Finger Pointing Begins
Now that the Ken Kratz scandal is public information, J.B. Van Holland of the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) is pointing his finger toward other agencies to avoid responsibility.
In October, 2009, Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz sent a victim (and a witness in a prosecution) thirty text messages. The messages started with a kind of concern and escalated to aggression and demands. Kratz informed the victim, Stephanie Van Groll that while she was a “tall, young, hot nymph” but he was the prize. He had the money; he had the power; he had the career. The sexting invited Van Groll to be the other woman.
After Van Groll reported the text messages to the Kaukauna, WI police department. The police forwarded the complaint to the DOJ. That led to a series of email exchanges between Kevin Potter of the DOJ and Kratz. One Kratz email emphasized that his career was in jeopardy. He claimed the text messages to Van Groll were not sexual. He minimized his role in the encounters. He mentioned that he was a high profile prosecutor and implicated that he should get a pass on the incidents.
Kevin Potter of the DOJ was not agreeable to some of Kratz’s assertions. He insisted that the text messages from Kratz to Van Groll were sexual and quoted specific instances. He pointed out the problems Kratz would face with the continued prosecution of the perpetrator. He said that he did not have the authority to tell Kratz to resign from the Crime Victims Rights Board (CVRB), but if Kratz did not do so, DOJ was obligated to give the CVRB details of incident.
Kratz went on to claim that Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen “preaches about ‘supporting’ elected DA’s” and inferred that he should therefore be protected. Kratz threatened that if he were unfit to continue to chair the CVRB, then he should be unfit to continue in his other duties and that would, in Kratz’s opinion, cripple the State in successful resolutions of major prosecutions.
In the end, Kratz agreed to resign from the CVRB and self‑report to the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Responsibility (OLR). Initially, Kratz claimed that self‑reporting was unnecessary. He wanted the DOJ to write a statement to that effect and include statements that were complementary toward Kratz. Kratz also wrote as part of the conclusion that the DOJ would not publicly disclose any details of the case or would not make any statement to any third party that would disclose the matter.
The DOJ has not released any document that details the final resolution, but Kratz was angry when the Associate Press was tipped off. He wanted the name of the whistle blower but, the Associate Press did not disclose that.
Kratz wrote his resignation to the CVRB and bragged himself to the sky. The discussion between him and the rest of the board is unknown. But, he reported to the OLR that on 3 December, 2010 he “candidly” described the communications and “resigned under a cloud of shame and humiliation.” To this date, the members of the CVRB have not informed the public of his sexting and their response. They are a taxpayer supported organization.
Kratz’s self‑report to the OLR is a study in minimization. He claimed Van Groll sent him flirtations when he interviewed her. He didn’t understand why she reported to the police and said that her mother and friend were involved with that decision. Then; Nothing happened so no crime. The mere act of sending thirty text messages (at a cost to the recipient) was not a violation. He again claimed no sexual statements in the messages contrary to the text of the messages.
When Groll complained to the OLR, she was rebuffed. The OLR said that the DOJ found no criminal activity. The OLR Intake Investigator, Cynthia Schally, stated that Kratz was remorseful and the case would not be forwarded for further consideration. I suspect that Kratz’s self‑report to the OLR played a role in the rejection. The report from Kratz was full of braggadocio in as well as the usual Kratz deception.
So, where should the fickle finger point? To the DOJ and the OLR. Both agencies were deficient.
The DOJ agreed to a secret deal and did not consider repercussions if the incident became public. The DOJ did not track the actions that Kratz said he would take. So, his self‑serving self‑reporting to the OLR was a whitewash rather than an honest statement of events. The letter to the CVRB was noncommittal. The DOJ showed that is organizationally unwilling to enforce standards of professional behavior on district attorneys. Past events have shown the DOJ will waste time and money to support incompetent prosecutors. I think Van Hollen was expecting the OLR to do his dirty work.
OLR was deficient by short stopping the Groll complaint. Perhaps the reputation of Kratz played a part in the short shrift. If the Intake Investigator relied upon Kratz’s statement, that is a problem since the complaint goes directly to the problem of Kratz’s character. It is also troubling that a second intake assessment is not done before rejecting a claim.
But, there are more that these two agencies. Legislators have made it too easy for Wisconsin prosecutors to get away with terrible behaviors. Innocent people go to prison because a desire to win trumps honesty and openness. When Kratz claims that other prosecutors have done worse and gotten away with it, he is correct. Kratz is incorrect if he thinks that will exonerate his own criminal behavior.
The CRVB and the Wisconsin Office of Crime Victim Services have become too political. This is an area that needs to be visited by the legislature. The silence of the CRVB after Kratz admit his sexting to them is as scandalous as his behavior. The nature of the state agencies that are victim oriented is that they can and will abandon victims if it is expedient.
The justice system must be responsible for protecting all citizens which include persons accused. It is good to tend to victims, but that is only a portion of our society. The primary role of the system of justice is to protect the public. That includes victims, witnesses, the accused, and innocent bystanders. The State of Wisconsin shows its true nature when it abandons the falsely accused and the wrongly imprisoned. Law still allows witnesses to be coerced into giving false testimony and people to be coerced into becoming victims. Some prosecutors and police have no scruples; some are just incompetent. The fact that Kratz (and others) exist in the criminal justice system demonstrates the flaws of that system.
News organizations allow themselves to be mere mouthpieces for police and prosecutors. The lack of open‑minded oversight by reporters is a sign of the abysmal lack of profession thinking by those who claim to deliver news. When newscasts make prosecutors into star performers, they add to the problem of district attorneys who forget their duty is to all citizens of the State.
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen claims the OLR dropped the ball. That is true. It appears that the Intake Investigator relied too much on the self‑report of Kratz and the whitewash by the DOJ.
And, a whitewash it was. Kratz would not take responsibility for his actions until some things were forced on him. Even here, Kratz glossed over the scope of his transgressions. Kratz was interfering with an active prosecution. At the outset, Kratz suggested to the victim that he might reduce felony strangulation to a misdemeanor prior to his barrage of text messages. His claim that the text messages were not sexual was false, and so he lied to State investigators.
Before Van Hollen gets to carried away with his finger pointing, he should admit that the agreement by the DOJ to remain silent is an indication of how far J.B. Van Hollen’s organization wanted to go to avoid responsibility.
by Brian McCorkle
in category Prosecutor Ken Kratz Scandal
