KENOSHA, Wis. — When I went to trial in 2023 against convicted two-time drunk driver and convicted child beater Raymond Roberts, the case was largely about vindication.

I wanted a jury to publicly and unanimously say that Roberts’ outrageous statements were false. I got exactly that.

The jury unanimously found that Roberts’ statements were not true. Roberts had claimed that I trained my children to become suicide bombers, threatened to murder military veterans, and was somehow involved in the plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. No reasonable person believed those claims. The jury rejected them.

I only asked the jury for $1 in damages, despite the advice of my attorneys not to do so. At the time, I was more interested in clearing my name than obtaining money from Roberts, who had liens, financial problems, and little realistic ability to pay any judgment.

Roberts still claims he “won” because the jury did not award the dollar. He can call it whatever he wants. The reality is that the jury unanimously determined his statements were false. That was the point of the case.

One thing worth mentioning is that a blogger website that seems to be financially collapsing, according to reports, wrote a false story about the Roberts case that is still shared by some of my enemies today.

That outlet falsely suggested the lawsuit centered around Roberts calling me a racist or white supremacist. It did not.

Those claims never made it to trial because Wisconsin law generally treats accusations like “racist” or “white supremacist” as opinion, not fact. In other words, someone can call another person racist or a white supremacist and, true or false, it is generally not actionable because it is considered protected opinion rather than a verifiable statement of fact.

The actual statements that went to trial were much more serious and much more specific. Roberts accused me of criminal conduct, terrorism-related activity, child abuse, and violent threats.

There are major similarities between the Roberts case and my newly filed lawsuit against drug-using therapist and former foster mother Jacqueline Niccolai.

In both situations, the defendants had been arrested multiple times and had been covered by Kenosha County Eye as part of my work as a journalist. In both situations, they allegedly became angry that they were embarrassed by truthful reporting. In both situations, they allegedly resorted to making up false allegations because they had nothing truthful they could say that would actually damage my reputation.

There are also striking similarities in their criminal backgrounds. Both Roberts and Niccolai were caught drunk while possessing loaded firearms. Both allegedly lashed out after public scrutiny. Both, in my opinion, tried to destroy my reputation with false accusations because they were upset about coverage of their own conduct.

But there are also major differences, and I believe those differences make the Niccolai case far easier to win.

The most important difference is that the Niccolai case involves what is known under Wisconsin law as defamation per se.

That means the statements are considered so inherently damaging that I do not have to prove specific financial harm. Accusing someone falsely of being a pedophile, sexual predator, child abuser, violent criminal, or sex offender is generally considered defamation per se because the damage to reputation is presumed.

That was not the situation in the Roberts case.

With Roberts, I still had to prove damages, and that was difficult because he had a relatively small audience and because many people already viewed him as unstable or unbelievable. During deliberations, the jury even sent a note to the judge asking whether “true” meant what Roberts personally believed to be true or what the jurors themselves believed based on the evidence.

I believe that question showed jurors may have thought Roberts suffered from some kind of mental illness or defect and genuinely believed some of the bizarre things he was saying, even though they were obviously false.

That issue may not exist in the Niccolai case.

According to both the civil complaint and the criminal complaint, Niccolai is accused of repeatedly making statements that I was a pedophile, sexual predator, child abuser, woman abuser, serial offender, and someone who pursued underage girls. Police reportedly found no evidence to support any of those claims and confirmed there were no sexual assault complaints or related cases involving me.

Unlike Roberts, Niccolai is also facing criminal charges for the same conduct that is at issue in the civil case. She has been charged with defamation, disorderly conduct, computer-message threatening/obscenity, and two counts of misdemeanor bail jumping. Prosecutors allege she violated the terms of an existing bond by committing new crimes.

That criminal case could become a major factor in the civil lawsuit.

When Niccolai is deposed and called to testify in the civil case while the criminal case is pending, she may choose to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In a criminal case, jurors are not allowed to assume guilt from someone pleading the Fifth. But in a civil case, jurors can sometimes draw what is known as an adverse inference.

That means a jury may be allowed to conclude that a witness refused to answer because truthful answers would have been harmful to that witness.

That was not an issue in the Roberts case because Roberts was never criminally charged with defamation.

Another major difference is audience and reach.

Roberts had a relatively small audience. Niccolai, in my opinion, has a much larger network of supporters, critics of Kenosha County Eye, and people who have been featured negatively in Kenosha County Eye stories. I believe those people amplified Niccolai’s claims much more than anything Roberts ever said.

That amplification matters because it potentially increases damages.

Another major difference is collectability.

Roberts had financial problems, child-support issues, tax liens, and little apparent ability to satisfy any significant judgment. That is one of the reasons I only sought $1 in damages.

Niccolai, by contrast, works as a therapist and owns a home, as far as I know. That means any civil judgment could potentially be enforced through wage garnishment or property liens.

The legal representation is also likely to look very different.

Roberts was represented by attorney William Sultan, the president of the ACLU of Wisconsin. I have repeatedly said Sultan is a very good lawyer who did an excellent job defending Roberts, likely on a pro bono basis.

Niccolai, I believe, is more likely to end up with an attorney who is willing to take the case for ideological reasons rather than because the facts are favorable. In my opinion, lawyers like Mackenzie Renner or Ted Kmiec would take the case pro bono, but, in my opinion, are terrible lawyers.

At the end of the day, I already accomplished my goal in the Roberts case. I wanted a jury to publicly reject Roberts’ claims, and that is exactly what happened.

The 2023 case was about vindication.

The 2026 case is about accountability, punitive measures, and more.

My goal is to get consequences so this stops.

I am not the first person Niccolai has allegedly done this to. In my opinion, she has lied about many people throughout her embattled life. In one instance, she allegedly lied about a man to such an extent that he is now at risk of going to prison.

The buck stops with me.

I’m your Huckleberry.

Unlike the Roberts case, Niccolai’s freedom is also on the line. She is facing criminal charges that could result in up to 2 years and 6 months in jail and $32,000 in fines if convicted on all five counts. She could also lose her therapist license.

I do not believe she can win this civil case, and I think she knows it.