Bangstad arrested, charged with criminal defamation

Kirk Bangstad, who recently settled the largest defamation case in Wisconsin history by agreeing to a payout of more than half-a-million dollars, was arrested Tuesday October 15 and charged with two counts of criminal defamation in yet another incident.

In the latest situation, Bangstad, the owner of Minocqua Brewing Company, was charged over a Facebook post — published multiple times — that included false and manipulated images of Lakeland Times and River News publisher Gregg Walker and general manager Heather Holmes in a pornographic rendering.

In court on the charges on October 21, Oneida County judge Michael Schiek set a $2,500 signature bond for Bangstad and ordered Bangstad not to make disparaging remarks about the case or the parties and to have no contact with either Walker or Holmes.

However, Bangstad has since defied the gag order, not only reposting the original post that prompted the charges but daring the judge to “come and get me.”

Criminal defamation, a misdemeanor, occurs when a person “with intent to defame communicates any defamatory matter to a 3rd person without the consent of the person defamed.” Defamatory matter is defined as anything that exposes the other to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation or disgrace in society or injury in the other’s business or occupation.

The misdemeanor charge is Class A, the most serious of non-felony charges. Upon conviction, it carries a maximum penalty of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine, or both.

What prompted the post was a story and accompanying editorial reporting that a teacher at Minocqua-Hazelhurst-Lake Tomahawk (M-H-LT) was reading two books centrally featuring same-sex relationships to students. 

Concerned parents brought the matter to the newspaper’s attention. The story reported the facts of the situation; the editorial condemned the reading of the books without parental consent. 

Walker had nothing to do with the original story, which was reported and written by a Times reporter. Walker co-authored the accompanying editorial. 

Heather Holmes had nothing to do with either the story or the editorial.

Court appearance

At a court appearance on October 21, Bangstad appeared before judge Michael Schiek via Zoom. His attorney, Frederick Melms (no association with Melms, Hogan & Francois law firm), appeared in person. Oneida County district attorney Jillian Pfeifer appeared for the state.

The court proceedings were short — they lasted for only a little more than 13 minutes — but explosive.

At the outset, Schiek began to look for dates for an adjourned initial appearance to give the defendant an opportunity to digest the criminal complaint and confer with legal counsel. That appearance was set for November 18.

Pfeifer then asked for conditions.

“Your Honor, the state is requesting a signature bond with a couple of non-monetary conditions,” Pfeifer said. “This was two different posts that occurred in a span of two days. There was an image that was sexual in nature that was posted along with this.”

Based on the content and the platform used that provided the basis for the complaint, Pfeifer asked the judge to prohibit Bangstad’s use of Facebook or any other social media platform.

She also asked that Bangstad be prohibited from making any public comments about the parties in the case, including the victims, the prosecutor, the court, defense counsel, and law enforcement, and that he have no contact or make any mention of Gregg Walker and Heather Holmes.

Melms said such conditions were unacceptable. 

“I think the request that Mr. Bangstad stay off Facebook is a bridge too far, and really nothing short of un-American,” Melms said. “The election’s coming up. Mr. Bangstad runs a super-PAC, runs a progressive brewery. He uses his Facebook page to advocate for different political causes, for different candidates, and, quite frankly, the First Amendment protects Mr. Bangstad’s right to continue to advocate politically as the election comes up.”

It would be incredibly unfortunate if the court would issue that sort of a gag order here, Melms said. 

Not being able to post about the parties in the case was also unacceptable, particularly with regard to Walker, Melms argued.

“Mr. Walker is the owner of the local newspapers, he writes for the local newspapers, he edits the local newspapers, and he’s responsible for the content of the local newspapers,” he said. “Mr. Bangstad has a First Amendment right to criticize Mr. Walker. I think that the court could potentially frame something that would prevent Mr. Bangstad from making non-political statements about Mr. Walker.”

But Melms said that, with respect to the election, or elected officials who are running for office, or any sort of current event, Bangstad should be allowed to speak.

Schiek observed that proposed conditions in such a situation have to be reasonable, and the judge said he did not think it was reasonable to completely ban Bangstad from Facebook.

“It’s not appropriate,” the judge said. “But what we’re trying to do here, so everybody understands, I don’t think I need to sit here and lecture everybody. I just want to caution you [Bangstad] to try to avoid any additional problems.”

At that point, Bangstad asked to speak, but Schiek denied his request, saying his attorney would cover the situation and he was making a legal ruling.

Schiek said he thought Melms was right about an outright ban on social media.

“But, you need to be aware that I’m going to look at this critically if additional information is posted on Facebook or some social media account concerning either of the victims in this case,” he said. “My ruling might change.”

Pfeifer observed that Bangstad had posted about her and other officials.

“I just want to add that he has since posted (another) post that mentioned [sheriff] Grady Hartman, that mentioned myself and that’s what I ask, that during the pendency of this case, at the very least, that he prohibited from talking publicly about this case other than to his attorney or posting publicly about this case,” she said.

Melms countered said the case was obviously going to be of public interest. 

“Mr. Bangstad is a figure within a number of very political circles within Wisconsin and throughout the country,” he said. “The people who follow him, the people that listen to him are are going to be very interested in this.”

Melms said the idea that this case was no different from a standard criminal case was nothing short of absurd. 

“This is obviously different,” he said. “There are serious First Amendment implications here. I think the public has been incredibly interested in what’s going on here. I think if Mr. Bangstad wants to speak about this case publicly, Mr. Bangstad should be allowed to speak about this case publicly. I mean, his right to free speech is really going to be on trial here.”

So the court should not prevent such speech as a bond condition, Melms said.

“Well, we’ve got to be careful here because he does have a First Amendment right,” Schiek responded. “And without knowing what exactly the law is on my limitations, I can set reasonable grounds for the bond.”

Bangstad interrupted, saying that Walker and Holmes were not victims. At that point, Schiek muted Bangstad’s microphone.

“I’m not going to have him interrupting,” he said. “So, Mr. Melms, again, I’m not trying to get in an argument with you or anything. I’m trying to keep this very civil, right? This is a courtroom and he’s not going to run this. And so upsetting the judge is not the way to do this. I’m going to be fair.”

Schiek said he was going to follow the law.

“But there’s going to be some reasonable conditions that are set so we don’t have Mr. Bangstad stirring up a hornet’s nest, and I don’t want Mr. Walker and his publication to be stirring up a hornet’s nest where it seems unfair because that’s not what we’re going for,” he said.

Schiek said Bangstad’s right to a fair trial was going to be paramount. 

“And if I have to start putting more strict conditions on it, then I’m going to,” he said. “But right now, I think I have to be a little bit careful. I’m going to limit him, but there cannot be any of this posting of what the parties are doing.”

The prosecutor, the defense attorney, law enforcement,— all were doing their job, Schiek said.

“You can file any motion you want to challenge this legally,” he told Melms. “I would be all for that. That’s what we’re going to do. And I don’t want him posting inflammatory remarks about the process because for whatever reason, however the charge got filed, we have to deal with it now.”

So Melms and Bangstad could make any legal argument they wanted and Schiek said he would make rulings on those.

“So at this point, I am going to just prohibit him from making disparaging remarks about the parties involved in the case,” he said. “And that includes the prosecutor, the prosecutor’s office, the sheriff’s department. And I can’t, again, prohibit Mr. Walker from publishing anything, but if he’s going to start doing that, then we’re going to have to take a different look at this.”

Schiek said he was simply trying to be completely open.

“And I want to get everybody on the level here so that nobody feels you’re getting silenced because I’m not trying to do that,” he said. “I’m trying to keep things worthy. So what I will do is order that bond, and then we will set this for the adjournment.”

However, while Bangstad was not permitted to speak, he apparently was sending notes to the court via Zoom, and, shortly after the first hearing ended, Schiek recalled the Bangstad case. 

“The reason I called the attorneys back in is that Mr. Bangstad is continually writing notes to the court,” he said, adding that what he was writing could be taken as a threat to the court.

“I’ve just asked him not to do that, and he’s literally just doing it as I’ve been telling him not to,” Schiek said. “So, I think you [Melms] need to talk to him because I’m going to find him in contempt the next time he does this.”

Schiek dismissed Melms and removed Bangstad from the hearing.

He will not comply

Shortly after the court hearing, Bangstad reposted the post upon which the criminal charges were based but then took it down quickly. However, later in the evening, Bangstad reappeared defiantly.

In that post, Bangstad again posted the false and manipulated depiction of Walker and Holmes. He also pointed out that he had labeled the depiction satire and that he was defending a teacher criticized by the newspaper in an editorial after she read books to her class about same-sex relationships.

Bangstad accused Pfeifer of misleading the judge by not including the parody disclaimer in the criminal complaint and said Pfeifer’s request was a “wild and blatant attempt to suppress my speech right before a massive election in an important swing state in which political retribution is on the ballot.”

It should be noted that Pfeifer is a Democrat running for election as a Democrat in November.

In the post after the hearing, Bangstad challenged Schiek.

“Kirk here,” Bangstad began his post. “I expect to get arrested for contempt of court tomorrow for defying rural Oneida County, WI, judge Schiek’s order/bond that forbids me to post about my criminal defamation charges that landed me in jail last Tuesday, in which I only learned today was because of a satirical post that I clearly labeled as satire,” he wrote. 

Bangstad said he would not be cowered.

“I refuse to let a backwoods Wisconsin judge silence me 2 weeks before the most important election of my lifetime in the most important swing state in America, when this very issue — political retribution — is on the ballot,” he wrote.

Bangstad then aimed his comments directly at Schiek.

“Come and get me, Judge Schiek, I dare you,” he said. “Please share widely. This ain’t right.”

Previous defamation

Bangstad just recently settled his defamation suit with Walker, agreeing to pay $580,000 of a $759,428 judgment against Bangstad. Under the terms of the settlement, Society Insurance Company paid $80,000, West Bend Mutual Insurance Company  paid $450,000, and Bangstad himself paid $50,000 of the settlement.

Specifically, the jury found Bangstad guilty of committing defamation with express malice warranting punitive damages in an August 8, 2022, post in which Bangstad falsely alleged that Walker contributed to his brother’s death in a hunting accident 36 years ago. 

On October 27, a jury of nine women and four men rendered that verdict. Also part of the defamatory post was Bangstad’s false accusation that Walker abused his elderly father for his own financial benefit and kept his father’s second wife away from him. Again, the jury found the statement false and defamatory, awarding Walker $200,000 in compensation for the false post and $430,000 in punitive damages because they considered them to be made with express malice.

The settlement came after a state court of appeals denied Bangstad’s bid to delay payment of the money judgment against him and the state Supreme Court refused to hear Bangstad’s appeal to that court. 

As part of the settlement, Bangstad also had to remove Facebook posts of August 8, 2022 and October 27, 2022, and he agreed not to re-post those posts on any social media platform, blog, e-mail blasts, websites, or other methods of communications by Kirk Bangstad and MBC. 

Instead, he posted the depictions that triggered last week’s arrest.

Richard Moore may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.