KENOSHA, Wis. — Most of you probably haven’t read Quinn Clark’s lengthy Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article about me and District Attorney Xavier Solis. It is an opinion piece presented as news. It builds its story around two people I have criticized who now face charges. What it fails to give readers is a complete account of the investigations, the records and the explanations I provided before publication. That makes it a hit piece. Here is my response.

Clark devoted 3,440 words to me and Solis after repeatedly trying to contact me. I wasn’t flattered; I was concerned. I told her early on that I was married. In her graduation photos, she also appeared to wear LGBT-themed attire, which added to my confusion. Why was a reporter working in Milwaukee so fixated on me and Kenosha’s district attorney? Her reporting reflects hostility toward conservatives. I also question whether racial bias plays a role in her treatment of Solis.

Today, I made a public records request for Clark’s requests for comment and Solis’ replies. Coupled with the explanations and records I know I gave her, those communications will help show what she was told compared with what she published. From what I have already seen, so much was omitted or twisted that her article gives readers a deeply misleading account.

I Forwarded A Draft. I Didn’t Write It.

Clark opens with an email I sent Solis containing a draft message to his staff. The implication is that I was helping direct his office.

I did not author that message. Solis prepared it, left it in his office and departed for the day. He asked me, because I was still in the building, to send it to him. I copied and pasted his draft into an email. Clark included his statement that he wrote the draft, but left out the circumstances explaining why it came from my email address. Those circumstances belong alongside the allegation.

We also had separate offices. We independently rented from the same landlord in the same building. Although Solis used “shared office space” as shorthand in his response, we did not occupy one shared office. His office and mine were separate rooms about 25 feet apart. Forwarding his document was a favor. It did not make me its author or an employee of the district attorney’s office.

Berg’s Investigations Were Real — And The Theft Case Was Refiled

A whistleblower brought me records concerning Andrew “Andy” Berg’s charity, including bank statements. I gave those records to the Kenosha Police Department and asked investigators to examine them. Police investigated, obtained bank records themselves and referred the matter for felony charges. That investigation began before Solis became district attorney.

Yes, I later publicly argued that Berg should be charged. I had reviewed the records and believed prosecution was warranted. My opinion does not erase the police investigation that preceded it.

Clark accurately reported that the original theft prosecution was dismissed over a summons procedure. Then she wrote: “The case was never refiled.”

That is wrong. The theft charge was refiled September 17, 2026, in Kenosha County case 2026CF001336 — weeks before her article appeared.

Her discussion of the missing interview also leaves out context. Police sought an interview with Berg. He referred the detective to his attorney, and an interview did not occur. The absence of an interview does not establish that police never tried to obtain one.

Clark also mentions Berg’s two later drug cases. What needs much greater emphasis is that those arose from separate sheriff’s investigations involving controlled purchases, searches and other evidence. I had no involvement in arranging those controlled buys or directing those investigations.

Across those two complaints, Berg faces 31 felony counts, along with misdemeanors, involving allegations that include drug delivery, firearm straw purchases and child neglect. The felony counts alone carry more than 200 years of combined potential initial confinement if convictions and consecutive maximum sentences resulted. That is potential exposure; the cases remain pending. Reporting on Berg did not give me control over the sheriff’s investigators.

This type of thing is very common in investigative journalism. People bring me reports of illegal behavior—not necessarily police reports, but information about misconduct they want exposed. The public learns from my reporting. Law enforcement learns from my reporting. Prosecutors learn from my reporting. Sometimes, people are charged as a result. Anybody who believes the media does not open law enforcement’s and prosecutors’ eyes to misconduct and criminality does not know how the world works.

That is exactly what happened with Christian Enwright, the convicted child groomer, under Solis’ predecessor, Mike Graveley. I reported on Enwright before any criminal charges were brought. Graveley initially refused to charge him. I published a story that riled people up, and Graveley then did an about-face and brought charges. Why didn’t Clark discuss that in her article? If my reporting prompting scrutiny under Solis supposedly proves I control his office, why wasn’t the same theory applied when it happened under Graveley?

Why didn’t she discuss the credit State Rep. Amanda Nedweski gave Kenosha County Eye for exposing the Enwright case and helping inspire a new law making child grooming a felony? My reporting helped bring attention to a gap in Wisconsin law and helped drive change to protect children. That is part of the record, too.

In All Three Niccolai Cases, I Went To Police

This point should be unmistakable: in each of Jacqueline Niccolai’s three criminal cases in which I am the victim, I went to the Kenosha Police Department and made a report. Investigators examined the allegations and referred requests for charges to the district attorney’s office. Prosecutors then made charging decisions.

A police report does not automatically produce a prosecution. Police can conclude that the evidence does not support a referral. In these three cases, investigators referred the matters. Clark does acknowledge a police investigation in one passage. But that process deserves a central place in a story suggesting that people get prosecuted because they criticize me.

The allegations also concern substantially more than “negative posts.” The publications at issue portrayed me as a pedophile, groomer, child predator, sexual predator and sex offender. They accused me of sexual assault and associated me with child abuse, including a claim that I had been jailed for abusing my son. Those accusations are false.

In her civil answer, Niccolai admits publishing numerous statements identified in my lawsuit. She also admits that I have never been arrested, charged with or convicted of a crime. She disputes liability, but her admissions about what she published are part of the record I gave Clark.

I also obtained a harassment injunction after a contested hearing. Niccolai appealed, and I prevailed again. Judge David P. Wilk issued a four-year injunction protecting me through May 22, 2029. That history deserves more weight than a description of supposedly mundane emails.

Solis also told Clark that the previous administration filed criminal defamation charges. His response deserved inclusion rather than leaving readers with the impression that this prosecution represented a new invention.

Niccolai’s OWI investigation arose separately. I was asleep when she crashed. The police documentation records her admission that she had consumed alcohol and taken Xanax, Vyvanse and Hydroxyzine before driving. Her admitted substance use also included cocaine.

Her earlier firearm charge was filed under Mike Graveley’s administration and was later dismissed by a brand-new prosecutor without Solis’ permission. That prosecutor was fired not long afterward.

Police testified under oath that she was severely intoxicated and armed herself while officers were inside her home. They had been summoned because she had made suicide threats to friends and family. This happened before I even knew who she was. She would later blame me for a suicide threat, but she had a history of suicidal thoughts and threats before any connection to me.

During that arrest, I was asleep. While she was kicking the squad car’s doors and windows, trying to smash them, I was asleep. When she threatened to kill all Kenosha police officers, I was asleep. That all happened on a night when I did not even know who she was. I subsequently reported on the incident, and her persistent campaign of writing about me and contacting me followed.

Her animal-related record also includes convictions involving sanitary housing and another animal violation involving her emotional therapy dog, resulting in $191.30 in fines. She also abandoned two dogs and told her children they had gone “to a farm.”

The four-year harassment injunction has not brought me relief from her obsessive attention. She continues writing about me on Facebook and monitoring my social media and website all day, every day. It is unsettling that this woman is so obsessed with me.

Anonymous Opinions Don’t Put Me In Charge

Former prosecutor Timothy Martin’s suggestion that I was “really the one in charge” is nonsense. I hold no position in the district attorney’s office. I do not supervise prosecutors or make their charging decisions. I do not even know many of the office’s employees.

Former prosecutors can criticize Solis. But an allegation that an outside journalist controls criminal prosecutions is serious. Readers deserve specific evidence establishing that allegation, beyond someone’s perception of my influence.

The departure timeline also matters. My July 2025 reporting identified seven prosecutors who resigned before Solis took office. That history deserved inclusion before drawing conclusions about departures and his administration.

The Court Records Deserve Their Full Context

Clark’s characterization of my 2023 defamation lawsuit against Raymond Roberts was not correct. I wanted a jury to determine that his statements that I was a terrorist, that I turned my children into suicide bombers to blow up their school and that I threatened to kill military veterans were false. That is what I wanted, and that is what I got.

The jury unanimously determined that those accusations were false. It did not award me damages, so technically the judgment was entered in his favor. But reducing the case to that judgment leaves out why I brought it and what the jury determined about his accusations. I got the vindication I wanted.

Roberts has garnishments, and I believe he is dead broke. I do not believe I would have been able to collect any meaningful amount of money from him anyway. Having a jury reject those accusations was what mattered to me.

The conflict-of-interest rulings also deserve their full context. Judge Heather Iverson rejected a request to disqualify Solis in the Trenton Kmiec prosecution based partly on his relationship with me, my reporting and my campaign support. Judge Jason Hughes later disqualified him in Niccolai’s case.

Clark mentions Iverson’s ruling briefly. It deserves meaningful consideration alongside Hughes’ ruling. They addressed different cases and reached different conclusions. I disagree with Hughes’ decision.

Clark also presents Mackenzie Renner’s professional background while omitting her documented disciplinary history. State Public Defender records show a one-day unpaid suspension in 2023 for inappropriate workplace remarks. They also show that a second investigation ended without discipline. We do not know whether she was asked to leave.

Renner is also consistently late to court and often misses court outright. That deserves consideration when presenting her criticism of other people’s professional conduct.

What Clark Got Right — And The Context She Left Out

I supported Solis’ campaign and provided free advertising. He previously represented me. I use nicknames, criticize public officials and sometimes write irreverently. Readers already know that.

I have called Solis “X-Man,” thanked him enthusiastically and joked that someone should put him in for a raise after he supplied an after-hours response. That is my sense of humor. It establishes no authority over his office.

Clark reported that criminal complaints went to me and TMJ4. Solis’ written response explained that distribution also includes FOX6 and the Kenosha News. Clark also omitted that Solis adopted a policy used by other district attorneys’ offices, where criminal complaints are automatically sent to the media. This is not something new. Other district attorneys’ offices do it, and he adopted the practice in the name of transparency.

The campaign documents I published concerning Carli McNeill were public filings, including nomination papers containing signers’ addresses. My purpose was to show who supported her candidacy. Describing the publication simply as posting prosecutors’ home addresses strips away that context.

For accuracy, Clark’s passage about early positive commentary on McNeill concerns reader comments, rather than favorable articles written by me. I strongly opposed her candidacy.

Yes, I refer to Judge Chad Kerkman as “Jerkman,” and so do many people in the courthouse because he is despised by most people there. Clark is upset that I wasn’t charged for my aggressive scrutiny of Kerkman, a fellow liberal.

I never called Judge Chad Kerkman gay or implied that he was. Clark, however, introduced that implication in her reporting. It is interesting that she would attribute that suggestion to my criticism when it was not something I said.

It is ironic that she wants a journalist imprisoned for covering others with criticism. That is exactly what she is doing here against an elected district attorney and another member of the news media. I do not want her imprisoned for her lies, omissions and twisting. I am sure the district attorney does not, either. But I can see why she does. I am real competition to her.

Finally, I declined a telephone interview. I did not decline to respond. I sent Clark substantial written explanations and records, including criminal complaints, police documentation, civil pleadings and material I asked her to investigate concerning Niccolai’s own claims of courthouse connections.

I also criticized Clark’s politics using publicly available photographs, including photographs displayed on her own account. Readers are entitled to assess my criticism, just as they are entitled to assess hers.

A couple of days ago, Clark scrubbed her social media account of anti-Trump, pro-liberal content. Fortunately, I had already saved copies of all of it. She can remove those posts, but that does not erase the political views she publicly expressed.

My Readers Know Why This Work Matters

Why else would Clark write such a long hit piece? Nearly 3,500 words is a lot to devote to somebody who supposedly does not matter and is irrelevant.

When you look at people sharing Clark’s opinion piece, you will see plenty of negative comments and few positive comments about me. But thousands of people give me $5 a month to support my journalism and get the news. Those numbers speak for themselves.

Kenosha County trusts me to provide the news. My readers also know that supporting me publicly can get them lied about. If you support me, there is a chance Jacqueline Niccolai will call you a pedophile, a pervert or a sexual predator, as she has done to other people who publicly supported me.

Niccolai’s admitted use of alcohol, cocaine and prescription medications, her pending cases and her history with me do not make her a strong source for Clark. But Clark needed somebody who hates me to further her agenda, and she found one.

Niccolai is facing an OWI charge where she will lose her license for nine to twelve months. She is facing years in prison for her criminal conduct, and she is looking at a six- or seven-figure judgment in my defamation case.

I am an open book. You have questions? Let me know. But this opinion piece, written by a far-left liberal activist masquerading as a journalist, does a disservice to her Milwaukee audience.

People whose criminal conduct I have written about are excited that I am being attacked. That is okay with me. The fact that drug addicts, multiple OWI offenders and murderers hate me is a badge of honor.

I am not intimidated by local bullies, and I will not be intimidated by a bully who holds up a sign outside Trump Tower saying, “Keep your paws off my pussy.”

The difference between Quinn and me is that I do not lie about my political orientation. I am a proud conservative. She tells people she is down the middle, unbiased and fair, when she is clearly a far-left lunatic liberal.

I love Kenosha, and I’m not going anywhere.