V v. Kratz

Filing 24

RESPONSE filed by Kenneth R Kratz re 18 Proposed Findings of Fact of Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

S.V.
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 10-919

KENNETH KRATZ
Defendant.

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
STATEMENT OF PROPOSED MATERIAL FACTS

Defendant hereby submits the following responses to Plaintiff’s Statement of Additional
Material Facts. The admissions contained herein are submitted solely for purposes of Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment pursuant to Civil Local Rule 56(4), and Defendant
reserves the right to contest any such facts at future proceedings, if necessary.
1.

In approximately July-August 2009, when plaintiff S.V. was 25 years old, she was beaten and

strangled at home by S.K., the man with whom she had been living. (S.V. Decl. ¶¶ 1-2.)
Response to Statement No. 1: Admit.
2.

S.K. and plaintiff were not married and had one child. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 2.)
Response to Statement No. 2: Admit.

3.

During the time plaintiff had lived with S.K., he had repeatedly subjected her to violent

domestic abuse, including beatings and strangulation. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 3.)
Response to Statement No. 3: Admit.

1

4.

Plaintiff had never reported those past instances of abuse to the police because she was

reluctant to invite law enforcement authorities to intervene in what she considered to be a private
family situation. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 3.)
Response to Statement No. 4: Admit.
5.

S.K.’s last attack on plaintiff was so violent, however, that she became genuinely frightened for

her life and for the safety of her child if S.K. were to attack again. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 4.)
Response to Statement No. 5: Admit.
6.

Despite plaintiff’s reluctance to involve law enforcement, therefore, she felt that she had no

choice but to report S.K.’s attack to the police, which she did. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 4.)
Response to Statement No. 6: Admit.
7.

Plaintiff complained to the police in this way in the hope that S.K. would be punished for the

attack and would be forced by the authorities to stop his abusive and violent behavior and prevented
from repeating it in the future. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 5.)
Response to Statement No. 7: Admit.
8.

Plaintiff was also very concerned, however, that reporting S.K. to the police would only anger

him further and end up increasing the risk of even more serious attacks in the future if he was freed
before trial or was not successfully prosecuted and put in jail, and by reporting his attack she was
trusting the law enforcement authorities not to let this happen. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 5.)
Response to Statement No. 8: Admit.

2

9.

As a result of plaintiff’s police complaint, a felony charge of strangulation and suffocation and

a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct were brought against S.K. by the Calumet County
District Attorney on August 12, 2009. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 6.)
Response to Statement No. 9: Admit.
10.

At that time, defendant Kenneth Kratz was the District Attorney for Calumet County. (S.V.

Decl. ¶ 7.)
Response to Statement No. 10: Admit.
11.

Plaintiff understood that defendant was the head of that office, in charge of all prosecutions

for the County. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 7.)
Response to Statement No. 11: Admit.
12.

Plaintiff was informed that defendant would be personally responsible for the prosecution of

S.K. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 7.)
Response to Statement No. 12: Admit.
13.

Plaintiff met with defendant Kratz three times in October 2009 regarding the prosecution.

(S.V. Decl. ¶ 8.)
Response to Statement No. 13: Admit.
14.

In the first two of these meetings, another woman who was a victim-witness coordinator was

present. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 8.)
Response to Statement No. 14: Admit.

3

15.

In the third meeting, on October 20, 2009, defendant Kratz met plaintiff alone in a conference

room at his office. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 8.)
Response to Statement No. 15: Admit.
16.

In that meeting plaintiff described to defendant her relationship with S.K. and his previous

abuse. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 9.)
Response to Statement No. 16: Admit.
17.

Plaintiff also explained her current personal circumstances, telling defendant that she was not

in another relationship at that point, that she was living with her mother and struggling to make ends
meet and care for her child, and that she had extremely low self-esteem. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 9.)
Response to Statement No. 17: Admit.
18.

During the meeting, defendant confirmed that he would be in charge of the prosecution of

S.K. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 10.)
Response to Statement No. 18: Admit.
19.

Plaintiff understood from this that she would be relying on him directly for assistance

regarding her participation in that process as the victim of the crime and the complaining witness in
the prosecution. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 10.)
Response to Statement No. 19: Deny because she was informed that the County had
victim/witness specialists that were trained to assist S.V. as well. (K.K. Decl. ¶ 2).
20.

Plaintiff also understood that because defendant, as the prosecutor responsible for the case,

would have substantial influence and control over whether and how S.K. would be released before trial
and over the actual conduct of the prosecution and the sentencing process, she would be heavily

4

dependent on defendant to protect her and her child from retaliation and further harm by S.K. (S.V.
Decl. ¶ 10.)
Response to Statement No. 20: Deny because Defendant and victim/witness specialist informed
her that the prosecutor, law enforcement, domestic abuse services, and victim/witness specialists could all
assist her and the prosecution. (K.K. Decl. ¶ 2).
21.

When defendant asked if plaintiff would object to lowering the felony charge against S.K. to a

misdemeanor, she responded that she would. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 10.)
Response to Statement No. 21: Admit.
22.

Plaintiff also understood, at the meeting with defendant, that he and the other law

enforcement authorities involved would protect her identity and privacy as much as possible if she
cooperated with the prosecution of S.K., and that the contact information she provided—including
her cell phone number—would be kept confidential and would be used only for law enforcement
purposes. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 11.)
Response to Statement No. 22: Admit only that Defendant agreed to keep S.V.’s cell number
confidential, which he did. (K.K. Decl. ¶ 5).
23.

Beginning shortly after this meeting on the afternoon of October 20, 2009, and continuing

over the next three days, defendant sent 30 text messages to plaintiff on her cell phone insistently
urging plaintiff to enter into a secretive sexual relationship with him. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 12 and Exhibit A.)
Response to Statement No. 23: Admit text messages were sent and that they speak for
themselves, deny any characterizations of the text messages. (K.K. Decl. ¶¶ 7-11).

5

24.

There was no question in plaintiff’s mind that the purpose of the whole series of messages was

to express defendant’s sexual attraction to her and to pressure her into agreeing to engage in a covert
sexual relationship with him. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 13.)
Response to Statement No. 24: Deny.
25.

Along with describing plaintiff as “pretty” and “beautiful,” the messages referred to her as

“hot,” as a “tall, young, hot nymph,” and as a woman who is “blonde, 6ft tall, legs and great bod[y].”
(S.V. Decl. ¶ 13 and Exh. A.)
Response to Statement No. 25: Admit text messages were sent and that they speak for
themselves, deny any characterizations of the text messages. (See K.K. Decl. ¶¶ 7-11 and S.V. Ex. A).
26.

Defendant’s messages told plaintiff that she “would make a great young partner someday” and

asked, “are you the kind of girl that likes secret contact with an older married elected DA . . . the
riskier the better?” (S.V. Decl. ¶¶ 12-13 and Exh. A.)
Response to Statement No. 26: Admit text messages were sent and that they speak for
themselves, deny any characterizations of the text messages. (Id.)
27.

Defendant’s messages referred to a relationship requiring “passion,” being a “risk taker,” and

living “close to the edge,” and said, “I would not expect you to be the other woman. I would want you
to be so hot and treat me so well that you’d be THE woman! R U that good?” (S.V. Decl. ¶ 13 and
Exh. A.)
Response to Statement No. 27: Admit text messages were sent and that they speak for
themselves, deny any characterizations of the text messages. (Id.)

6

28.

In his messages defendant also urged plaintiff not to disclose his behavior, asking if she “can

keep [her] mouth shut” and telling her, “its maybe not the wisest thing I can do, but you are awfully
sweet. Just don’t tell anyone, ok?” (S.V. Decl. ¶ 13 and Exh. A.)
Response to Statement No. 28: Admit text messages were sent and that they speak for
themselves, deny any characterizations of the text messages. (Id.)
29.

Several of the messages also attempted to use personal information that plaintiff had disclosed

to defendant to increase the pressure he was putting on her to comply. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 14.)
Response to Statement No. 29: Admit text messages were sent and that they speak for
themselves, deny any characterizations of the text messages. (Id.)
30.

One message said, “Hey.. Miss Communication, what’s the sticking point? Your low self-

esteem and you fear you can’t play in my big sandbox?” (S.V. Decl. ¶ 14 and Exh. A.)
Response to Statement No. 30: Admit text messages were sent and that they speak for
themselves, deny any characterizations of the text messages. (Id.)
31.

Other messages suggested that, given plaintiff’s limited financial circumstances, she would

benefit from the relationship with defendant. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 14.)
Response to Statement No. 31: Admit text messages were sent and that they speak for
themselves, deny any characterizations of the text messages. (Id.)
32.

The messages asked what kind of job and house plaintiff could expect to have in five years and

said, “I’m serious! I’m the atty. I have the $350,000 house, I have the 6-figure career.” (S.V. Decl. ¶ 14
and Exh. A.)

7

Response to Statement No. 32: Admit text messages were sent and that they speak for
themselves, deny any characterizations of the text messages. (Id.)
33.

Defendant also suggested a direct link between the sexual relationship he was urging on

plaintiff and the prosecution of S.K, saying, “Quite frankly I don’t know what would happen. It [the
sexual relationship] would go slow enough for [S.K.’s] case to get done. Remember, it would have to
be special enough to risk all.” (S.V. Decl. ¶ 15 and Exh. A.)
Response to Statement No. 33: Admit text messages were sent and that they speak for
themselves, deny any characterizations of the text messages. (Id.)
34.

Plaintiff found all of these messages and what they were saying about her and urging her to do

completely unwelcome and offensive. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 16.)
Response to Statement No. 34: Deny based on her actual text responses. (S.V. Decl. Ex. A;
K.K. Decl. Ex. A.).
35.

Plaintiff believed the messages were directed toward her because she was a financially

dependent woman with few resources to protect herself from abuse related to her sex. (S.V. Decl. ¶
16.)
Response to Statement No. 35: Admit.
36.

Plaintiff was upset, made uncomfortable, injured, and humiliated by defendant’s behavior.

(S.V. Decl. ¶ 16.)
Response to Statement No. 36: Admit.
37.

Plaintiff also felt frightened, threatened, and intimidated by the pressure defendant was

putting on her in his messages and the difficult position they put her in. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 17.)
8

Response to Statement No. 37: Admit.
38.

Plaintiff felt that she had taken a great risk for herself and her child by reporting S.K. to the

police and that she was very dependent on defendant for protection from that risk through the course
of the prosecution of S.K. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 17.)
Response to Statement No. 38: Deny, because she knew the police would have to protect her
from harm, and there were other resources available. (K.K. Decl. ¶ 2).
39.

As defendant’s messages continued, plaintiff became fearful that if she confronted him too

directly it would have an adverse effect on the prosecution of S.K. or would cause defendant to
retaliate against her in some other way. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 17.)
Response to Statement No. 39: Admit.
40.

After defendant continued sending plaintiff a steady stream of messages for three days, she

concluded that she would not be able to trust him or participate properly in the prosecution of S.K.
under these circumstances. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 18.)
Response to Statement No. 40: Admit text messages were sent and that they speak for
themselves, deny any characterizations of the text messages. (See S.V. Decl. Ex. A).
41.

Because defendant was himself the Calumet County District Attorney, plaintiff did not

believe that there was any superior law enforcement official in Calumet County that she could
complain to about defendant’s conduct. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 18.)
Response to Statement No. 41: Admit.

9

42.

After anguishing about what to do, plaintiff went with her mother to the Kaukauna Police

Department on the afternoon of October 22, 2009, and reported defendant’s conduct and gave the
police his text messages and her replies.. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 19.)
Response to Statement No. 42: Admit.
43.

Plaintiff told the Kaukauna police that she wanted defendant to stop pressuring her to have a

sexual relationship with him, but that she was concerned that if she did not comply, defendant would
act in some way that continued and potentially increased the danger to her personal safety. (S.V. Decl.
¶ 19.)
Response to Statement No. 43: Admit.
44.

Defendant sent the last of his string of 30 text messages to plaintiff’s cell phone while she was

at the Kaukauna Police Department. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 19.)
Response to Statement No. 44: Admit.
45.

After plaintiff had reported defendant’s conduct to the Kaukauna police, she insisted that she

not be required to attend any proceeding in Calumet County that was related to the prosecution of
S.K. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 20.)
Response to Statement No. 45: Deny, declaration does not indicate to whom she allegedly
insisted and is therefore inadequate to support this statement of fact with admissible evidence.
46.

Plaintiff did this because of the revulsion she felt, as a result of defendant’s conduct, for

anything associated with Calumet County law enforcement. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 20.)

10

Response to Statement No. 46: Admit.
47.

At some point after plaintiff had reported defendant’s conduct to the Kaukauna police, she

learned that the prosecution of S.K. was taken over by a prosecutor from the Wisconsin Department
of Justice. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 21.)
Response to Statement No. 47: Admit.
48.

It is plaintiff’s understanding that in April 2010, S.K. pleaded no contest and was convicted on

the felony charge of strangling and suffocating her. (S.V. Decl. ¶ 22.)
Response to Statement No. 48: Admit.
49.

On September 17, 2010, the Wisconsin District Attorneys Association (“WDAA”) issued a

public letter to defendant Kratz that was highly critical of his conduct toward plaintiff. (Declaration of
Michael R. Fox (“Fox Decl.”) ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.)
Response to Statement No. 49: Object to this evidence and move to strike as inadmissible
hearsay and irrelevant.
50.

The WDAA letter stated:
Your behavior involving a crime victim was repugnant and cannot be countenanced. Crime
victims have both statutory and constitutional protections which are designed to protect them
from systemic or bureaucratic abuses that may unintentionally flow from our criminal justice
system. . . . Your behavior was neither unintentional nor innocent. As a cofounder of our
current victim rights system, and as a frequent lecturer on these topics, no prosecutor could be
expected to know these issues better. . . . Your behavior . . . has generated the question of
whether our crime victims, whose interests we serve, may now hesitate when considering
whether to share their personal information with us or participate in our prosecutions. It is
impossible to fathom how any crime victim in your county could ever do so with your office in
the future. (Fox Decl., Exh. A, p. 1.)

Response to Statement No. 50: Object to this evidence and move to strike as inadmissible
hearsay and irrelevant.

11

51.

The WDAA letter told defendant that his behavior was “inconsistent with the standards of

our profession” and called upon him to resign. (Fox. Decl., Exh. A, p. 2.)
Response to Statement No. 51: Object to this evidence and move to strike as inadmissible
hearsay and irrelevant.
Dated this 29th day of June, 2011.
HAMMETT, BELLIN & OSWALD L.L.C.
_______/s/ Robert E. Bellin, Jr. _______________
ROBERT E. BELLIN, JR.
Attorney for Defendant
675 Deerwood Avenue
Neenah, Wisconsin 54956
[phone]
State Bar No.: 1023945

12