Bangstad found guilty after a no-contest plea in disorderly conduct case

A judge in Oneida County circuit court found Minocqua Brewing Company owner Kirk Bangstad guilty Tuesday of disorderly conduct, after Bangstad entered a no-contest plea to the charge stemming from a June 27, 2025, incident outside his Front Street establishment.

The verdict came after a brief plea and sentencing hearing before Vilas County judge Martha Milanowski, who accepted the plea, dismissed a related bail-jumping charge as part of the agreement, and imposed a $500 fine plus court costs.

“The court will find the record contains a factual basis for accepting the plea …,” Milanowski said. “Based on that plea, I will find and adjudicate him guilty of that offense.” 

The hearing, which lasted just under 30 minutes, focused heavily on the due-process safeguards of the plea, the nature of the offense, and the broader context of a long-running dispute between Bangstad and Lakeland Times publisher Gregg Walker.

Under the agreement’s terms, Bangstad pleaded no contest to one count of disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor. In exchange, the state moved to dismiss a second count of misdemeanor bail jumping, as well as a related harassment citation.

“The agreement is that the defendant will enter a plea to count one, disorderly conduct,” Oneida County district attorney Jillian Pfeifer told the court. “The state will move to dismiss count two, misdemeanor bail jumping. There’s a recommendation for a $500 fine plus court costs.” 

Bangstad confirmed his understanding of the agreement.

Milanowski emphasized that a no-contest plea does not admit guilt but allows the court to find the defendant guilty without requiring the state to prove the case at trial.

“By pleading no contest, you’re not admitting or denying that you committed this offense,” she said. “But you’re telling the court you’re essentially conceding and that the state could prove you guilty, and you’re not going to make the state prove that you committed that.”

Much of the hearing focused on whether Bangstad understood the constitutional rights he was waiving, including the right to confront witnesses and to require the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

“You’re also waiving your right to a jury trial where all 12 jurors would have to agree that you’re either guilty or not guilty of the offense,” Milanowski said.

Bangstad repeatedly confirmed his understanding. The judge ultimately found the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily.

Jail time not warranted

In arguing for the plea deal, Pfeifer described the June incident as loud and profane but not rising to the level requiring incarceration.

“This was an incident that occurred in June of last year at approximately 5 p.m. in which the defendant was yelling obscenities across the street at Gregg Walker, who, as the court knows, is the owner of one of the local newspapers,” Pfeifer said. “There was also a third party that complained about how loud the defendant was being. The defendant has no other criminal history. As the court is aware, there is a bit of a history between the defendant and Mr. Walker, but this conduct that was demonstrated in this case doesn’t call for probation, it doesn’t call for jail.”

Pfeifer said a fine would be an appropriate consequence and asked the court to adopt the joint recommendation. Bangstad’s attorney, Frederick Melms (no association with Melms, Hogan & Francois law firm) , echoed that assessment, describing the incident as an isolated lapse in judgment.

“I would generally agree with Ms. Pfeiffer,” Melms said. “My client doesn’t have any criminal history. He’s a business owner in the community. He and Mr. Walker have a longstanding feud.”

There was alcohol involved, Melms said.

“There were a couple of drinks that day, and it got a little out of hand, and it’s important to say they’ve been neighbors across the street for a long time, and this was a one-time occurrence,” he said. “I think the fine here is an appropriate sanction given the nature of the conduct, and no one was injured. Certainly, it was not good behavior and not the kind of behavior the court or the community wants, but I think the fine and the conviction certainly send the message to my client that what happened that day was unacceptable.”

Melms said he didn’t think such an incident would happen again.

In his allocution before the court, Bangstad veered from his attorney’s narrative, delivering a sometimes pointed and rambling critique of what he called a flawed criminal justice system, not to mention the broader legal disputes surrounding his business and public speech.

Bangstad said the June 27 incident was preceded by his arrest on criminal defamation charges, which he said never should have been brought and which were ultimately dismissed. Bangstad argued that the earlier charge contributed to the circumstances that led to the June incident and influenced his decision to accept the plea.

“And as far as I know, if I didn’t take this plea deal today, I could be taken to court with a jury of my peers and been accused of bail jumping, which has a distinct possibility of sending me to jail,” he said. “And so I felt today that I was caught between a justice system rock-and-a-hard-place because if I didn’t take this plea, which was very minor but still besmirched my reputation because I have to admit to disorderly conduct, even though I feel I was giving a political speech and I was amped up because we have a corrupt guy in Oneida County who called four different police stations to encroach upon my business while I was giving a speech.”

And that’s why he was angry that day, Bangstad said 

“Not because I wanted to yell or threaten Gregg Walker,” he said. “I was mad at the system because there’s no way police should have hovered around my place. … I don’t believe that the system is right here because I chose between two hard things. I don’t want to go to jail because I think it’s absurd to go to jail over anything that’s happened so far. My chances of going to jail are a lot less if I plead no contest today than they are if I went through this whole thing, even though every piece of my heart and soul wants me to fight this till the end. But because the justice system is what it is, I’d rather take the less risk-averse move, and that’s why I chose to plead the way I pled today.”

Judge: Conduct not severe but affected community

In delivering the sentence, Milanowski walked through three primary sentencing factors: the seriousness of the offense, protection of the public, and the defendant’s character and rehabilitative needs. 

“As far as seriousness of the offense, this is a class B misdemeanor,” she said. “So it’s not an overly serious crime. It’s in fact one of the lowest crimes you could be convicted of.”

Still, Milanowski said, it’s a crime.  

“So that makes it serious as opposed to say a ticket, which there’s no potential for jail and it’s not a criminal conviction on your record,” she said. “And it’s not a victim case. The state has said that, but it’s a crime that affects the community as a whole. So that brings it up a little bit, but again, it’s a disorderly conduct. It’s not overly serious generally.”

Milanowski observed that many obscenities were made that day.

“And made loudly, not only just in the open air, but it created other anxieties or worries from other people that were observing it,” she said. “So it affected, again, the community as a whole in an area that you have a lot of traffic and people are coming and going. And this was in the summer and June. So then it’s a tourist town, and it created a disturbance and to the extent that happened, that’s serious for that day and for that community.”

Milanowski said she did not find a need to protect the public from Bangstad.

“You’ve not found yourself in criminal court before this situation, and it’s not where you spend your time generally at all,” she said. “And on the day in question, [there was] somewhat of a need to protect the public because things got disorderly and patrons were joining in, and it got out of hand, but I don’t find that there’s any need to protect the public from you.”

As for his character and rehabilitative needs, Milanowski cited Melms’s explanation that Bangstad may have had a couple of drinks.

“But adults should know better as far as how they handle conflict,” she said. “Clearly, everybody has said it in the room here today, there’s a longstanding history of a conflict between you and your across-the-street neighbor and business owner. There are better ways to resolve conflict than what happened last summer in June.”

She also pushed back on Bangstad’s explanation that he was reacting to perceived injustices.

“I think you understand better ways to resolve conflicts going forward between grown adults, and nothing has happened since that day that I know of at all because no bail jumping charges or nothing else has come across, no referrals that I am aware of,” she said. “So that also speaks to good character going forward and using the right tools to address conflict.”

As for being angry at the system, Milanowski said there were appropriate ways to address that sentiment, as well as inappropriate and criminal ways. 

“I think, again, this is a lesson learned in this respect,” she said.

Milanowski likewise said she did not believe Bangstad had rehabilitative needs. 

“I wouldn’t expect probation to even be suggested here, given again, you have no prior convictions,” she said. “You are in your forties, and again, this is a unique situation everybody finds themselves in, and especially you. And so I don’t think probation is necessary, even though I’m supposed to consider that as the first sentencing alternative, unless it unduly appreciates the seriousness of the offense.”

The main objective of the sentencing, Milanowski said, was punishment. 

“Now you’ve been convicted of a crime, and that’s actually a pretty big punishment for someone like you who has never been in criminal court or has never had a criminal conviction on their record,” she said. “There’s also a deterrence here, a deterrence for you, Mr. Bangstad, and also for the general public, so that it is known that, in the community, if things get out of hand verbally with this type of obscenities and verbal attacks, there will be a consequence. And the consequence here is a criminal conviction and a fine.”

The court ultimately adopted the joint recommendation, ordering Bangstad to pay a $500 fine plus court costs, totaling $1,083, within 60 days. He was also required to submit a DNA sample, as required by law for criminal convictions.

The bail-jumping charge was dismissed outright as part of the plea deal.

The June 2025 incident

The charges stemmed from a June 27, 2025, disturbance in which Bangstad and others at his establishment allegedly shouted profanities at Walker across the street as Walker left the Lakeland Times office.

According to a police report, Bangstad engaged in “indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, and otherwise disorderly conduct” as he and others at his establishment hurled profanities at Walker as Walker left the newspaper office for the day. 

One witness said the shouting was so loud she also planned to file a complaint with police and that Bangstad was yelling “awful” things toward Walker.

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