KENOSHA, Wis. — Former Kenosha County Sheriff’s Deputy and former Kenosha Police Officer Michael Angelo Rizzo has filed a second lawsuit against Kenosha County Eye and its publisher, Kevin Mathewson, asking a Kenosha County Circuit Court judge to declare that accurate reporting about Rizzo’s disciplinary history, criminal record, and law enforcement career is somehow false. The petition, which spans more than 300 pages and was drafted almost entirely by artificial intelligence, was filed March 30, 2026, in Case No. 2026CV000378, and has been assigned to Judge David Wilk.

The same judge dismissed Rizzo’s first lawsuit against this publication last month.

Rizzo disclosed his use of artificial intelligence in the pleadings themselves, filing what he called a Notice of AI Attestation with the court. Mathewson had a simple reaction to learning he is being sued by a computer-generated complaint.

“I’m litigating against a robot,” Mathewson said. “It’s like a very bad sequel of Terminator. Except in this version, the Terminator loses.”

The new petition, like the one before it, seeks no money damages and no injunction. Rizzo instead asks the court to compare KCE’s published articles against nearly 300 pages of exhibits and issue declarations that certain editorial characterizations are not supported by the underlying records. No Wisconsin court has ever used the declaratory judgment statute for that purpose, and legal experts say it is an improper vehicle for what amounts to a defamation claim that Rizzo is unwilling to actually file.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation under Wisconsin law, and everything KCE published about him is substantially true, if not exactly true.

Consider the centerpiece of Rizzo’s complaint. He objects to KCE’s reporting that he was convicted of violating a court order in connection with a domestic violence matter in Arizona. Rizzo argues that calling it a conviction is inaccurate because the case was later dismissed after he completed a domestic violence diversion program.

What Rizzo leaves out is that the diversion program he completed is specifically designed for people who have committed acts of domestic violence. It is not a program for people who are innocent. It is a program for people who need treatment. And Rizzo completed it after signing a plea agreement on May 8, 2025, in which he agreed to plead guilty to Interfering with Judicial Proceedings, a Class 1 Misdemeanor under Arizona law. That plea agreement, signed by Rizzo himself, states in black and white he pleaded guilty.

Whether the technical legal term is conviction, guilty plea, or dismissal following diversion is the kind of semantic hair-splitting that courts have consistently refused to treat as defamation. The gist of the reporting, that Rizzo pleaded guilty to a criminal offense arising from domestic violence conduct, is completely and documentably true. His own signature proves it.

Rizzo’s also disputes his departure from the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Office as a termination or firing. Rizzo resigned in lieu of termination while under internal affairs investigation. He argues that resignation and termination are different things. They are not different things for purposes of news reporting. He was going to be fired. He resigned to avoid it. Every reader understands what that means.

Rizzo further objects to KCE’s description of the dismissal of his first lawsuit as a loss. Judge Wilk dismissed that lawsuit. Rizzo did not win. He did not obtain any relief. He walked out of the courthouse without what he came for. That is a loss by any definition.

Mathewson, who has now successfully defended two defamation suits and won a separate defamation action he filed himself, was direct about what he thinks is really going on.

“Mike Rizzo will never be a law enforcement officer again, and for good reason,” Mathewson said. “He was dishonest as a cop. That is why the Sheriff’s Office moved to terminate him. He resigned just before they had the opportunity to do it formally, but everyone knows what happened. Dishonest cops are the worst kind of cops because people’s lives depend on their truthfulness in reports, in investigations, and in courtrooms. The internal affairs investigation found what it found. The ACADIS record reflects what it reflects. That does not change because he filed a lawsuit.”

Rizzo’s ACADIS record, which is the statewide law enforcement personnel database used by agencies across Wisconsin, reflects his separation from the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Office as resigned in lieu of termination. That designation does not change. Every law enforcement agency in the country that runs a background check on him will see it.

Beyond the ACADIS designation, Rizzo currently has an active order of protection issued against him, which under federal law prohibits him from possessing a firearm. A person who cannot legally possess a firearm cannot be a law enforcement officer. Additionally, the Arizona court that presided over his December 2025 restraining order hearing stated on the record that Brady applies to him following that proceeding. Brady designation means that any prosecution Rizzo was ever involved in as an officer could be subject to challenge based on his credibility findings.

The list of Rizzo’s failed legal efforts is long. He attempted to pressure a Tempe Police Department detective into altering an official police report. On March 3, 2026, Rizzo sent Detective Newport a written demand asking for corrections to an existing report. Newport responded on March 13, telling Rizzo that his letter had been uploaded to the report as written and that nothing would be changed. When Rizzo pushed back, demanding clarification and accusing the detective of using, in his words, presumptive language with zero factual basis, Newport was unmoved. Nothing was changed from the original report, Newport told him. When Rizzo then demanded to know the name of Newport’s supervisor, Newport ended the exchange, directing Rizzo to the professional standards bureau if he had further complaints. He also tried to get Chief Deputy Justin Miller of the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Office to change his ACADIS record. Miller told him in writing that he did not have the authority to do that. He tried to overturn the domestic violence restraining order at a contested hearing in December 2025. He lost. An Arizona judge found that the petitioner had met her burden and kept the order in place, citing credibility. He tried to seal his criminal record in Arizona. A Phoenix judge denied that request in January 2026, citing the public interest in transparency given Rizzo’s stated efforts to return to law enforcement. He filed a first lawsuit against KCE. Judge Wilk dismissed it in March 2026. He has now refiled that same lawsuit. He is currently before the same judge who dismissed the first one.

What makes the detective letter particularly notable is that Rizzo attached it himself to this lawsuit as one of his own exhibits. In a 300-plus page petition arguing that official records were mischaracterized, Rizzo included a document proving he tried to get an official record changed and was flatly refused. He is suing a news organization for accurately reporting on official records while simultaneously being on record trying to get those same official records altered to match his preferred version of events.

“Rizzo is like that mosquito you can hear but cannot find,” Mathewson said. “Slightly annoying, but no real risk. Inconsequential. He keeps filing things and losing. Every time he does something like this, he brings embarrassment to his family name. I almost feel bad for the people around him who have to watch this.”

This time, Mathewson says, he is going on offense. He has filed a safe harbor notice under Wis. Stat. § 802.05, giving Rizzo 21 days to withdraw the petition or face a sanctions motion. He also intends to depose Rizzo if the case survives, something Rizzo has not yet had to face.

“When I was an Alderman, the city attorney used to tell us the same thing every time someone threatened to sue the city,” Mathewson said. “He said, ‘Anyone with a filing fee can file a lawsuit.’ I am starting to learn that the hard way. People abuse the court system. This time I am not going to back down. I am going to seek sanctions. I am going to take his video deposition. And the full record of his misconduct and bad deeds, documented and on the record, will be released at the conclusion of this litigation.”

Mathewson noted that a deposition in a civil case is broad in scope, covering anything reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. He intends to use that standard to its full extent.

“In a deposition, I can ask him about his conduct, his history, his communications, all of it,” Mathewson said. “And if he takes the Fifth Amendment, which I expect he will on a number of questions, the judge in a civil case can use that against him. Every time he refuses to answer, Judge Wilk can infer that the honest answer would have been damaging. That is how civil litigation works. He filed this case. He gets to live with the consequences of it.”

The petition itself runs to 49 pages with 237 numbered paragraphs, plus nearly 300 pages of exhibits, all generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The exhibits, ironically, include Rizzo’s own signed plea agreement, which acknowledges a guilty plea, and the Arizona court transcript in which the judge states Brady applies. Rizzo attached the very documents that undermine his own claims.

“I have litigated defamation before and I have won both times,” Mathewson said. “The last case against me involved a former law enforcement officer who was fired for misconduct, just like Rizzo. That case ended with that individual paying me. I am not a server at a restaurant. I do not need to settle things to pay my bills. I will prevail.”

A scheduling conference in the case has been set before Judge Wilk. KCE’s motion to dismiss is due in the coming weeks.