This blog explores Milwaukee criminal defence lawyer misconduct, including the concealment of evidence, the falsification of psychological reports, the protection of a child abuser, and various other criminal activities … conducted by officers of the court. Their reach and revenge ultimately extended to the internet, and to a Swiss university.

The reader can decide the extent to which the lawyers named here are representative of our legal system.

As with all concealed misconduct, a light-up should lead to a clean-up. As one example, it should not be possible for Wisconsin law that protects children to then fail an abused child because one corrupt lawyer feared upholding the law… fearing what might be revealed if the law were honored.

The story here, of depraved conduct by officers of the Milwaukee court, will be placed on the blog in continuing segments.

The author hopes that constructive comments and questions will be forthcoming, for response.


A type of fraud is practiced by criminal defence lawyers, yet it remains ignored and concealed: the deception of clients/defendants, most notably for the purpose of achieving a plea bargain.

This type of lawyer fraud is “organised” much like the Vatican organised pedophilia: the problem was known to exist but was ignored, those who exposed the problem were silenced, the guilty were protected.

The impact of this lawyer fraud is profound; it has a name: the Lawyer Betrayal Syndrome.

The common tool at the heart of this fraud is lawyer coercion to force a plea bargain. Confidentiality and wiliness in a lawyer’s office make exposing this misconduct extremely difficult.

The regulatory bodies responsible for monitoring lawyer ethics suffer the fox’s dilemma when it is asked to protect a chicken from another fox.

Journalists fear litigation and the termination of sources, if what they report offends influential lawyers.

A power imbalance aids a criminal defence lawyer in defrauding a client. Few dare to side with a defendant vs. their lawyer, especially if the client’s mental health reports have been falsified to cause questioning and fear.

The case reported here has been simmering for years. It has gone largely unreported, or it has been reported to satisfy corrupt Milwaukee lawyer expectations, seeding the internet and local media with misinformation.

Of what value is illustrating a case of legal system corruption years old? No different from the value an adult finds in seeking justice from the Catholic Church, reaching back 25 years or more to their childhood. Or the value that the FBI invokes when they ferret out a fugitive, escaped years earlier. “You can run, you can hide, but we will find you, no matter how long.”

It isn’t just Einstein’s relativistic world that has clocks tick at different rates. A perpetrator’s clock says that minutes are hours, and hours are days, days are years, years are a previous life just forget it. This variance in the relevance of memories of dirty deeds was well exemplified by Lawyer Margret O’Connor, of Racine, WI. Lawyer Margaret O’Connor wasn’t a lawyer at the time of the legal travesty; she was Lawyer Martin Kohler’s paralegal. Saw everything, including racial profiling of the jury, for a rigged trial demanded the elimination of all Blacks. She recently requested, in writing, that we “move on” from exposing a story in which she was instrumental and a prime witness.

It’s an old story; perpetrators want secrets kept, victims yearn for truth. I declined Lawyer O’Connor’s advice.

This victim’s clock stopped on the day that his child was returned to his abuser, the day when lawyers concealed gross misconduct, other lawyers aided them, and the child was gone forever.

The clock stopped when psychological reports were falsified, then laundered through the courts. When information on the web was and remains intended to destroy evidence by rendering the voice of the victim impotent.

The following people contributed to a legal travesty. They have names; some are still around. Their roles in the story make them worthy of attention:

  • Judge David Hansher;
  • Lawyer Martin Kohler;
  • Lawyer Fred Matestic;
  • Lawyer Robert Elliott;
  • Lawyer Jeff Hughes.

Appellate lawyers:

  • Lawyer Robert Henak;
  • Lawyer Stephen Glynn.

And Probation Officer Cordell Wilson participated too. He exhibited extraordinary interest in making sure that Lawyer Kohler received payment for a libel suit – the highest amount ever awarded against an author in the State of Wisconsin. The author’s literary crime was exposing Milwaukee legal system corruption in booklets.

All participants in this case are invited to comment.

to be continued……




  1. I have known about this story for some years, but now I have a question about falsification of mental health records as you said in your blog. Being raised in eastern Europe, I know that the CIA accused the old Soviet Union of saying that political dissidents had mental problems even putting people in mental institutions. Please explain exactly what the court and lawyers in USA did. Also, can you offer any proof?

    1. Thank you, Misho, for the question.

      The falsification of court-ordered mental health reports, as occurred in this case, is an act that deserves the label of … astonishing. The act can claim this title because of its audacity. It is incomprehensible to almost everyone that medical reports can be laundered through a court to suit influential lawyers. Yet that is exactly what happened.

      Legal system corruption to this extent arises only with confidence that the act will not be questioned and, if it is questioned, it will be ignored or remain concealed. Until today that has been the case.

      Some background information is useful to explain the possible motivation for falsifying court-ordered mental health reports in the first place. The short answer is to diminish credibility.

      Throughout my history, and specifically for an 18-month run-up to a trial for interference with child custody in Milwaukee, there had been no suggestion, question, or accusation of mental illness in my regard. The false accusation emerged de novo from Judge David Hansher. It was later vigorously promoted by Lawyer Robert Elliott. The accusation was expedient for Judge Hansher and for Defense Lawyer Martin Kohler. It helped conceal improper if not illegal activity.

      From the start of the case, whereby I made an accusation of severe child abuse, defence lawyer Kohler –– with permission from Judge Hansher–– embarked on a strategy to coerce a plea bargain. A plea bargain would avert the need to publicly expose individuals in the legal system who were negligent or had wantonly concealed the child abuse. This strategy became apparent gradually, along with threats of negative consequences for the child if I terminated Kohler’s legal representation (i.e delays in reporting/verifying the abuse, difficulties getting info/documents to other lawyers.)

      At the start of the case Lawyer Kohler agreed to present to the court critical evidence supporting the accusation of child abuse, including witnesses. The abuse included the child having his head forced under water for loving his father. Kohler’s paralegal at the time, today Lawyer Margaret O’Connor, personally reinforced the need to trust the Kohler legal strategy, for the safety of the child. Later, she participated in a mock trial, as a shill who pushed false information to reinforce the wisdom of a plea bargain.

      As it emerged, Kohler used 18 months for his attempt at coercion. This included the intimidation of witnesses, the provision of false information, the scheduling of phoney trial dates that raised my and supporter expectations, only to be followed by rescheduling on the day of the feigned trial. This happened five times, causing anger among supporters, and extreme innervation.

      At the end of the 18 months, Kohler’s patience had come to an end. He threatened five years in Waupun penitentially if I did not finally agree to a plea bargain. His legal deal would have included renouncing my accusations of child abuse and evidence thereto. I loved my son beyond words. I was frightened of what would happen to him if the abuse remained concealed. I continued to refuse the plea bargain.

      The trial went forth in anger following Kohler’s rage when his last attempt at intimidation failed. Resentment also came openly from Judge Hansher, resentment for my insisting on a trial. Kohler’s anger at my refusal apparently turned to impulsive revenge, causing him to betray and help convict his own client. In his pique, Kohler refused to provide medical evidence, witness statements, and a highly beneficial legal history to the court. I was denied all character and defence witnesses (it later emerged that Kohler failed to provide the court with a required list of witnesses, presumably because he thought his threats would lead to a plea bargain.) He instructed his paralegal not to have lunch with me on the day of the trial, as I was to have no further support from his office.

      No witnesses, no evidence, no relevant history to bolster the case: the prosecutor labelled me delusional, a fantastic liar. Kohler, the defence lawyer in theory, reenforced the prosecutor’s (Fred Matestic) assertions, explaining to the jury that I was to blame for any poor outcome to the trial: I had refused to plea bargain; I deserved my fate.

      After I was found guilty of the official charge of interfering with child custody (by attempting to protect my son), Hansher, following the prosecutor’s earlier lead, accused me at sentencing of being “mentally frail.” He ordered a mental health review because mental illness had suddenly become “obvious” to him and, he claimed, to “everyone else.” His instructions to the probation officer, preserved in writing, were, “This man belongs in a mental institution.”

      Prior to the trial, and as part of a divorce, I and my former wife had already been seen by a court approved psychologist. His report concluded that I was entirely qualified and eligible to look after my son. There were no references to or recommendations regarding mental health issues, no instructions concerning medication. Hansher had ignored that report. After the trial, however, the report was fraudulently altered and filed with the court as the original report. The actual report and its conclusion were concealed. The revised, re-summarised report (by whom?) handed to the judge stated that I had “refused to take mediation.” The statement was false. It had been contrived. But the fraudulently revised report was the only report filed.

      When I contacted the psychologist who wrote the original report, he said that, “It’s obvious that that report is false and not mine. I do not have the authority to prescribe medication. I am not a psychiatrist.”

      There then followed a second psychological assessment, by the psychologist assigned by Hansher. After months of tests and interviews, that psychologist concluded in his report that I showed no signs of mental illness and, best of all, he wrote “He is likely telling the truth about his son.”

      Kohler had put tremendous effort into turning his client around psychologically. This may have been his investment in maintaining a solid reputation as a plea bargain specialist (he rarely went to trial). When he failed, he violated every rule intended to provide a fair trial, including rigging the jury by having a friend seated on the jury –– with Hansher’s permission –– seeing to it that all eligible Blacks were excluded. This effort, he claimed, was justified because, “They tend to be sympathetic in cases like this,” and “They side with the underdog.” (Later, several lawyer sources explained that Kohler supported Hansher’s ambitions financially, that the two had an extensive, mutually-supportive relationship.)

      No one had questioned my accusations before the trial; no one had seen what abruptly became obvious, overnight. The “obvious” mental frailty emerged only after Kohler’s attempt to coerce a plea bargain had failed. He and Hansher made convenient use of the accusation, as effective slander.

      Had the report by the psychologist assigned by Hansher been submitted anytime before the trial, it would have been impossible for Hansher to float accusations of mental illness. More importantly, by Wisconsin affirmative defence law in a case where there is an intent to protect a child, it would have been impossible to secure a conviction against me for interfering with child custody.

      Hansher’s pronouncement of “obvious” mental issues at the sentencing begs the question, why not demand a psychological assessment then before the trial? Does someone suddenly become mentally ill after being found guilty? The need for the accusation arose only after Kohler failed to acquire the plea bargain. Hansher must have known that such a statement by him would make it far harder for me to put forth complaints about his and Kohler’s having coordinated a rigged trial. He must also have known that an element of skepticism and fear would be associated with me, making my life far harder.

      When I asked the lawyer hired for the appeal to present Hansher with the favourable psychological report, that lawyer (Steve Glynn) feared the consequences and balked, saying, “I wouldn’t do that if I were you… the judge might get angry.”

      I Insisted that the favourable mental health report be put to Hansher. Hansher did finally hear the report… then said and did nothing, other than reinforce his sentence: no contact with my son until he was 18 years old. He was five at the time.

      In the court record, this second, favourable psychological report was also altered. The changed version, in summary, read that the psychologist was not convinced that my perception of reality was appropriate. The full report and actual summary as written by the psychologist were not filed in the court record.

      The discrepancies and alterations to the actual psychological reports were sent to the court by me to the judge, for exposure. A response came back stating that the entire issue was passed on to another jurisdiction, at my new address and with Probation Office Cordell Wilson, of St. George, Utah.

      Probation Officer Wilson was informed of and shown the altered psychological reports and the originals. He nevertheless merely insisted that a third psychological examination be carried out. He also refused to allow contact with my son, despite an order by another judge that specifically granted him that authority. I therefore complied with Officer Wilson’s wishes. I took along to the third psychologist’s office the previous two favourable reports and, for contrast, the altered, official reports as filed with the court and as in Wilson’s records.

      The third psychologist immediately saw the discrepancies in the reports. She asked me what was going on. I explained that it was most likely lawyer corruption and pressure from above on Mr. Wilson. I had become a target of lawyer revenge because I refused to plea bargain, and complained about the rigged trial openly. She smiled; she seemed entirely unsurprised at the legal system’s reaction (as had also been the case with the two, earlier psychologists). She informed Wilson that there was no need for her to continue to see me professionally. She also explained that there was some sort of troubling aspect to the reports filed in the court record.

      Wilson was not amused. He had no interest in pursuing the issue of false records in the court file. He became even more adamant that I should have no contact with my son.

      The horizon showed no indication that remission would be forthcoming from Mr. Wilson, on any issue. Instead, i was warned that if I did not pay Lawyer Kohler a specific amount of money as punishment for essays that I had written exposing him, Wilson would ask that I be incarcerated. I owed the IRS money for back taxes, which should have had priority over any payments to Kohler. Kohler managed to place himself before the IRS in what very much looked like an improper steal. I was also warned, under court penalty, not to write about what had happened at trial and during Kohler’s legal representation.

      With no prospect of seeing or contacting my son, and no ability to protect him, plus Wilson’s insistence that Kohler be paid large sums of money (over 600,000, the largest sum ever awarded in Wisconsin against an author for writing) that would take priority over back taxes, de facto if not de jure, I decided to leave Probation Officer Cordell Wilson’s protection. I left for Switzerland, where I began to write the story of major corruption in the legal system in Milwaukee, in a book.

      To answer the question posed for this blog, Lawyer Kohler and his assistant, Lawyer Robert Elliott, were able to use a false accusation of mental illness to discredit and to undermine my written assertions. To quote Kohler’s assistant, Lawyer Robert Elliott, “The guy isn’t well mentally. His story is obviously the product of an unhealthy mind.” This would make it less likely that my claims would be taken seriously.

      An accusation of mental illness, of course, stereotypically but effectively removes a person to outside the realm of ordinary humanity. Use of the accusation to eliminate credibility is an example of the highest level of cynicism. The method reaches back to the bag of tricks commonly attributed at one time to the old Soviet Union or Red China. In the case here, it was fabricated to conceal immoral, unethical or illegal activities by lawyers and judges in Milwaukee.

      Coupled with the false descriptor of “armed and dangerous,” as appears on the internet, there was a good chance that there would be great difficulties to my cultivating relationships and holding down a job. As it emerged, however, I became a lecturer at the University of Basel, Switzerland, in the chemistry department. Additionally, I edited research papers and organised public demonstrations of our research so successfully that Swiss print media and German television interviewed me. At that point Milwaukee lawyers engaged actively and vigorously.

      It is not hard to imagine the reaction by my employer, the University of Basel, when Milwaukee lawyers informed them that they had “a mentally ill, armed and dangerous fugitive” working and lecturing for them!

      As to whether I have proof of interference in the original psychological reports, Yes. I have copies of the court records and copies of the original reports. Easy to compare, side by side. The original reports in theory are confidential and can be viewed by others only with permission. I granted permission in the past, especially to an individual on the ethics committee of the Wisconsin Psychological Association, Tony Kuchan. He informed me that my accusation was so outrageous that “it could never happen.” He refused to examine the reports.

  2. Hello, Mark, this is Sophia, from China. I’m glad to submit a question on an issue that I know you have already mentioned. Here in China, we often wonder about waht we hear about Black people being mistreated in America. It seems that in your case, keeping a Black perosn off the jury, made a big difference. Please go over that again. Also, who ordered you, that you could no longer publish your story? We in China have laws protecting people who report corruption, as you did. I am attaching the law for you, in English, from our national public law book. In China we now address corruption openly, and officials even high up are held accountable.

    Thank you, Mark.

    Article 41 of Public Law in China.

    Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, violation of the law or dereliction of duty by any state organ or functionary; but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited. In case of complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens, the state organ concerned must deal with them in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures, or retaliate against the citizens making them. Citizens who have suffered losses through infringement of their civil rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *