V v. Kratz

Filing 23

DECLARATION of Kenneth Kratz in Support of Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

S.V.
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 10-919

KENNETH KRATZ
Defendant.

DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT, KENNETH KRATZ

1. That I am the Defendant in the above-captioned action and have personal
knowledge of the matters stated herein and could competently testify about them
if called upon to do so at trial.
2. That I met with the Plaintiff on three occasions in October 2009 as part of my
duties as Calumet County District Attorney for purposes of preparing my case
against Plaintiff’s ex-boyfriend, S.K. During the first two meetings a female
victim/witness specialist was also present, and S.V. was informed of the various
individuals and agencies that could assist her.
3. That during the third of these meetings, on October 20, 2009, Plaintiff indicated,
among other things, that she has low self-esteem.
4. That I was surprised at her claim that she had low self-esteem because she
presented herself well in court and during our meetings.
5. That during these meetings, I also asked Plaintiff many questions about the facts
and circumstances of the case, as well as her preferences and feelings as the
victim of the crime as to whether the case was prosecuted as a felony or
misdemeanor. At no time during any of these meetings did I have physical

contact with Plaintiff, make lewd remarks or gestures, or even ask her for a date.
The meetings were strictly for purposes of gathering information in my role as
prosecutor.
6. That during my meetings with Plaintiff, she provided me with her cell phone
number for the purpose of contacting her outside our meetings. I did not provide
her number to anyone else.
7. That after our meeting on October 20, 2009, I sent a series of text messages to
Plaintiff. My initial intention in sending the text messages was to offer further
assistance in regard to the case and to try to build her up and make her feel better
about the current circumstances, especially in light of the fact that she had
claimed to have very low self-esteem.
8. That I do not recall the specific times when Plaintiff sent each of her responses to
my texts. I also do not recall whether Plaintiff sent additional text messages that
are not listed in her Exhibit A. Exhibit A is, however, accurate to the best of my
memory, and is accurate in the sense that I sent 30 text messages to Plaintiff over
the course of three days and she sent me a minimum of 23 responses, also over
the course of three days.
9. That Plaintiff responded to my text messages on all three days. At no time, even
when I asked her, did she tell me she wanted me to stop texting her, and I had no
idea, based on the responsive text messages I was receiving, that Plaintiff was
uncomfortable or wished for our contact to stop.

10. That on October 21, 2009, at 12:43pm, I asked, “do you want to stop right know
(sic) before any issues?” Plaintiff responded, “Dono.”
11. That on October 21, 2009, at 1:35pm, I stated, “I need direction from you.” I
again asked, “or you think a man twice your age is creepy so stop.” Plaintiff
replied, “I have to think about that.”
12. In response to the above exchange, I stated, “Ok. No problem. Either way I think
you are very nice. I am very smart, but know this is ALL up to you….” Plaintiff
responded saying, “Lol.” Based on these responses, it was not at all clear to me
that Plaintiff wanted me to stop contacting her. In fact, because Plaintiff
responded promptly to each of my texts and did not tell me to stop contacting her,
even when I asked if that’s what she wanted, I believed Plaintiff wanted to
continue communicating with me.
13. That I did not find out Plaintiff wanted our contact to stop until several days after
she contacted the Kaukauna Police Department. I stopped contacting her of my
own accord several days before anyone informed me that Plaintiff had reported
my text messages to the Kaukauna Police Department, and my last text message
to her stated, “When the case is over, if you change your mind and want to meet
for a drink, please tell me. Otherwise I will respect your desire to be left along.”
14. That had Plaintiff told me sooner that she did not want to text me anymore and
was not interested in a relationship, I would have stopped texting her; Plaintiff,
however, continued our text conversation for days with no indication that it was
making her uneasy or that she wanted it to stop. Plaintiff never suggested she was
offended by my text messages in any way.

15. That I never, either by text message or by any other means, threatened to stop
prosecuting the case against Plaintiff’s boyfriend if she refused to go on a date or
otherwise pursue a relationship with me. In fact, I tried to make it clear to
Plaintiff that the prosecution of S.K.’s case would be concluded and conducted to
the best of my abilities no matter what.
16. That I directly referenced the case against Plaintiff’s ex-boyfriend twice during
our text conversation. On October 21, 2009, at 2:57pm, I stated, “It would go
slow enough for Shannon’s case to get done.” And on October 22, 2009, at
3:25pm, I stated, “When the case is over, if you change your mind and want to
meet for a drink, please tell me. Otherwise I will respect you desire to be left
alone.” I never said anything to suggest or even hint that I would stop prosecuting
the case if Plaintiff told me to leave her alone. On the contrary, much of what I
said to Plaintiff during our text conversation was intended to assure her that the
case would proceed regardless of her response and that it was entirely up to her
whether to remain in contact with me.
17. That after October 20, 2009, the only contact I had with Plaintiff was by text
message, and the only text messages I sent her are those listed in Exhibit A. I did
not make any phone calls to her, did not go to her place of residence, did not
make any attempt to have physical contact with her, did not have face-to-face
contact with her, (nor ask to have face-to-face contact with her), and did not
attempt to write her or harass her in any other way.
18. That I did not believe Plaintiff to be under my control in any way such that she
would be required to pursue a relationship with me. I also believed Plaintiff

clearly understood that she was under no obligation whatsoever to continue
texting me or in any other way to pursue a relationship with me.
19. That I did not believe my actions violated any constitutional rights of the Plaintiff,
and I had no notice that text conversation could be any constitutional right
deprivation.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated this 29th day of June, 2011.
___/s/ Kenneth Kratz____________________
Kenneth Kratz, Defendant