Stuart Suster Criminally Charged
with "Simulated Legal Process"


Stuart Suster, M.D., has been charged with 19 criminal counts of "simulating legal process" in connection with disciplinary proceedings that ultimately led to revocation of his medical license. The criminal complaint (reproduced below) states:

"Simulating legal process" is a Class I felony. The maximum penalty for each count is a $10,000 fine and 3.5 years of imprisonment.


CIRCUIT COURT
STATE OF WISCONSIN
CRIMINAL DIVISION
MILWAUKEE COUNTY

STATE OF WISCONSIN

Plaintiff

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

Suster, Stuart M.
Last Known Address|
929 N. Astor Street, #608
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
(DOB:  May 5, 1959)

Defendant

Complaining Witness:

Randal L. Burnett

DA Case Number: 04XF7300
Circuit Court Case Number:

THE ABOVE NAMED COMPLAINING WITNESS BEING DULY SWORN SAYS THAT THE ABOVE
NAMED DEFENDANT(S) IN THE COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE, STATE OF WISCONSIN.

COUNT 01: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Maria Bishop, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 02: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Lynnan Casper, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 03: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Thomas Casper, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 04: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 29, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to James Conway, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 05: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Alice Dudzic, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 06: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Kim Geiger, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 07: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 24, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Marty Larsen, Jr., labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 08: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 20, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Kathleen Laszewski, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 09: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 20, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Gretchen Mares, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 10: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Darlene Martinez, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 11: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 19, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to James Mastrocola, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 12: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Gene Pearson, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 13: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Carol Reabe, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 14: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Judy Rose, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 15: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Robert Schuster, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 16: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 30, 2003, in the City and County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Christopher Stawski, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 17: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Hilda Steller, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 18: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 19, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Arthur Thexton, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 19: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 19, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Robert Vick, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

AS TO COUNTS 01-19:

Upon conviction of these charges, Class I Felonies, the maximum possible penalty is a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 3 and ½ years or both as to each count.

Your complaining witness states that he is a detective employed by the City of Wauwatosa.  Complaining witness makes this complaint based upon his own investigation and based upon statements made to him by adult citizens whom he believes to be reliable.

Your complaining witness states that on or about September 19, 2003, he was approached by James Mastrocola who is a sergeant with the Wauwatosa Police Department.  Sergeant Mastrocola informed your complaining witness that he had received in the mail that day a document that bore a case caption IN THE MATTER OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AGAINST: STUART M. SUSTER, M.D., Respondent, STUART M. SUSTER, M.D., Counter-Plaintiff vs. WISCONSIN STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Counter-Respondent.  The captioned continued STUART M. SUSTER, M.D., Cross-Plaintiff vs. JAMES MASTROCOLA, Cross-Respondent.  The document contained a case number of 00 MED 272, underneath of which was the notation LS-0210291-MED.  The document which labeled itself a “Cross-Claim Complaint” purported to inform Sergeant Mastrocola that the defendant was filing this Cross-Claim Complaint against the Cross-Respondent based on various erroneous and illegal acts which are violations of law.  The document concluded with a request that an injunction be granted against the Cross-Respondent and that a fine or penalty against the Cross-Respondent in the amount of one million dollars be made payable to the Cross-Plaintiff.  The document was signed by the defendant and purported to be filed with the State Office of Administrative Hearings on September 15, 2003.  The document bore the signature of a Notary Public, Laura A. Butler, and purported to be signed by the defendant and sworn before Ms. Butler on September 15, 2003.  A copy of this document is attached to this complaint and incorporated herein by reference.

Sergeant Mastrocola informed your complaining witness that his only contact with the defendant had been to respond to a number of calls at the defendant’s medical offices which were located in the City of Wauwatosa and to in effect referee disputes between the defendant and a number of different patients.  Sergeant Mastrocola had taken no official action in connection with any of these incidents.

Your complaining witness states that after being contacted by Sergeant Mastrocola, he received information from the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office as well as from Attorney Arthur Thexton of the State of Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing.  Both the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office and the State of Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing had begun to receive a large number of complaints from individuals who had received identical documents from the defendant.  During the course of the investigation, your complaining witness determined that the document had been sent by the defendant to approximately 243 different individuals.  These individuals ranged from police officers, lawyers, former patients of the defendant to various news reporters and employees of television stations who were involved in broadcasting news coverage of the defendant’s alleged activities.

Your complaining witness states that he then attempted to contact each of the 243 individuals.  Your complaining witness states that he received responses from 77 of the individuals who had received these documents requesting judgments in the amount of $1 million.

Your complaining witness states that during the course of his investigation, he spoke to Arthur Thexton who is a prosecuting attorney with the State of Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing. Mr. Thexton informed him that at the time these documents were created and mailed by the defendant, there was a disciplinary proceeding pending against the defendant before the State of Wisconsin Medical Examining Board brought by the State of Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing. .  The Medical Examining Board case No. was the same LS-0210291-MED which the defendant put on all of the documents which he mailed to the 243 individuals noted above.  Mr. Thexton stated that in fact he had also received an identical “Cross-Claim Complaint” also sent to him on or about September 19, 2003.  Mr. Thexton informed your complaining witness that there is no such thing as a Cross-Claim Complaint in the context of a disciplinary proceeding before the State Medical Examining Board.  Mr. Thexton further informed your complaining witness that contrary to the representations within the document, no such document had in fact been filed with the State Office of Administrative Hearings on September 15, 2003.

Complaining witness states that Mr. Thexton informed him that a significant number of the individuals who contacted Mr. Thexton in response to receiving these documents were in fact former patients of the defendant who had been subpoenaed and were likely to give testimony against the defendant in the proceedings before the Medical Examining Board.  A number of these patients informed Mr. Thexton that they were now fearful of appearing and testifying against the defendant.

Your complaining witness states that during the course of his investigation he determined that in addition to sending these fabricated documents to former patients, the defendant also sent these documents to attorneys who represented former patients.  In particular, your complaining witness states that he received correspondence from Attorney James Conway.  Mr. Conway informed him that he had no contact with the defendant until September 25, 2003 when he was asked by a client, Janet Schrader, to draft a response to the defendant after Ms. Schrader had been served with one of the defendant’s fabricated documents.  On September 25, 2003 Mr. Conway sent a letter to the defendant addressing the document at which time he informed the defendant, “As you well know, the document that you mailed to Mrs. Schrader is a legal nullity.  The Medical Examining Board has no jurisdiction over her.”  Mr. Conway’s letter continues, “It is a violation of Wisconsin’s Criminal Code to submit documents to individuals which purport to be legal process when in fact they are not.  A copy of Section 946.68 Wis. Stats. is enclosed for your reference.

We can only assume that your document was sent to Mrs. Schrader in an attempt to intimidate her from providing evidence in connection with the Medical Examining Board’s case against you.  Section 940.42 Wis. Stats., a copy of which is also enclosed, provides that it is a violation of the criminal code to attempt to intimidate any witness from giving testimony in any proceeding authorized by law.”

Mr. Conway informed your complaining witness that four days after having sent this letter to the defendant, he received an identical cross-claim complaint naming him individually and seeking damages of $1 million.  The second page of this document bears the same notation indicating that it was filed with the State Office of Administrative Hearings and was sworn to by the defendant by a Notary Public on September 15, 2003.  Mr. Conway informed your complaining witness that this is impossible because he had no contact with the defendant as of September 15, 2003, and the defendant would only have known his name when he received the letter dated September 25, 2003.  Mr. Conway’s letter of September 25, 2003 also establishes that the defendant was aware that his conduct violated 946.68(1r)(a) when he mailed his fabricated document to Mr. Conway on September 29, 2003.

Your complaining witness states that during the course of his investigation, he received documents from Lynnan Casper showing that the defendant mailed a copy of the fabricated cross-claim complaint naming her as a cross-respondent on or about September 17, 2003.  Your complaining witness states that he received documents from Ms. Casper’s husband, Thomas Casper, showing that he also received a fabricated cross-claim complaint naming him as a cross-respondent on or about September 17, 2003.

Complaining witness states that he received information from Alice Dudzic showing that Ms. Dudzic received a copy of the same fabricated cross-claim complaint naming her as a cross-respondent on September 17, 2003.

Your complaining witness states that he received information from Kim Geiger showing that Ms. Geiger received a copy of the same fabricated cross-claim complaint naming her as a cross-respondent on or about September 17, 2003.

Your complaining witness states that he received information from Marty Larsen, Jr. showing that Mr. Larsen received a copy of the fabricated cross-claim complaint naming him as a cross-respondent on or about September 24, 2003.

Your complaining witness states that he received information from Kathleen Laszewski showing that Ms. Laszewski received a copy of the fraudulent cross-claim complaint naming her as a cross-respondent on or about September 20, 2003.

Your complaining witness states that he received information from Gretchen Mares showing that Ms. Mares received a copy of the fraudulent cross-claim complaint naming her as a cross-respondent on September 20, 2003.

Your complaining witness states that he received information from Darlene Martinez showing that she received a copy of the fraudulent cross-claim complaint naming her as a cross-respondent on or about September 17, 2003.

Your complaining witness states that he received information from Gene Pearson showing that Mr. Pearson received a copy of the fraudulent cross-claim complaint naming him as a cross-respondent on September 17, 2003.

Your complaining witness states that he received information from Carol Reabe showing that Ms. Reabe received a copy of the fraudulent cross-claim complaint naming her as a cross-respondent on September 17, 2003.

Your complaining witness states that he received information from Judy Rose showing that Ms. Rose received a copy of the fraudulent cross-claim complaint naming her as a cross-respondent on September 17, 2003.

Your complaining witness states that he received information from Robert Schuster showing that Mr. Schuster received a copy of the fraudulent cross-claim complaint naming him as a cross-respondent on September 17, 2003.

Your complaining witness states that he received information from Attorney Christopher Stawski informing him that Attorney Stawski had received a copy of the fraudulent cross-claim complaint naming him as a cross-respondent on September 30, 2003.  Attorney Stawski indicated that his only dealing with the defendant had been related to a request for medical records for one of Attorney Stawski’s clients who claimed that she had been improperly treated by the defendant.  Attorney Stawski indicated he had never filed any claim against the defendant or his insurance company in connection with that matter.

Your complaining witness states that during the course of his investigation, he received information from Hilda Steller showing that Ms. Steller had received a copy of the fraudulent cross-claim complaint naming her as a cross-respondent on September 17, 2003.

Your complaining witness states that he received information from Robert Vick showing that Mr. Vick received a copy of the fraudulent cross-claim complaint naming him as a cross-respondent on or September 19, 2003.

Your complaining witness states that he has reviewed original documents in connection with the 19 fraudulent cross-claim complaints received by the individuals listed above.  Each of these documents was sent to the individual named by certified mail.  The envelopes which were retained by the individuals show that with the exception of the letter sent to Attorney Stawski, all of the letters were mailed by the defendant at the post office in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee.  The letter to Attorney Stawski shows that it was mailed by the defendant at a post office in the City and County of Milwaukee.  In addition, the letter was received by Attorney Stawski in the City and County of Milwaukee.

Your complaining witness states that during his investigation he received a copy of a Protective Order issued in IN THE MATTER OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDDINGS AGAINST STUART SUSTER,  LS-0210291MED,  DATED September 30, 2003.  This order which was signed by Administrative Law Judge Ruby Jefferson-Moore prohibited the defendant from sending or causing to be sent out any Cross Complaint document as referenced above.  The defendant was aware of the State of Wisconsin’s request for such an order as of September 18, 2003 and was put on notice that the Administrative Law Judge had no authority to grant the relief he was seeking The defendant continued to send out these documents while this motion for a protective order was pending and in fact sent out a Cross –Claim Complaint to an individual in Waukesha County even after the protective Order was issued.

Your complaining witness states that during his investigation of this matter, he spoke to a number of individuals who told him that they were extremely frightened upon receipt of the defendant’s fraudulent cross-claim complaint because they were not legally sophisticated and they feared that the defendant would be able to receive a judgment against them for $1 million.  As indicated above, a number of individuals contacted attorneys after having received these documents.

****End of Complaint****

Subscribed and sworn to before me
and approved for filing on this ______ 
day of ________________, 2004

_____________________________________________
DEPUTY / ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

_____________________________________________
COMPLAINING WITNESS


CIRCUIT COURT
STATE OF WISCONSIN
CRIMINAL DIVISION
MILWAUKEE COUNTY

-- FELONY COMPLAINT—

STATE OF WISCONSIN

Plaintiff

INFORMATION

Suster, Stuart M.
Last Known Address|
929 N. Astor Street, #608
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
(DOB:  May 5, 1959)

Defendant

Complaining Witness:

Randal L. Burnett

DA Case Number: 04XF7300
Circuit Court Case Number:

I, E. MICHAEL MC CANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN, HEREBY INFORM THE COURT THAT THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT (S) IN THE COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE, STATE OF WISCONSIN.

COUNT 01: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Maria Bishop, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 02: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Lynnan Casper, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 03: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Thomas Casper, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 04: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 29, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to James Conway, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 05: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Alice Dudzic, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 06: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Kim Geiger, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 07: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 24, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Marty Larsen, Jr., labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 08: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 20, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Kathleen Laszewski, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 09: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 20, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Gretchen Mares, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 10: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Darlene Martinez, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 11: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 19, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to James Mastrocola, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 12: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Gene Pearson, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 13: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Carol Reabe, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 14: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Judy Rose, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 15: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Robert Schuster, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 16: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 30, 2003, in the City and County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Christopher Stawski, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 17: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 17, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Hilda Steller, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 18: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 19, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Arthur Thexton, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

COUNT 19: SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS

On or about September 19, 2003, in the City of Wauwatosa, County of Milwaukee, the above-named defendant did send a document to Robert Vick, labeled Cross-Claim Complaint, which simulated legal process, contrary to Wisconsin Statutes Section 946.68(1r)(a).

DATED:

E. Michael McCann
District Attorney

_____________________________________________
DEPUTY / ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

This page was posted on April 14, 2005.

Links to Recommended Companies