Irish Cottage—or explain why he was there.
None of those facts proves political influence, coordination or misconduct.
There is presently no evidence that Mayor Nelson or Supervisor Taylor had any involvement in Irish Cottage's lawsuit.
But journalism does not require ignoring an unexplained fact simply because its significance is not yet known.
It requires distinguishing what is known from what remains unanswered.
And right now, one of those unanswered questions is remarkably simple:
WHY WAS MICHAEL MAISTELMAN IN THE COURTROOM—AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?
The answer may ultimately be entirely routine.
But until the court record or the attorneys involved explain it, it remains part of a developing story involving Franklin's licensing authority, due process, political relationships and a suspension that was stopped in court just hours before it was scheduled to begin.
Franklin Community News will continue reviewing the court record as the case proceeds.
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