From the Desk of Stephan nASS

Or from the desk of Joseph McCarthy i can not keep them straight these days!

We have written recently of the ill advised attack on the UW School for Workers, by Representative Steve Nass (and/or) his spokesperson Mike Mikalsen. They censored a little art show that was being planned by the UW school for Workers and threatened them with pulling their funding.

The School for Workers, thanks to such free publicity, Found a new venue and had a very successful show.

The two headed Nasselsen monster, proving they do not have enough to do and acting like the bullies that they are decided to keep up the attack.

Well known political cartoonist and artist Mike Konopacki put out a fake satirical press release, which looked like it came from Stephen L nASS himself!

Mikalsen, who believes in the heavy hand of big government, decided to sic the Capitol police on Mr. Konopacki!

State Assemblyman Steve Nass (R-La Grange) filed a formal criminal complaint Thursday against Madison political cartoonist Mike Konopacki for “misuse” of Nass’s official letterhead in a gag press release inadvertently published by the Capital Times on Saturday, February 25.

“We notified the Capitol Police the Monday after it was released,” said Nass’s chief of staff, Mike Mikalsen. “We wanted to see if there was any type of statute violated. They’ve been investigating ever since.”

Mikalsen said the police investigation included consultation with the Dane County District Attorney who “did find something” described as a “potential felony.” Mikalsen said investigating officer Dave Davis contacted him on Thursday and asked if Nass wanted to go forward with a formal complaint on “misuse of letterhead.” The complaint was filed on the same day.

Mikalsen didn’t know what statute is at issue.

We all know that the Capitol Police have more important things to focus on!!!

While Mikalsen claims to be a head researcher for Representative Steve nASS, research is not his strong suit, so let us at BB help!


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I know that is a little too much information for the current batch of republicans, but here it is translated so even the Republican caucus can read it:

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988),

In Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held, in a unanimous 8–0 decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them.

Thus, Hustler magazine’s parody of Jerry Falwell was deemed to be within the law, because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims, leading to a reversal of the jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been awarded $150,000 in damages by a lower court.

Let’s Hope that this ridiculous moment spells the end of Nass/mikalsen the same way it did their predecessor Joe McCarthy:

Mr. Nass and Mr. Mikalsen: “Have you no shame?”


Related Articles

10 thoughts on “From the Desk of Stephan nASS

  1. The funny thing is that Nass’s own press releases serve as self-parody. If the State Senate were to hold an airhead contest Nass would win hands-down although the vertically-challenged Robin Vos would give him a run for his marbles. Does anyone know when the last successful prosecution of a satirist took place? I’m guessing it was about 200 years ago. Dane County D.A. Ozanne was very polite in not falling down in laughter over Nass’s request for prosecution.

    Republicans try so hard to play the role of victim and fail so miserably with often hilarious results.

  2. You may have to eat your words, Jeff. Like it or not (I certainly don’t), believe it or not… Identity Theft is a felony.

    It’s called identity theft when an email is made to look like it came from someone else. How is this any different?

      1. Hey don’t attack the messenger. I’m on your side here. But my gut told me yesterday that it’s Identity Theft that is the ‘felony’ charge being considered.

        I realize there another level here, mainly that the ‘victim’ was a politician. This could easily mitigate the Id Theft charges, but that is the likely charge.

        BTW: I just heard a live interview with Konopacki and he said the potential charges involved “impersonation of another individual”, which is pretty much the definition of Identity Theft.

        No one has said those actual words yet. But I’m certain that’s what’s going on.

  3. Anyone who thinks this was “Identity Theft” should read the Wisconsin Statutes. There was no attempt at financial fraud or the receipt of anything of value. Nass could argue that his reputation was damaged, but he is a public figure who takes pleasure in using his office to play the bully-boy by smearing others and is thus wide open as a target of satire. The only way this could result in a prosecution would be if it was malicious in intent –think Van Hollen or Biskupic– and intended for harrassment only.

    District Attorneys are typically quite busy prosecuting actual criminals –politicians who sign secrecy oaths– and don’t have time to waste on cases that are lost before they are filed.

    1. I agree that Nass is off base here. All I said was the action taken by Mr. Konapacki, under ‘normal’ circumstances (non-political speech) would constitute identity theft.

      When I lived in Louisiana (don’t ask!…) I was being harassed by an ex-business partner. At one point he sent a really creepy, bizarre letter to me and hand-wrote the name and address of my attorney in the upper-left corner of the envelope. That all! He wrote the name and address of another individual as the return address on a harassing letter.

      It took the DA about one day to charge him with identity theft. I never heard from him again.

      That’s Louisiana… but shows that what I’m saying is not out of bounds at all.

  4. I read a lengthy article on when the initial fracas happened.

    They did a lovely job of illustrating how close and long of a relationship Nass and Mikalsen have.

    Very long. Very close.

    Nothing wrong with that but Mikalsen seems to get really touchy over negative comments about Nass. Almost too touchy.

    Pretty much sounds like Nass doesn’t have a voice of his own the way Mikalsen seems to jump in and pipe up on what Nass thinks about issues. Who’s in charge there? Which one got elected to office again? (rhetorical question)

    I mean, I know he’s Nass’s spokesperson and all but…

Comments are closed.