(File Photo by Kevin Mathewson, Kenosha County Eye)
KENOSHA, Wis. — A Kenosha businessman left the Kenosha County Courthouse visibly upset Monday after Court Commissioner Alexandra Smathers (D) denied his petition for a harassment injunction against a Kenosha woman who is currently facing multiple pending criminal charges in Kenosha County, including a felony battery to a public officer charge. Her pending criminal cases also include allegations of second-offense operating while intoxicated, possession of a controlled substance, resisting an officer, false emergency 911 phone use, and misdemeanor bail jumping.
The businessman alleged that the woman engaged in a sustained campaign of harassment that included repeatedly calling him, leaving messages with his secretary, posting a fake obituary announcing his death on his Facebook page, and sending a text message stating that his wife needed “her ass beat.” Despite that testimony, Smathers ruled that the businessman failed to meet the burden required under Wisconsin law for a harassment injunction.
Ironically, Smathers herself had previously found sufficient grounds to issue the businessman a temporary restraining order, concluding there was enough evidence to provide immediate protection until a full evidentiary hearing could be held. Following Monday’s hearing, however, she dissolved that same temporary restraining order after concluding the petitioner had failed to satisfy the legal burden necessary for a four-year injunction.
The businessman testified that he feared the woman’s conduct was escalating and that he believed his life was in danger. He told the court that while the text message threatening his wife was disturbing, the fake obituary frightened him even more because, in his view, it suggested someone wanted him dead or was attempting to intimidate him into believing violence against him was imminent.
During the hearing, the woman’s attorney acknowledged that the obituary was fake, and the woman admitted she had posted the fabricated obituary to the businessman’s Facebook page.
During her ruling, Smathers appeared to question whether sufficient evidence existed regarding the text message and fake obituary, despite the respondent’s admission that she had posted the fake obituary to the businessman’s Facebook page and despite testimony concerning the text message. Kenosha County Eye has independently obtained a copy of the text message referenced during the hearing.
The businessman further testified that the woman repeatedly called him, that he never returned her calls, and that she left messages with his secretary. He told the court he viewed the repeated unsolicited calls, coupled with the threatening text message and fake obituary, as part of an escalating pattern of harassment. The man even sent a letter to the woman’s attorney demanding that she stop contacting her.
According to one of the woman’s pending criminal complaints, Kenosha police allege she repeatedly called 911 to report emergencies that did not exist while providing inconsistent locations throughout the city. Officers who located her reported that she appeared intoxicated. Prosecutors further allege she resisted arrest by pulling away from officers, refusing commands, thrashing against a squad car, and kicking a Kenosha police officer twice in the arm, resulting in the pending felony battery to a public officer charge. The complaint also alleges she violated the conditions of a previously imposed bond by consuming alcohol.
The businessman testified that those pending criminal allegations, combined with the repeated unsolicited calls, messages left with his secretary, the fake obituary, and the threatening text message directed at his wife, caused him to believe the harassment was escalating and that his life was in danger.
Following the testimony, Smathers denied the request for a harassment injunction.
Monday’s ruling comes as Kenosha County’s handling of restraining-order cases continues to receive public scrutiny following several controversial decisions in recent years.
Until this spring, restraining-order hearings were primarily handled by Court Commissioner William “Bargain Bail Billy” Michel II, who became the subject of widespread criticism after denying a restraining order sought by Makayla Rutka Plaza just weeks before she was murdered. Court transcripts later revealed Plaza repeatedly pleaded with the court for protection before her death. Public criticism intensified following Plaza’s killing, leading to Michel’s removal from restraining-order duties before he was ultimately relieved of his position.
The current case also bears a notable similarity to an earlier restraining-order proceeding involving the same woman. In March 2025, Smathers granted a temporary restraining order in a separate harassment case involving the woman. One week later, Court Commissioner William “Bargain Bail Billy” Michel II found that the petitioner had failed to meet the burden of proof, denied the injunction, and vacated the temporary restraining order Smathers had granted.
In Monday’s case, Smathers again granted a temporary restraining order before the hearing, this time protecting the businessman. Following testimony, however, she likewise concluded that the statutory burden had not been met and dissolved the order.
Following Michel’s removal, Smathers assumed responsibility for many of the county’s restraining-order hearings. Her decisions have therefore attracted increased public attention as litigants and members of the public continue to debate how Wisconsin’s harassment injunction laws are interpreted and applied.
Smathers was appointed after serving as a prosecutor. Her appointment generated criticism because she had no prior judicial experience and no family-law experience when she was selected for the position.
Monday’s hearing again raised questions about what conduct Wisconsin courts consider sufficient to justify judicial protection. The court heard testimony that the respondent admitted posting a fake obituary to the petitioner’s Facebook page, testimony concerning a message that the petitioner’s wife “needs her ass beat,” testimony that the respondent repeatedly called the petitioner despite receiving no return calls and left messages with his secretary, and testimony that the petitioner feared for his life. Even so, Smathers concluded the statutory burden had not been met and denied the injunction.
It is unclear whether the businessman intends to seek a de novo review before a Kenosha County Circuit Court judge, which would allow the matter to be heard anew.
20 Responses
She’s extremely biased. She’s ignored evidence when it comes to women multiple times both in family courts and other matters. Decisions that have led to worse outcomes for children and others. This is not a representation for commissioner that we should have here in Kenosha.
Unless she has a brain and is moved by her beliefs to act on them. Poor Billy—he was brainless, clueless and therefore useless. That’s the difference.
What happened to equality? This has been the standard for decades. Qualified immunity for judges should be gone in cases like these. Every American should have a right and an expectation to feel safe from others making threats, especially DV and being petitioned like this.
I hate to say it, but if I’m the victim of those threats- I believe you, and I will put a hole through your chest if you approach me.
And you’ll be in prison for the rest of your life, tough guy
nah, 7-12 years only
Your a ass clown^
You’re an ass clown, what I said isn’t wrong, but your grammar is. Learn grammar or people will know you went to KUSD.
For avoiding my own obituary from a murderer?
Believe all women….. threatened to kill, I believe you at face value.
If you have to shoot in self defense, make sure you have a current concealed carry permit and its full legal insurance liability package to ensure you will remain financially whole if prosecuted. With Republican DA Solis, it might be ruled justifiable. Just ensure you master deadly aim with a single shot because if the crazy fem lives, there will be an army of lawyers lined up backing her to sue the piss out of you. Multiple shots to ensure perp death are prosecutorial evidence of intent. Also, immediately disarm the weapon, clip & chamber before law enforcement arrives and immediately call the legal insurance emergency number to activate their legal network. Bottom line, if you can exit WI and move to a Red state and county with a Red DA, your rights and safety will be far more assured, especially if the crazy fem follows you. With the Blue state invasion of law today by socialist Democrat criminal advocate, psychologically abnormal to warped/absurd female and homosexual activists, normal male citizens are at high risk of legal railroading via false prosecutions with false witnesses.
Please Big Man, tell us more about your virility.
Hopefully Smathers gets what Michel got, FIRED!!!!
Another moron of a judge …..let’s wait til something happens and see what she doesn’t say …if these threats were made at her ,she would have a different attitude …..another jackass
Only a wannabe appointed by the “Real” Judges
People like her are part of the growing Socialist agenda sweeping the country the country. These are communists through & through.
Spot on. The Singham syndrome.
I guess women are “too emotional, illogical, and irrational” according to the courts. That’s why restraint ing orders don’t apply to them
Under the exact same criteria men.
Crazy that a few of them can get an ID, and may even be able to vote. Glad most of them are too dumb (Democratic Party- circa 2026)
Another idiot making important life decisions for others. she’s wise in her own mind for sure though.
She is a follower.
The justice system must balance protecting alleged victims with preserving the constitutional rights of those accused until all of the facts can be examined. Additionally, when a judge is presiding over multiple cases involving the same individuals across different courtrooms, recusal should be considered to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure impartial decision-making.
Our courts carry an enormous responsibility. Judges are entrusted with making difficult decisions that affect families forever. That responsibility requires impartiality, careful consideration of the evidence, and a commitment to due process. When patterns of questionable or inconsistent rulings emerge, it is appropriate for the public and oversight bodies to examine whether those entrusted with such authority are meeting these standards.
Regardless of the outcome of any individual case, the public should expect transparency, accountability, and confidence that extraordinary court orders are issued only when the legal standard has truly been met. Families deserve nothing less.
She’s absolutely horrible and something needs to be done. Where do we all send our letters to get her removed?
Code pink.