KENOSHA, Wis. — Kenosha County Circuit Court Commissioner Alexandra Smathers denied a harassment temporary restraining order Tuesday morning against drug-using therapist Jacqueline Niccolai (out on two criminal bails) despite a petition alleging Niccolai repeatedly contacted a 40-year-old woman after being told to stop, showed up at her home after being told not to come there, called her approximately 32 times in about 30 minutes in the middle of the night, and then called her approximately 11 more times the following day. Smathers didn’t stop at denying the temporary restraining order. The woman asked that the case be scheduled for an injunction hearing if the ex parte TRO was denied, but Smathers denied that request, too.

Paid Advertisement

A Kenosha County attorney who reviewed the circumstances and spoke with Kenosha County Eye said he had never seen a harassment TRO handled this way and believes Smathers had no legal authority to deprive the woman of an injunction hearing because the petitioner was not required to pay a filing fee. Wisconsin Statute §813.125(2m) establishes a “two-part procedure” when the filing fee for a harassment petition is waived. First, the court either grants or denies the requested temporary restraining order. The statute then says, “Second, the court shall hold a hearing” to determine whether an injunction should be issued. When a TRO isn’t issued, the statute says the hearing date “shall be set upon motion by either party.”

Paid Advertisement

KCE is told the 40-year-old woman specifically requested that hearing if Smathers denied her TRO. Smathers refused. The attorney explained that the initial TRO determination is made ex parte — meaning Niccolai wasn’t there to testify, present evidence or challenge the woman’s allegations. An injunction hearing is different: both sides have an opportunity to appear, testimony can be taken and evidence can be considered before a court decides whether longer-term protection is warranted.

Paid Advertisement

Woman Says Niccolai Wouldn’t Leave Her Alone

The petition describes what the woman says was a months-long pattern of unwanted contact. The two women were previously friends, but their friendship ended around October 2025. The petitioner told the court that she personally observed Niccolai using cocaine and alcohol and alleged Niccolai became increasingly erratic while using the substances. According to the petition, on October 6, 2025, Niccolai came to the woman’s home despite having been told not to come there, harassed her and eventually left. The woman said she made clear that she wanted no further contact with Niccolai.

Paid Advertisement

The woman was later subpoenaed as a witness in legal proceedings involving Niccolai. On June 23, 2026, Niccolai allegedly called and texted her in what the petitioner believed was an attempt to discuss her anticipated testimony. The woman told Niccolai she intended to comply with the subpoena and again told her she didn’t want Niccolai contacting her.

Paid Advertisement

Then came August 4. According to the petition, Niccolai called the woman approximately 32 times during a roughly 30-minute period in the early morning hours, waking the woman and her fiancé. Niccolai also allegedly sent numerous messages. The woman confronted Niccolai, asking, “Why did you just call me 30 something times at 2 am?” Niccolai allegedly responded, “One time on accident. Sorry.” When the woman told Niccolai that her Facebook Messenger history showed approximately 30 calls, Niccolai allegedly denied making them, writing, “Not me.” She then suggested someone else was responsible and later offered another explanation — that she had been trying to call another person. The petitioner described Niccolai’s explanations as inconsistent.

Paid Advertisement

During the overnight communications provided to KCE, Niccolai also allegedly called the woman a “cunt.” According to the petition, the contact didn’t stop there. The woman alleged Niccolai called her approximately 11 additional times the following day, despite repeated demands that Niccolai stop contacting her. “I am not seeking an order because of a single unwanted telephone call or an isolated disagreement,” the woman told the court. She said she sought protection because Niccolai continued contacting her after being expressly told to stop, including dozens of calls in a short period, additional calls the following day, messages, previous unwanted contact at her home and contact surrounding her subpoenaed testimony. She told the court she feared for her safety and the safety of her fiancé and children.

Paid Advertisement

Wisconsin’s harassment statute specifically includes repeatedly committing acts or engaging in a course of conduct that harasses or intimidates another person and serves no legitimate purpose. Smathers apparently concluded that the allegations weren’t sufficient to justify immediate temporary protection. But despite the woman’s request, Smathers also wouldn’t allow her to attempt to prove those allegations at an injunction hearing.

Niccolai Claims She Has Judges “In My Motherfucking Pocket”

Smathers’ unusual decision also comes amid extraordinary claims Niccolai herself has made about her purported influence over Kenosha County’s justice system. In a text message previously sent by Niccolai to the same 40-year-old woman, Niccolai claimed, “I now have the police department, the sheriffs department, the district attorney’s office, and the judicial staff… In my motherfucking pocket.”

Niccolai went on to claim that one judge was secretly providing her information about what was occurring inside the court system. “I have a different Judge that is telling me everything that’s going on inside the court system,” Niccolai wrote. She claimed another judge was privately communicating with her about KCE and public pressure, writing, “I have another Judge, who privately tells me that he has no choice but to appease public opinions… Kevin followers.” Niccolai then claimed she had promised these purported officials that she would destroy their communications: “I promised all of these assholes that I would delete their messages,” Niccolai wrote. “I didn’t.”

Those are extraordinary claims, and Kenosha County Eye has not independently verified them. KCE doesn’t know whether judges actually sent Niccolai the messages she claims they sent, whether she possesses such communications or whether her assertions are truthful. KCE has also been told that Smathers and Niccolai are acquaintances, have met previously and know each other. KCE has not independently established the nature or extent of that acquaintance.

There is presently no evidence that Smathers’ acquaintance with Niccolai influenced Tuesday’s decision. KCE also cannot independently establish that Niccolai’s claims about possessing private communications from judges — communications she claims she promised to delete but secretly retained — had anything whatsoever to do with Smathers denying the TRO or refusing to schedule an injunction hearing. Still, if Smathers did, as the attorney who spoke with KCE believes, disregard Wisconsin law by denying the petitioner’s requested hearing, the circumstances raise an obvious question about why.

KCE Editor Previously Obtained Restraining Order Against Niccolai Over Similar Conduct — And Beat Her Appeal

Smathers’ decision is particularly striking to KCE because this isn’t the first time Niccolai has been accused of this type of behavior. Kenosha County Eye Editor Kevin Mathewson previously sought and obtained a harassment restraining order against Niccolai over substantially similar alleged conduct — repeated, unwanted communications, including messages during the middle of the night. Niccolai appealed the restraining order, but Mathewson prevailed on appeal.

That history creates a stark contrast with what happened Tuesday. Another court previously heard evidence concerning Niccolai’s repeated unwanted communications and granted Mathewson protection. Niccolai then exercised her right to challenge that decision and lost. Now another person has alleged strikingly similar behavior by Niccolai — including dozens of middle-of-the-night calls after repeatedly telling her to stop — but Smathers not only declined to issue temporary protection, she refused to give the woman the injunction hearing she requested.

The similarity goes further. In July 2024, while Niccolai was out on $500 cash bail after being accused of operating a firearm while intoxicated, KCE reported that Niccolai sent Mathewson 18 bizarre emails beginning around 1 a.m. The communications became concerning enough that KCE requested police conduct a welfare check on Niccolai.

The 40-year-old petitioner now describes another alleged episode of repeated middle-of-the-night communications. She additionally alleged that she personally witnessed Niccolai using cocaine and alcohol and said Niccolai became increasingly erratic when doing so. KCE has not independently verified the woman’s allegation of cocaine use.

Smathers’ Troubled History As A Prosecutor And Commissioner

Smathers was selected to become Kenosha County’s Family Court Commissioner in early 2025 despite having no family-law experience. KCE reported at the time that five of the six applicants for the position had family-law experience, while Smathers did not. She nevertheless received the appointment and was placed in a position making consequential decisions involving families and children.

Smathers’ professional history before coming to Kenosha also included a demotion. She worked for the Sheboygan County District Attorney’s Office for almost eight years and was promoted to Deputy District Attorney in 2020 before being demoted in 2021. KCE later reported that her former boss said Smathers wasn’t doing enough work, wasn’t responding to multiple cases and had poor work performance. Smathers subsequently left Sheboygan and joined the Kenosha County District Attorney’s Office.

Smathers was later sued for defamation by longtime forensic nurse Rebecca Rodriguez after an email Smathers sent to Aurora Health Care preceded Rodriguez’s firing. The lawsuit alleged Smathers made numerous false and defamatory statements about Rodriguez despite acknowledging in the email that she had never personally worked with her. Among other things, Smathers questioned Rodriguez’s nursing credentials and blamed her for a criminal defendant being found not guilty. Rodriguez’s attorney said the nursing allegation was demonstrably false and that court records showed the defendant Smathers said had been acquitted was actually convicted. Rodriguez alleged Aurora fired her because of Smathers’ statements.

The lawsuit also pointed to a text Smathers sent just minutes after sending the email to Rodriguez’s co-worker, Deanna Grundl. “And it’s away! Let me know if you need anything else from me!” Smathers wrote. Grundl responded that the email was “very helpful in fixing this problem.” Rodriguez alleged Smathers and Grundl worked together to harm her professionally. Smathers, Aurora, Grundl and others were named as defendants.

And Smathers’ tenure as a commissioner has already produced a significant courtroom controversy. In 2025, Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Anthony Milisauskas dismissed a felony domestic-violence prosecution following a preliminary hearing conducted by Smathers. KCE reported that Smathers allowed testimony and cross-examination to occur while the defendant was unrepresented before properly advising him of his constitutional right to counsel. Smathers acknowledged during the proceeding that she should have advised him before the witness was called. Milisauskas later found constitutional problems with the proceeding and dismissed the felony case.

Smathers has also previously rejected an injunction in another case involving allegations of repeated unwanted contact. In June, KCE reported that Smathers declined to issue an injunction after hearing allegations involving repeated unreturned telephone calls, a fake obituary posted to Facebook and a message saying the petitioner’s wife “needs her ass beat.” In that case, however, Smathers had initially granted the TRO and the petitioner at least received an injunction hearing where evidence could be presented.

That is an important distinction from what happened Tuesday.

Whether Smathers should have granted the 40-year-old woman’s temporary restraining order is one question. Wisconsin law gives a commissioner discretion at the temporary stage and requires reasonable grounds to believe the respondent engaged in harassment with the necessary intent. Her refusal to schedule the requested injunction hearing is a separate issue.

KCE knows the petitioner wasn’t required to pay a filing fee. Wisconsin law says that when the harassment filing fee is waived, the case follows a two-part procedure: the court first grants or denies the TRO and then “shall hold a hearing” on the injunction. If the TRO is denied, the statute says that hearing “shall be set upon motion by either party.”

According to KCE’s information, the 40-year-old woman made precisely that request.

Smathers said no.