LEARN WHY THE CITY OF RACINE WI SETTLED THE BAR LAWSUIT

Posted: October 13, 2015 in The Film
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

Comments
  1. Only the lawyers won with this case.

  2. RRWI338 says:

    It is not over. Not even close. It is just the beginning.

    Corruption in Racine is not going away and you are probably one of the people tied to the defendants in the case.

    There is much more ahead that will bring everything to light along with criminal charges. There is a lot more than what was uncovered in these depositions. This was just an opening act. Wait and see.

    The entire truth of what has been going on in Racine is going to be revealed. All of the businesses involved, all of the organizations involved, all of the corruption. Even the people involved will be shocked.

    Will the feds finish their investigation first? Will anyone else come forward before people start getting indicted? Are you willing to risk that?

    The people who are involved know what they did. It is never going away. If you want to comment so confidently be prepared to answer some real questions soon.

    Celebrate while you can because this party won’t last much longer.

  3. No Name says:

    It’s over, Kate. The plaintiffs have AGREED to DISMISS their claims forever. Spodick claims they city settled because of the alleged facts in these depositions. If they had such a good case, then why did the plaintiffs agree? The plaintiffs may not have been affirmed, but that is there choice.

  4. Kate Remington says:

    I just finished reading Wisneski’s dep which has me hopping mad.  Downtown Sixth Street isn’t even downtown according to him over and over again.  Creeps.   Especially his humor in his emails with friends. I have read Dickert’s dep too – ugleeeee and revealing re Dickert’s inability to cope with someone like a Marcus or a Holmes or a Fair or a Shields.  I read with interest Shields’ dep too and thank you Jim for the NAACP/Oliver report which I had not read because there’s our local expert and the local NAACP should finalize that report and correct the few typos and rise again as a serious organization in a city that really needs a serious NAACP. Yes the city settled because it hopes the public doesn’t read this stuff…. I can get that but residents here need more than that, they need to get this strong mayor out of office asap and that is why I think it would have been better to go to trial.   The case became too big   Is this the reason why you think the individual plaintiffs can get further if they can be matched up with pro bono lawyers?    Plaintiffs haven’t won because they were not compensated like the lawyers.  Plaintiffs were not affirmed. 

    I will read Nicholson tonight and into tomorrow morning.    Time is going to tell..  .    

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s