A man was charged on Monday in court with one felony count of stalking for intimidating the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal chief justice over the past two months.
Ryan Thornton, a 37-year-old Racine resident, was accused of sending nine emails to Chief Justice Jill Karofsky between August and October. One of the emails, per the criminal complaint, stated, “Please EJECT YOURSELF FROM OFFICE.” Karofsky became chief justice of Wisconsin’s highest court in July.
The suspect also allegedly asked for her home address “so it can be public,” and told her to call the Wisconsin State Capitol Police. “What a democrat idea tho,” one of the messages read.
Karofsky suspected the motive for the threatening emails was tied to the Wisconsin Supreme Court Office of Lawyer Regulation’s failure to discipline an attorney Thornton had hired to represent him in a 2019 strangulation case. After firing his attorney, Thornton was ultimately convicted.
In the two-month period, he called the Office of Lawyer Regulation more than 70 times to complain about the attorney. The chief justice said she never interacted with the man.
Earlier this month, Thornton was arrested in Racine County on unrelated disorderly conduct and bail jumping charges. He was later transferred to Dane County, where his case is being held.
During the booking process, Thornton said Karofsky was “going down.”
He also told investigators to call President Donald Trump and said Karofsky “better start running or something for the hills of the feds because it’s a conspiracy.”
PARDONED JAN. 6 PARTICIPANT ARRESTED FOR ALLEGEDLY THREATENING TO ‘ELIMINATE’ HAKEEM JEFFRIES
Thornton made his initial court appearance on Monday, and his preliminary hearing is scheduled for Oct. 28. If convicted, the defendant could face three and a half years in prison for the stalking charge.
Wisconsin justices and judges have received numerous threats in recent years in today’s politically charged climate. The increasing threats have prompted state lawmakers to consider legislation to limit access to judges’ personal information. Two such bills went into effect this year.
