Kenneth Kratz, the sexting DA, gets no love from government lawyers

This man told a "tall, young, hot nymph'" that HE was "the prize!"

This man told a "tall, young, hot nymph'" that HE was "the prize!"

Kenneth Kratz thought it would be cool to use his position of power as a Wisconsin district attorney to try to get some love. You know, the kind of love with a 26-year-old "tall, young, hot nymph" that makes a married, 50-year-old guy with a bad mustache feel like a big man.

He's in a world of trouble now, and he just found out that government lawyers aren't going to ride to his rescue.


Domestic abuse victim Stephanie Van Groll, whose ex-boyfriend nearly choked her to death, met Kratz when he was assigned to prosecute her ex. In their first meeting, Kratz asked her if she minded if he reduced the charges from a felony to a misdemeanor. Then the sexually-charged texting began.

Van Groll complained, and when the news hit the press, four more women came forward with similar experiences. Now the DA is in the process of being removed. Van Groll has filed a civil lawsuit against him, claiming that his behavior violated her rights. And just this week, state and federal defenders declined to represent Kratz. Who's the big man now?

Here are some of the oh-so-fun texts the crazed prosecutor sent Van Groll:

Are u the kind of girl that likes secret contact with an older married elected DA...the riskier the better? Or do you want to stop right now before any issues?

Hey ... Miss Communication, what's the sticking point? Your low self-esteem and you fear you can't play in my big sandbox? Or???

I'm the atty. I have the $350,000 house. I have the 6-figure career. You may be the tall, young, hot nymph but I am the prize!

I would not expect you to be the other woman. I would want you to be so hot and treat me so well that you'd be THE woman! R U that good?

Both the Department of Justice and the State of Wisconsin declined to represent Kratz. In a letter to the Attorney General released to Talking Points Memo, the governor's chief legal counsel, Susan Crawford, argued that Kratz was not "acting within the scope of his employment when he committed the acts which are the subject of this lawsuit."

The argument is that since he was clearly not doing his job, the state doesn't have to pay public money to defend how he performed it.

Taxpayers of Wisconsin, stay on this one.