Michael Steinhafel does it again (update)

An OWI deserves to be discussed given the company he keeps – mainly mayoral candidate Dave (David) Marcello.

More promised when I’m no longer mobile.

Sorry for the cryptic note there. Here’s the whole story, at least according the the MJS. Michael Steinhafel has been picked up again for operating while intoxicated. This time he’s looking at felony charges because he had minor children in the car – the paper says they were his own.

Brookfield Mayoral candidate Dave Marcello had used Steinhafel as his attorney for his two little problems in 2003.

As I mentioned before, there’s something to be said for the company one keeps. It’s been my experience the two seem to suffer from a similar affliction.

Brookfield, you are welcome to elect anyone you’d like as mayor. Just be warned there are possibilities worse than even Jeff Speaker. Hopefully, though, there will be a better option yet to come.

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    And with a passenger < 16 years old in the car no less

  2. Concerned Resident says:

    How can you tie an OWI from 2009 to representation in 2003? Cindy, you are really pulling at straws here.

  3. I don’t have to pull at anything to tie them together. The two have done that already.

    –You need to work under only one name when leaving comments here!

  4. Concerned Resident says:

    Okay. Then let’s leave it as CR. So the fact that Marcello chose him to be his attorney six years ago, somehow reflects on his thought process today? Let me ask you this question. My aunt and uncle were married by a now defrocked priest. They chose that priest at the time, not possibly knowing of his future abuses. Should they be held accountable for the future decisions of that individual? Is their marriage still legal.

    Think about that Cindy before you challenge Marcello’s ability to see into the future. Apparently you are such a good judge of character Cindy that perhaps you can let Marcello use your crystal ball so he can look at the future for everyone that he chooses to associate with from here on out.

    Don’t be petty, Cindy. And by the way, the answer to my hypothetical is no, my relatives are not accountable, and yes their marriage is still legal. Just like the court proceedings which Marcello has been more than open about.

  5. Congratulations on finding your true identity at FairlyConservative.com. Thanks for leaving Dan H. out of it.

    Let’s make a new rule. I don’t debate David Marcello fans. They’re likely to be as odd as the man himself, and history has taught me that kind of weirdo is best left alone.

  6. Concerned Resident says:

    Well if you have a blog open for all citizens of Brookfield, then surely you’ll have to debate them, all of them – especially when you choose to share your opinion via the internet. If you are willing to make these points, you could at least debate ’em. Don’t run!

    A few points to follow up. First of all I never identified myself as a Marcello fan. I am just a concerned resident who is tired of bloggers ripping people to pieces when there is no connection linking the stories.

    Second, apparently my hypothetical caused you to question and think about your accusations of Marcello? Otherwise you would’ve answered it. So I guess you just skipped that part.

    By the way, I voted for you in 2006 and was an ardent supporter of yours. So does that still make me odd as you mentioned above? If anything it makes me a large minority in this city.

    And Cindy, seriously elections should be issue based. I and many other citizens would applaud a breakdown of issues instead of schmearing two candidates.

  7. The Lorax says:

    “schmear” is such a funny word.

  8. CR, you’re making a solid effort, but since you missed the main point and moved on to your own agenda, you’re not on my list of potential playmates. You have one goal, and it’s not logical debate.

    PS If everyone who says they voted for me actually voted for me I’d be mayor.

    PPS It’s SMEAR. The word schmear is yiddish and makes me think of Einstein bagels. (Yum!) And now it’s TWO candidates! Busy me.

  9. It’s amazing that a felony charge – putting your children in great danger because you choose to drive drunk again- is lowered to a misdemeanor. What happens next?

  10. Can you help us out by leaving a source, Anonymous?

  11. BrkfldDad says:

    It all ready shows on the CCAP site charge history as reduce to misdemeanor.

  12. Ah. Thanks for that, Bdad.

  13. Anonymous says:

    mr steinhafel in trouble again

    52
    07-13-2011
    Review hearing
    Domina, William J.
    Baumeister, Cindy

    Additional Text:

    Defendant Michael W. Steinhafel in court with attorney Robert G LeBell. District Attorney’s Office Law Intern, Shawn Woller, and Steven Centinario appeared for the State of Wisconsin. Case called for Review of the last 180 days that was stayed. Court did receive a letter from defendant’s wife regarding several alcohol consumption allegations. Statement made by Attorney LeBell. Court will allow defense additional time to prepare. State is requesting additional time. Review hearing scheduled for August 22, 2011 at 01:30 pm.

    Defendant Michael W. Steinhafel in court with attorney Robert G LeBell. District Attorney’s Office Law Intern appeared for the State of Wisconsin. Case called to address the last 180 days that was STAYED by the Court. Statement made by defense. State is requesting the Court impose the stayed portion. Statement made by Kathy Steinhafel. Further statements made by Attorney LeBell. Court orders the following: – Court will permanently vacate 90 days of the 180 days that was STAYED. – Defendant is further ordered to report/comply with the Day Report Center for 6 months. Further is to be fitted with the SCRAM bracelet until the next review. Review hearing scheduled for February 13, 2012 at 01:30 pm.

  14. Ugh. That can’t have been pleasant. I hope he gets the help he needs.