Our story should have been quite simple; it was anything but. Kathryn had been helping us search for property for some time. We happened to be interested in a property she was selling - almost 2 acres of land on Caldron Falls Flowage. After a very short time we had an approved offer. The rest should have been a piece of cake, especially since both buyer and seller were using the same realtor.

Outline of events:   

I. We were told Tanya Sushkova would be contacting us to get all the financial information the bank would need. To this day, we are not sure why Tanya ever got involved, she plays a useless role. But at this point we trusted Kathryn. 

     a. Tanya is on vacation, so there are some communication issues. 

            We send her all the financials she has asked for immediately. 

            A few days later, after not hearing anything, she asks if the 

           application was filled out. She never told us anything about 

           that- unnecessary delay. 

    b. The bank's Mortgage Sales Assistant, Cheryl Rocole, asks for all the same 

         information. Again, Tanya's role is a waste of time. 

            1. The bank we were referred to was Associated Bank. They 

                 were very unprofessional, but that's a different story and 

                 website. 

            2. If Tim Oliver from Associated bank ever wants your 

                business, I would highly recommend walking away. 

II. We are told an appraiser has been assigned. Immediately Kathryn

    texts us telling us how awful this woman is and that she is sure

    she will do a terrible job. 

    a. The appraiser should be independent and it is unclear how 

         Kathryn was able to obtain the appraiser's information (Lisa Hanson) so 

        quickly. It truly was none of her business as the realtor. 

    b. After the appraisal came in- over 100k lower than the selling

        price, Kathryn unprofessionally verbalized her disgust with 

    Lisa again, and told us to get another appraisal and/or a

        new lender.

III. As the buyer, we were rightfully concerned and asked about re-

     negotiating a selling price with the seller. Kathryn said he wasn't

     interested. KEEP IN MIND, KATHRYN IS SUPPOSED TO BE 

     EQUALLY REPRESENTING US AS THE BUYER. Instead, this 

      was our first warning sign that Kathryn was out for money and 

      did not want to help us. 

    a. Buyer and Seller agree to obtain a new appraisal with the same

        lender. Kathryn reassures us she likes this new appraiser and 

        everything should be back on track. 

         1. The second appraisal was never accepted by the bank. We

              were told one comp was a commercial property and another

              over 100 miles away. 

         2. We never saw this appraisal. We now share serious concerns

              that this property will never appraise out. Kathryn still states

              the Seller is firm on price. 

    b. Kathryn's communication with us does not feel as though she is

        playing any part in our successful purchase of this land. We

        have conversations with her about firing her. She reassures us

        she will do everything she can to represent and help us. 

IV. We decide to use a bank near our home town based on a referral

      from a trusted friend. We also ask the new lender to use an 

      appraisal company that is not in Marinette County and instead 

      use a company closer to Green Bay. 

V. We now get to see a new side of Kathryn, the side that has fueled

    this website. 

    a. Kathryn INSISTS we tell her who our lender is. 

        1. This is none of her business. Our finances have never been 

             in question. She had conversations with our previous lender

             and we didn't feel comfortable with her meddling again. 

         2. Kathryn also insists on knowing who the appraisal company

              is. Again, this is none of her business. None of the parties 

              are to interfere or know who the appraiser is. 

     b. Before the third appraisal is turned in, we again ask if the Seller

         will negotiate a cash sale. Kathryn's immediate answer is "no". 

         1. This does not sound like a realtor representing a buyer. 

          2. She is supposed to be obligated to discuss all offers 

              between parties. 

    c. Our disgust with her as a realtor is shared directly with her. 

VI. We get a cease and desist letter from an attorney, Gabriel Siehr, representing 

 Kathryn because she didn't like be scolded. All future 

      communication is to be done through him. 

    a. Kathryn will still claim she represents us fairly as the buyer, but

        we can't talk to her. 

    b. We humor her.....for now. 

VII. All parties have signed and almost 4 months later, we have our 

       property. 

• Communication Problems: Kathryn seemed to be more interested in getting the seller the biggest bang for their buck vs having any interest in helping us negotiate. 
• Dishonesty : This land is on the flowage with the State of WI owning the last  50 ft. We were told before we settled on a purchase price that we could put a trail directly to the water so we can launch our jet skis directly from home and anchor them. This is 100% false. We spoke to the DNR directly and land owners are not to interrupt the land at all. A trail is not allowed, nor is clean up of trees and shrubs. Kathryn states "well, everyone does it." Ms. Conard, that does not make it legal or water access. 
• Impact on Transactions: The false information we were given is how we came up with our offer. Kathryn's ego is what really affected this transaction. She is a woman that insists she have control over everything. We feel as though she is most interested in making the biggest profit she can and will manipulate any party to achieve this goal.  
• Ethical Concerns: Kathryn insulted nearly every professional that was involved in this transaction. It seemed as though she would stop at nothing to have her nose in every step of the process. Even though she "lawyered up", she is still claiming and taking credit for being the realtor representing both buyer and seller online. (Well, she was until she thought she could create a bigger case by claiming she was not indeed our realtor, but we didn't find that out until we went to court.) Demanding zero direct communication from your client and never communicating when the Seller officially signed the sale is NOT a representative of the Buyer. 
• Overall: Based on our experience and communications with Kathryn Conrad, we would never recommend her as an agent. We are very concerned the communications we intended for the Seller never made it to them. We suspect Kathryn controlled everything. We are also very concerned and disgusted that she falsely represented the property. This is NOT lake property. Although the water is close, the property owner does not have any rights to the water. During the summer, the owner will struggle to even see the water due to the mature growth of the State owned area. Kathryn takes little white lies to a new level. With all her "fluff" I would never trust a word out of her mouth. Kathryn Conrad, you have made what should have been a happy experience and absolute nightmare. 
• Why did we continue to purchase? Access or no direct access the property is beautiful. I fell in love immediately. We reviewed the comps that came in for our final appraisal and felt that even though there was a chance the property may not be worth what we were paying, it was worth it to us. This property will be in our family for generations and that's what matters. 

Venture Real Estate Co Sucks was founded in 2005 by a group of mental health professionals who saw a need for more accessible mental health resources in our community.

W

Marinette County Case No. 2025CV000187

David W. Bates
June 2026

In 2025, a harassment restraining order (HRO) was filed against me in Marinette County, Wisconsin. The allegations involved claims of threatening and harassing conduct arising from a real estate transaction and related communications.

From the outset, I maintained that these allegations were unfounded and that my actions were limited to legitimate business communications and protected speech.

On June 12, 2026, following a full evidentiary process and a de novo hearing, the Honorable Judge Peggy L. Miller:

• Dismissed the restraining order, and
• Denied the petition for harassment/injunction.

This decision came after the Court reviewed:

• Recorded phone calls,
• Testimony under oath,
• Discovery materials, and
• Additional supporting evidence.

During the case:

• The evidence presented did not support the allegations of harassment as asserted in the petition.
• Recorded communications were reviewed and evaluated in their entirety.
• Testimony clarified that the dispute arose from a business transaction, not unlawful conduct.

The Court ultimately found that the legal standard required for a harassment restraining order had not been met.

As part of the case, the Court considered issues related to information published online.

The outcome of the proceedings confirmed that:

• The content in question was fact-based and/or legally protected, and
• The presence of opinion or criticism alone does not constitute harassment under the law.

This reinforces a fundamental principle:

Truthful information and protected expression must be evaluated carefully within the bounds of the law.
 

This case has now been concluded.

I will be working with our Chicago counsel to review appropriate next steps, which include:

• Submitting concerns and complaints to relevant regulatory bodies regarding professional conduct in the underlying transaction.
• Based on the evidence developed during this case and the Court’s final ruling, I will be working with legal counsel to evaluate and pursue legal claims arising out of the filing and prosecution of the restraining order, including claims related to business harm, reputational damage, and interference with protected speech.

I appreciate the Court’s careful review of the evidence and the opportunity to fully present the facts.

This outcome demonstrates the importance of:

• Thorough evidentiary review,
• Respect for due process, and
• Ensuring that legal standards are properly applied in every case.

David W. Bates
Oak Creek, Wisconsin

Parties

• Petitioner: Kathryn Conard, Venture North Real Estate
• Respondent: David W. Bates
• Respondent's Attorneys: Clarence F. Duchac III and Steven M. Hawkins
• Petitioner's Attorney: Gabriel G. Siehr
• Judge: Hon. Peggy L. Miller
• Case Type: Harassment Restraining Order

David Bates and Jill Bates became interested in purchasing property located in Stephenson, Wisconsin.

According to information discussed throughout this matter:

• Kathryn Conard acted as the listing agent.
• The property was marketed as having: 
  • Water access.
  • Ability to construct a trail to the water.
  • Characteristics that increased its perceived value.
• The property carried an asking price of approximately $170,000.

During the transaction:

• Multiple appraisals reportedly came back around $47,000.
• Financing difficulties occurred.
• Approximately seven contract extensions were drafted to keep the transaction alive.
• Multiple lenders became involved.
• Conard communicated directly with lenders and appraisers.
• David Bates believed Conard was acting as both: 
  • Listing agent, and
  • Representative of the buyers.

Throughout the transaction:

• Conard provided lender recommendations.
• Conard discussed appraisal issues.
• Conard gave transaction advice.
• Conard directed how the transaction would proceed.

The property ultimately closed despite the valuation disputes and financing difficulties.

Following the closing:

David Bates became dissatisfied with:

• Property representations.
• Water access issues.
• Appraisal discrepancies.
• Transaction handling.

David and Jill Bates posted online criticism regarding Venture North Real Estate.

This included:

• Facebook postings.
• Website publication criticizing Venture North Real Estate.

The principal website discussed throughout the litigation was:

Venture Real Estate Co Sucks
 

David Bates maintained that:

• The content was truthful.
• The content represented consumer experiences.
• The website was a consumer-review platform.

On approximately June 13, 2025:

A cease-and-desist communication was issued to:

• David Bates
• Jill Bates

Despite this:

• The real-estate transaction was still being completed.
• Communications continued through attorneys.
• Bates believed he was being restricted from communicating while simultaneously being required to close.

This later became part of the complaints contemplated against Conard.

Kathryn Conard filed a harassment restraining order petition.

Main allegations included:

• Threatening phone conversations.
• Harassing behavior.
• Website publication.
• Social media activity.
• Fear related to Bates' conduct.

David Bates maintained:

• No threats occurred.
• Communications were business-related.
• The website contained protected speech.

After the restraining order proceedings began:

David Bates states that he experienced:

• Concern regarding possible arrest.
• Reduced travel to the Stephenson property.
• Delayed construction activities.
• Contractor cancellations.
• Difficulty obtaining contractor support.
• Concerns regarding CCAP visibility.
• Reputational concerns.
• Website removal or modification during litigation.

Bates also alleges:

• Sheriff's activity occurred at his residence.
• Neighbors observed law-enforcement activity.
• Additional law-enforcement complaints were made.

The litigation entered extensive discovery.

Major disputes included:

David Bates possessed recordings of transaction-related calls.

Conard challenged:

• Authenticity.
• Completeness.
• Preservation.

Attorney Siehr served Requests for Admissions seeking admissions regarding:

• Call recording practices.
• Android recording applications.
• Gmail storage.
• Deletion of recordings.

Bates maintained:

• Recordings were authentic.
• Verizon records supported the call history.

Judge Miller ordered a forensic examination process.

According to the Court's March 13, 2026 Order:

• Petitioner was responsible for arranging and paying for the download.
• Purpose was verification of recordings.

On April 9, 2026:

David Bates' phone was submitted for forensic examination.

Bates reported spending approximately:

$1,500
 

on replacement and duplicate phone arrangements to maintain business operations.

Conard was deposed.

Important themes from the deposition included:

Conard testified:

• She represented the seller.
• She did not formally represent Bates.

Yet she admitted:

• Giving advice.
• Recommending lenders.
• Providing guidance.
• Managing communications.

Discussions centered upon:

May 27, 2025 calls.

Conard acknowledged multiple conversations occurred.

Bates maintained:

• Recordings disproved threats.
• Verizon logs showed two calls.

Conard testified:

• The website caused concern.
• She viewed it as harmful.

Conard admitted:

• No physical threats occurred.
• No bodily-harm threats occurred.

Significant controversy occurred during the deposition.

Judge Miller's order required:

• David Bates attend remotely.
• David Bates remain muted.

Attorney Hawkins later reported:

• Siehr demanded Bates' camera be disabled.
• Bates be prevented from visually observing.
• Additional restrictions not contained in the order.

The deposition allegedly began approximately 25 minutes late due to these disputes.

Attorney Siehr reportedly attempted to limit or terminate portions of the deposition.

Throughout 2026:

Multiple filings occurred involving:

• Discovery disputes.
• Forensic download disputes.
• Cost shifting.
• Requests for admissions.
• Witness disclosures.

Notable witnesses identified by Conard included:

• Kathryn Conard
• David Bates (adversely)
• Denise Paulson
• Mark Paulson
• Tim Oliver
• Cheryl Rocole

A full hearing occurred before Judge Miller.

The hearing lasted approximately:

8:29 AM to 2:12 PM

Evidence included:

• Audio recordings.
• Emails.
• Website evidence.
• Deposition excerpts.
• DATCP complaint materials.
• Witness testimony.

Witnesses included:

• Kathryn Conard
• Tim Oliver
• Mark Paulson
• David Bates

Judge Miller dismissed the petition.

The Court found:

Petitioner:

Failed to meet the burden of proof.
 

The Court denied:

• Harassment injunction.
• Requested relief.

The Court also vacated prior restraint-related orders.

From the later written orders and hearing record:

Judge Miller concluded:

• Bates' conduct served a legitimate purpose.
• His website functioned as: 
  • A review platform.
  • A citizen advocacy site.
• He was expressing opinions regarding services received.
• Conduct did not meet the legal definition of harassment.
• Publicly available photos and logos could be used absent evidence of special legal protection.

Attorney Siehr filed:

• Motion to Reconsider.
• Supporting Brief.

Primary argument:

The Court allegedly relied upon information from a Wisconsin Realtors Association source not admitted into evidence.

Siehr requested:

• Vacating the judgment.
• Entry of judgment for Conard.

Judge Miller denied reconsideration.

Key findings included:

Conard still failed to prove:

A course of conduct serving no legitimate purpose.
 

The website constituted:

A third-party review platform or citizen advocacy site.
 

The WRA reference was:

Not dispositive.
 

Meaning:

The Court stated it would have reached the same result regardless.

The Court expressly stated Bates had not committed harassment under Wisconsin law.

Following victory in the injunction case, discussions focused on:

Potential complaints against:

• Wisconsin Real Estate Examining Board (REEB)
• Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS)

Alleged concerns:

• Water-access representations.
• Agency confusion.
• Property valuation issues.
• Seven contract extensions.
• Transaction handling.

Potential theories discussed included:

• Misrepresentation.
• Negligent misrepresentation.
• Agency-related claims.
• Abuse of process.
• Property-related damages.

We also drafted:

• Public statements.
• Website content.
• Legislative communications.
• Anti-SLAPP advocacy correspondence.
• Google-review drafts.
• Demand letters.
• Regulatory complaints.

✅ Harassment injunction dismissed.

✅ Motion for reconsideration denied.

✅ Prior restrictions vacated.

✅ Court found Bates' website activity served a legitimate purpose.

✅ Court determined Bates' conduct did not constitute harassment under Wisconsin law.

• Possible appeal by Conard.
• Possible REEB/DSPS complaints by Bates.
• Potential future civil litigation relating to: 
  • Property representations.
  • Transaction conduct.
  • Damages alleged by Bates.

The most important findings discussed in this matter are:

1. Conard failed to meet her burden of proof.
2. Bates' website served a legitimate purpose.
3. Bates created a consumer-review/citizen-advocacy platform.
4. Bates' conduct was not harassment under Wisconsin law.
5. The WRA issue was not the basis for the Court's decision.