What is the difference now? The difference is the City Leaders of Racine lost $ 4 MILLION in a lawsuit saying “The minority businesses in downtown Racine WI. was the cause of the downtown Racine chaos at bar closing time” Now those minority businesses were closed by the city leaders costing the taxpayers $4 Million Dollars in a lawsuit brought and WON by the minority businesses…….and the chaos continues…………. Was it the minority businesses causing the problem or just racism and poor City leadership?………….NOW WHO ARE THE CITY LEADERS GOING TO BLAME?……
Pattern or Practice peels the veneer off that shoddy pretense and provides a stark view of what institutionalized racism looks like watch video

Was the baseball cap the problem? Was it a white Tee shirt? Bandana? No one under 25? Remove Hennessy Liquor? No HIP HOP music?

All these restrictions were in side agreements that the city of Racine was making minority bars sign to keep their liquor license.  But they said that they were not targeting any one group?


No sport coats. No Polo’s and Sport Shirts. No Vodka Martinis. No one older than 35. And no Frank Sinatra music. Again would they be targeting any one group?

While there is a lot of reading, you as a reader can go behind the scenes and feel the clumsily staging of the Racine Mayor, the probing of the attorneys as they seek out the racketeering that was included in the complaint. The puzzle pieces begin to fit together winding thru the other depositions. After reading these you will see why they settled. 

Depositions in the bar lawsuit Holmes vs City of Racine WI.      Depositions include

Mayor City of Racine WI John Dickert

Mayor Dickert’s 2009 Campaign  strategist Zak Williams

 Downtown Racine Bar Owner Doug Nicholson (Campaign Contributor)

  Racine Business Owner Tom Tousis ( Campaign Contributor)

Mayor John Dickert’s Deposition Vol 1

Mayor John Dickert’s Deposition Vol 2

Zak Williams Deposition

Doug Nicholson Deposition

Tom Tousis Deposition vol 1

Tom Tousis vol 2

Citizens of Racine WI “CHUMPS”

Posted: October 10, 2015 in The Film

Mayor John Dickert, ( Cousin) City Administrator Tom FriedelAttorney Michael Cohen and Alderman Jeff Coe Celebrating after losing over 4 million dollars of taxpayer money. Attorney Michael Cohen should be extremely happy after pocketing 2.7 million in taxpayers money. Jeff Coe chairman of the liquor licensing committee is just happy because someone else is buying.

Chump = a foolish or easily deceived person

Chump Change =  a small or insignificant amount of money

 Dickert in bar ,Chon, Friedel, Coe
Dickert in Bar Cohn Coe Friedel

If the Racine Chapter of the NAACP as it currently operates ceased to exist tomorrow, what significant effect would it have on black Racine?  Gloria how would you answer that question?

When did you and your organization decide to stop representing civil rights?

Gloria Rogers

Did it happen when Thomas Holmes called looking for help in this civil rights lawsuit?

Did it happen when Frazier Funeral Home was denied the purchased of the Women’s Club?

Did it happen when LaShonda Lang called looking for help in her son’ questionable police suicide?

Or did it happen when you found out Racine County has the largest African American prison population in the county?

No, it could have been when Craig Oliver and Michael Shields  wrote a report on the civil rights (color of Law) in Downtown Racine and the NAACP would not back them up?


Justice for ALL, not just those City of Racine Officials prefer.

From the Funeral Home that proposed to purchase the former Women’s Club, Ginger Lounge, and the unfair treatment of Thomas Holmes and Park 6, and Rosie’s Bar – a pattern, or practice, if you will, of behavior and treatment has emerged from City Hall that borders on criminal. This Pattern, or Practice has now been revealed, and Racine needs to be investigated – starting at the Mayor’s Office

Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.”

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. From the ballot box to the classroom, the thousands of dedicated workers, organizers, leaders and members who make up the NAACP continue to fight for social justice for all Americans.

Asked about how they felt about the NAACP, the men, Deonte Cottingham, 30, and Stephen Harris, 25, both of Racine, said the association lacked visibility.

“I personally feel they should promote themselves, make themselves more available,” said Cottingham, trimming the hair of a young client.

Harris was bit more stinging in his criticism.

“They seem like a Yacht Club now. The real NAACP was when Martin Luther King was around, if you ask me,” he said.

Asked where he would point a young person who wanted to get involved in civil rights work, he said he would have to think about it for a while, but that “it wouldn’t be the NAACP.”


Group Pic 2

A great story of a small attorney firm believing in a civil rights case and teaming with a national firm to  take on racial discrimination and institutionalized racism in a midsize city.

Kohler and Hart Milwaukee investigated the allegations brought by the plaintiffs for over a year. Teaming up with Segal McCambridge Chicago before they filed a complaint.
Early on the bar owners banded together after having their livelihoods taken and hunted for an attorney.
Even going so far as making a pitch on a fundraising site. One plaintiff mortgaged his home for private investigator fees  Plaintiffs participated in a documentary to get their story heard. At one point 10 attorneys, paralegals and staff  worked on the case. City aldermen were puzzled by how this ragtag bunch of minority businessmen, (that they had literally run out of business), could bankroll such an effort. Over 50 depositions were taken including the Mayor of the City of Racine. Shocking information was revealed which kept the city from going to trial and risking a larger settlement then the 1,3000,000 million settled upon.


Craig Oliver took on an early role in uncovering institutional racism in downtown Racine WI. Oliver authored a report “Sun City, Sister City or Gaza on Lake Michigan. A Report on the State of Racine’s Downtown.” The report was highly regarded as an underground work, even by the Racine NAACP executive board. The report compared downtown Racine to Palestine and South Africa, stating that African Americans were not welcome in downtown Racine, especially after dark. Tonight the Racine City Council will vote on the settlement of Holmes vs City of Racine. Bringing the truth and facts to light.


Comments on the Report:

“It’s divisive. It doesn’t deal with what I consider the facts on hand. That’s the problem I have. The city is not involved in segregation or anything like that,” Wahlen said. “The city wants good businesses Downtown and doesn’t care who runs them. I think the city is color blind on all that.”

Calls for comment to Devin Sutherland, executive director of Downtown Racine Corp., were not returned Wednesday.

Emails uncovered in discovery Holmes vs City of Racine

Devin Sutherland’s (“Sutherland”) e-mail stating that non-white establishments on 6th Street had “not added any value to the neighborhood.”  (Id. at 6).

. E-mail from Helding stating that the City was “turning into a Detroit.”

. E-mail from RPD officer Rick Geller stating “Alderperson Coe was present both nights and while happy with our efforts, has placed a target on Ginger’s as a result of the last few weekends.”

E-mail from RPD officer David Smetana to Officer Wetzel stating “You may wish to check Park 6 and 2nd Time Around if Gingers is a bust.  Happy Hunting,

E-mail from RPD officer David Smetana to RPD Lieutenant Macemon regarding Park 6 stating “[w]e will go ahead with the plan as we spoke of this morning including the nuisance property complaint and going after his cabaret license . . . Plan on proactive foot beats down there for the foreseeable future.”

. E-mail from RPD Lieutenant Macemon regarding The Place on 6th stating “[w]e will see if we can take it to the next level and do some DC arrests or tickets when appropriate.”

Mayor Dickert’s statements thanking the Licensing Committee for “[w]orking very, very diligently on making sure 6th Street is a great place for people to live, shop, work and play.”

Deposition testimony from Penny Sharp that Mayor Dickert said “These niggers need to go back to Waukegan because they are disturbing the revenue here in Racine from the lake, from our vacationers at the lake.

Sutherland’s e-mail stating that “[t]he letter was to make sure the Mayor and others were aware of the current situation on Sixth Street and urge them to step up their assistance.

The Report

Excerpt from Tom Tousis Deposition Holmes vs City of Racine

Dickert about your West Racine project? 2 A    No, not before that. 3 Q    Did — did he -4 A    I really hadn’t talked to John for quite a bit 5     of time before he started soliciting us for 6     money. 7 Q    Well, on this particular occasion, the day that 8     you agreed to make a contribution, who brought 9     up the West Racine project? 10 A    John did.  John was reviewing my prints. 11 Q    He was what? 12 A    Reviewing the prints. 13 Q    How did he obtain the prints? 14 A    He asked to see them and when he was asking me 15     if we could do the project without pumps, with 16     no gas, just do grocery and restaurant. 17 Q    Okay. 18 A    Various questions like that. 19 Q    And at this point he had no authority 20     whatsoever over your project. 21 A    No. 22 Q    Do you know if he was sitting on any 23     committees? 24 A    He might have been on the same committee 25     that — he probably was.  It was only a few
Page 67
1     years after our first project, so… 2 Q    Okay.  Ultimately how much money did you agree 3     to give him? 4 A    Well, I originally wanted to max out, wrote the 5     check from my father and after talking to my 6     father, but John said he was very short and 7     needed to pay for radio and he wasn’t going to 8     win and he was out of money and depleted his 9     own so he asked if we could do twice the 10     amount. 11 Q    Okay. 12 A    Okay.  So — and it was rough, you know, the 13     real amount’s got to be around $1,900 so I just 14     rounded it to, you know, approximately 2,000 15     bucks. 16 Q    And did you give him — did you write checks 17     for him? 18 A    No.  He didn’t want it that way. 19 Q    What happened?  What did he say? 20 A    He said he didn’t have time, because this was 21     days before the election to turn around the 22     money to pay for advertising, so it was either 23     radio or print or both or that he needed to pay 24     for it immediately otherwise he was going to 25     lose.
Page 68
1 Q    All right.  So what did you end up doing? 2 A    Giving him — giving him cash. 3 Q    How did you give him the cash? 4 A    He — he provided a jar with a “John Dickert 5     for Mayor” sticker on the front of it and said 6     to take any contribution, pass to my customers, 7     like leave it on the counter and collect money. 8     That’s the story he was giving me. 9 Q    The day that — the day that he asked you to 10     make this contribution how long after that did 11     you receive the jar? 12 A    Oh, it was the same day.  It was hours 13     following. 14 Q    Who brought the jar to you? 15 A    John, I think, brought the jar to me. 16 Q    Okay. 17 A    He had somebody pick it up. 18 Q    So the day that you had this conversation, the 19     day he brought you the jar, did you put the jar 20     on the counter for customers to put money into? 21 A    No, it never got to the counter. 22 Q    Where did you take the money from? 23 A    We just took it out of the sales that day. 24 Q    How much money did you put in the jar? 25 A    It was just short of 2,000 bucks, you know,
Page 69 1     uneven number, so 1,900 something dollars and 2     singles and fives and ten and 20s and mixed up. 3 Q    How big was the jar? 4 A    It was a mason jar.  It wasn’t very big at all. 5     It was like a Ragu container.  It wasn’t very 6     big at all. 7 Q    You said it was covered with stickers on it? 8 A    It was one sticker across the front. 9 Q    What was on the -10 A    It was taped or it was something taped to the 11     front of it.  It was a “John Dickert for Mayor” 12     type of a small banner type of decal. 13 Q    Okay.  Did you ultimately put cash in the jar? 14 A    Correct. 15 Q    Then how did you transfer the money back to 16     Dickert? 17 A    He sent at the time one of his campaign workers 18     over to pick it up. 19 Q    Do you know who the campaign worker was? 20 A    Zach Williams. 21 Q    Had you met Zach Williams before? 22 A    Never.  That was the first time we ever met, 23     I’d say. 24 Q    Did you meet him in person for

Full Deposition

Homer Blow tells Racine to WAKE UP!

Posted: September 30, 2015 in The Film

Homer Blow program director of WNOV 860 Milwaukee WI. and his news show at http://www.blowradio.com Tells the citizen’s of Racine to WAKE UP!.

Click on emails to reference what Homer is speaking about.

Email Racine Alderman Joke

Alderman commenting on 6th st clientele

email on Niggas

email Park 6 targeting

 Now that the federal civil rights suit has progressed further, ( Holmes vs City of Racine)  evidence has been revealed that racial slurs were used, and a biased attitude toward minorities has been entrenched in the personalities of several public officials.  This cannot help but have  a damaging effect on public confidence in city government.  Revealing this evidence will certainly prove disruptive to the domestic tranquility, but it’s a necessary beginning to a long overdue process of ending racism and discrimination in our community.

This lawsuit, which began as a response to the systematic closure of minority taverns, is important, but it is merely emblematic of deeper, more pervasive civil rights issues that plague Racine

As people become more familiar with what racism really is, and how it works, they will be shocked and appalled by what has been taking place where they live.  Hopefully, they will be inspired to do something about it.  The bottom line is, if we do not begin to accept one another as fully human, and willingly share the opportunities that are created by civilized societies, we are going to end up destroying what has taken many generations to create.

Bar Lawsuit: Coloring it WHITE

Posted: September 23, 2015 in The Film

Here is a clip of the City of Racine approving a Bar license for a Minority Bar Tinta / Park 6 in 2007

Even before the business was given a license to operate multiple restrictions were placed on the business.

City of Racine Alderman closed Park 6  and took his license for: Over use of police service, disturbing neighbors, street fights.  After taking his license in 2011 the City of Racine also took Thomas Holmes ( Park 6 ) to civil court as a nuisance property.

The racial overtones of the PSLC’s selective enforcement process are made clear in the language used in revocation hearings and the side agreements. Because it is no longer officially acceptable to discriminate on the basis of race, efforts to excise racial populations must be made through coded language and race-blind attributions. Aaron Roussell, Ph.D.

Kenny’s Bar

At the same time Kenny’s Bar was approved for a License to operate a Bar.( 2007 )

No restrictions were place on Kenny’s Bar when it opened.

But having multiple incidents, including several shootings, as well as  fights and noise complaints. License continues to be renewed,  despite highest call load of any bar in Racine.

Kenny’s Bar remains in business.

JT. Kenny’s owner, Kenneth R. Meyer, was called before the committee after patrons of the bar — some of them underage — were charged in drunken driving incidents that killed two people and seriously injured others

Public Safety and Licensing Committee members had been expecting to hold a due process hearing later this week when they learned Tuesday that the city’s attorney in the case Kenneth E. Rusch, and Meyer, had reached a “side agreement.”


Aaron Roussell, Ph.D. states from his report:

Relying on the information I have received and reviewed, based on calls for service, taverns owned by Whites and catering to White clientele had 13% more violent calls than minority owned taverns whose licenses were revoked. It is clear that White taverns with serious violence issues were not subject to license revocation, while those in the downtown core that catered to young minorities were driven out of downtown through revocation and hamstrung by side agreements.

Moreover, and again based on the information I have received and reviewed, the White taverns minority owned taverns had five times the reported complaints as White taverns in terms of noise and crowd calls, but two-thirds of those were determined to be unfounded; conversely, in White taverns, the complaints were founded over 50% of the time. Interestingly, both the license-revoked minority owned taverns and all minority taverns considered together had five times as many unfounded calls as the White taverns.

The extreme discrepancy between founded and unfounded implies differences in perception. The assessment of the desirability for any given tavern’s clientele appears to be based on race. When pressed for how they could tell from which taverns the disturbing crowds had emerged, the City’s witnesses at Ginger’s due process hearing indicated race and youthful clothing as the primary means.

For example, one witness was asked how she could tell where the people that disturbed her at night came from:
A: Ginger’s has a different crowd, a different clientele…. …

Q: Describe for me how you know that they are different

. A: They are younger, they are black, they are Mexican, the way they dress, the way they talk…That is not the clientele from Evelyn’s, not the crowd from Ricky’s, it is not the crowd from Ivanhoe’s…

Q: One of the problems you have with this crowd is that it is predominantly Mexican or—

A: I don’t have a problem with the type of crowd, I have a problem with how loud they are, how obnoxious they are, the screaming, the yelling. If they didn’t do that and would leave the bar like normal people do…
Not only does the City’s witness clearly state that her complaint is based on race, but she also determines that “normal people”—that is, people who are not “black” and “Mexican”—do not comport themselves in such a manner.