Bangstad a no-show at supplemental examination hearing

Legal complications for Minocqua Brewing Company owner Kirk Bangstad continued to pile up this past week, as Oneida County filed a complaint for forfeitures for zoning violations that could cost Bangstad tens of thousands of dollars.

In a separate matter, Bangstad failed to show up at a court proceeding — a supplemental examination at which he was to turn over financial records and undergo questioning about his finances. That proceeding was scheduled as part of a defamation case in which Bangstad was found by a jury to have defamed Lakeland Times publisher Gregg Walker and ordered to pay almost $760,000.

Bangstad’s failure to appear prompted Matthew Fernholz, Walker’s attorney, to file motions to find Bangstad in contempt and for the court to order Bangstad’s arrest, given that Bangstad was under a court order to attend. 

However, the judge never signed a bench warrant authorization and no arrest warrant for Bangstad was ever issued, though a miscommunication of online captioning for the case prompted multiple media outlets to report on April 17 that a warrant for Bangstad’s arrest had indeed been authorized.

While the online court records did on April 17 indicate “arrest warrant authorized for Bangstad, Kirk” by judge Leon Stenz, “additional text” eventually clarified that only a motion was submitted: “Proposed - Arrest Bench Warrant for Kirk Bangstad.”

On April 19 the court record was updated with three entries, the first states “Arrest warrant issued” for Bangstad, the second states “Warrant/Capias/Commitment entered in error” and the third entry shows the “Proposed Order Declined.”

The separate complaint for forfeitures involves the county’s allegations of numerous days of zoning violations — some 113 days of violations listed in the complaint — in which the county alleges Bangstad operated the Minocqua Brewing Company (MBC) at its Minocqua location in violation of his permit, as well as after his administrative review permit had been revoked.

The hearing

At the hearing in the defamation case, court commissioner Patrick Finlan opened the proceedings by noting that Bangstad did not intend to appear, though he had volunteered to attend by Zoom or telephone. However, Fernholz did not waive the personal appearance, which was required under the court order.

In his affidavit before the court requesting a finding of contempt and a warrant for Bangstad’s arrest, Fernholz observed that he had requested Bangstad’s appearance pursuant to the judgment against Bangstad of $759,422.61 and against MBC in the amount of $329,422.61 and that the court had signed the orders, which were sent to Bangstad’s attorney, Frederick Melms. 

The hearing was originally scheduled for March 25, Fernholz stated in the affidavit, but Melms requested a new date, and the parties agreed to April 10. Melms also filed a motion to quash the order for Bangstad to appear at the supplemental examination.

The court subsequently ordered Bangstad and MBC to appear and to bring with them requested financial documents. 

“At no time prior to April 10 did attorney Melms inform me that Mr. Bangstad would not be appearing at the supplemental examination,” Fernholz wrote in the April 17 affidavit. “In fact, Mr. Bangstad lamented on Facebook that this court ordered him to appear for the supplemental exam.”

Similarly, Fernholz wrote, at no point prior to April 10 did Melms ever contact Fernholz to inform him that the date posed a conflict for Bangstad, the affidavit stated.

“Attorney Finlan’s office is 230 miles away from my home, so I left early in the morning of April 10,” the affidavit stated. “I arrived at his office around 12:30 pm. I observed attorney Melms arrive at around 12:45 p.m. He then went into a separate conference room.”

Shortly before 1 p.m., the affidavit states, Melms entered the room where the supplemental examination was to take place and handed Fernholz a small stack of papers. 

“I asked him if this was everything was ordered to be produced by this court’s order, and he replied it was not, and then commented ‘this was better than what I thought you would get,’” the affidavit stated. “He then told me that Mr. Bangstad was in Madison and would not be appearing at the supplemental exam. I asked him why not, and he told me that his client ‘was confused and thought all he had to do today was turn over documents.’”

Fernholz stated that he found that statement totally lacking in credibility, given that Melms had filed a motion to quash and modify the supplemental exam order, and given that Bangstad complained to his supporters on March 31 that the court was forcing him to give testimony on his finances.

Not only did Bangstad disobey the orders for his personal appearance, but the documents his counsel produced at the supplemental exam were deficient, the affidavit continued. At the hearing, Melms conceded that the request for Bangstad’s tax returns from 2019-2023 was not satisfied, that Melms “did not know” if the request for “any checking, money market, mutual fund, escrow, brokerage or savings accounts” was complete, and that redactions made at Bangstad’s request to transactions from the foregoing accounts were not compliant.

A request for inventory of his business was “as compliant as his, sort of organization system, would allow him to be,” Melms said at the hearing, according to the affidavit. The affidavit cited other alleged deficiencies in the documents. 

“In short, attorney Melms appeared at the supplemental examination on April 10 with documentation that was insufficient or incomplete as to seven of the requests in the supplemental exam orders (for both Mr. Bangstad and the Minocqua Brewing Company),” the affidavit states.

Because of the motion to quash Bangstad’s mandated appearance at the hearing, which was denied, as well as Bangstad’s own complaint on Facebook that he had to appear before the court — and the significant time and expense incurred by the parties — Fernholz asked that an arrest warrant be issued to compel Bangstad to appear before the court and explain why he failed to appear at the hearing.

A fount of forfeitures

Meanwhile, Oneida County filed its complaint for forfeitures against the Minocqua Brewing Company and Bangstad, seeking fines for a long string of alleged zoning violations that by some estimates would top $28,000.

County corporation counsel Michael Fugle filed the complaint in Oneida County circuit court on April 12. The complaint had been in the works for months after the zoning committee voted unanimously to seek the fines in January. Bangstad had 20 days to answer the complaint.

Zoning staff cited Bangstad on multiple occasions for violating his administrative review permit (ARP) that did not allow for outside seating and service. Ultimately, the committee revoked the permit, but Bangstad continued to operate.

According to the complaint, the county began receiving complaints about Bangstad’s use of the property after the zoning office granted the ARP, and followed up on those complaints with an investigation beginning about July 29, 2022.

The investigation continued through early October of 2023. It found that Bangstad was in specific violation of an ARP condition prohibiting outdoor sales, displays, storage or activities of any type.

“[On] July 29, 2022, Oneida County Planning and Zoning staff observed outdoor activities (consisting of e.g. a tent, coolers, outdoor clothing racks, or chairs placed and in use outside of the building) as prohibited by Condition #6 of the Administrative Review Permit …” the complaint states.

Then, on August 1, zoning staff again observed the same outdoor activities, and on August 2, the department first reported the violations to Bangstad by email, the complaint states. The violations of the ARP continued through the month of August, the complaint alleges, with violations being directly observed on 18 of the month’s 31 days.

On August 10, 2022, the department filed a citation in circuit court.

“Kirk Bangstad did not appear at the intake hearing on September 19, 2022; he was found guilty of the violation, a default judgment was granted, and a $250 forfeiture was imposed on September 20, 2022,” the complaint states.

Another citation was filed on August 23, and Bangstad did not appear at the intake hearing on October 3 of that year, the complaint continued, adding that he was found guilty of the violation, a default judgment was granted, and another $250 forfeiture was imposed on October 3.

On September 1 of the same year, the complaint alleges, county zoning staff again observed outdoor activities, consisting of a tent, coolers, outdoor clothing racks, or chairs placed and in use outside of the building as prohibited by the ARP.

The violations of the ARP continued throughout September of 2022, as they had throughout August, the complaint states, with violations being directly observed on six days of the month.

On September 26, 2022, another citation was filed in Oneida County circuit court.

“Kirk Bangstad did not appear at the intake hearing on November 14, 2022,” the complaint states. “He was found guilty of the violation, a default judgment was granted, and a $250 forfeiture was imposed on November 14, 2022.”

Flash forward to the following May of 2023, and again zoning staff were on hand to directly observe violations on five days in May, the complaint alleges, with the alleged infractions again involving a tent, coolers, outdoor clothing racks, or chairs placed and in use outside of the building as prohibited by the ARP.

On May 15, 2023, the complaint continues, Bangstad sent an email advising Oneida County that he was again planning to violate the same condition prohibiting outdoor activities. The department responded by sending a letter to Bangstad reminding him of the prohibition.

According to the complaint, Bangstad was true to his word.

“[… On] June 1, 2023, Oneida County Planning and Zoning staff observed outdoor activities (consisting of e.g. a tent, coolers, outdoor clothing racks, or chairs placed and in use outside of the building) as prohibited by Condition #6 of Administrative Review Permit ….,” the complaint states. 

The complaint alleges that the violations of the ARP continued throughout June 2023, with violations being directly observed on 28 of the month’s 30 days.

On June 29, the county sent a letter to Bangstad’s attorney, Lester Pines, regarding the prohibitions, but even so on July 1 zoning staff again observed outdoor activities, and the violations continued throughout July 2023, with violations being directly observed on 27 of the month’s 31 days.

On August 2, 2023, the zoning committee revoked the ARP based on the continued violations.

Still, the complaint stated, following revocation Bangstad continued to violate the conditions of ARP, relative to outdoor activities. Alleged violations began August 1 and occurred on 11 days of the month.

On August 9, Bangstad appealed the revocation with the Oneida County Board of Adjustment, which, the complaint states, stayed any further enforcement actions. Bangstad continued to operate during the stay.

On September 1, 2, and 3, zoning staff observed outdoor activities consisting of tables and chairs placed and in use outside of the building, continuing September 4, September 7-11, September 14, September 16-18, September 21-22, and September 29, as well as October 4, 2023.

All totaled, the complaint lists 113 days of violations. 

The maximum fine of $250 a day would total $28,250, not counting court costs and legal fees.

Richard Moore is the author of “Dark State” and may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.