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