Kratz resigns from victims’ rights board

Calumet County Dist. Atty. Ken Kratz resigned as chairman of the Wisconsin Crime Victims Rights Board after the victim in a domestic abuse case he was prosecuting complained to police that Kratz sent her repeated text messages seeking an affair.

Kratz, who was prosecuting Stephanie Van Groll’s ex-boyfriend on charges he nearly choked her to death, sent her 30 texts over three days in October 2009, according to documents compiled by the Kaukauna Police Department and obtained Wednesday by The Post-Crescent.

“Are you the kind of girl that likes secret contact with an older married elected DA … the riskier the better?” Kratz, 50, wrote in a message to the woman.

In another, Kratz wrote, “I’m the attorney. I have the $350,000 house. I have the six-figure income. You may be the tall, young hot nymph, but I am the prize.”

After Van Groll complained to Kaukauna police, Kratz reported his actions to the state Office of Lawyer Regulation, which handles disciplinary actions against attorneys. The office said earlier this year it would not pursue disciplinary action against him.

“Although (Kratz’s) communication with you was inappropriate, it did not appear to involve possible professional misconduct,” Cynthia Schally, a lawyer regulation investigator, wrote March 5 to Van Groll.

Kratz released his file on the case to The P-C after an anonymous source contacted The Associated Press about the complaint. He said the text messages are “embarrassing and stupid, but not horrible.” (Source: Post-Crescent)

Go to the source to read the rest.

Shocking to say the least that a D.A. would do something like this.  I mean seriously fifty-three text messages??  “Lapse in judgement” is a definite understatement.  He may not be up for re-election as D.A. until 2012 but one has to wonder if he won’t resign or be forced to resign before then.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Enhanced by Zemanta



3 thoughts on “Kratz resigns from victims’ rights board

  1. From your 2008 post about Kratz,

    does this mean he will not run for the 6th district against Perti or does what candidates do in the past gives them a pass?

    I think Kratz should or better be toast.

  2. I would think he won’t run in the 6th or any higher office in the future. It is a fair question though to ask at what point does past actions deserve to be given a pass. That being said Kratz’s actions are the type that I would have a hard time giving a pass to.

    The question is did the story surface for political reasons. You would hope that wasn’t the case but when house is crumbling the way it is for the liberals & MSM …

    Not that it excuses Kratz’s actions in any way or that they shouldn’t have been brought to light. He is accountable to the voters who elected him.

Comments are closed.