HAS MAYOR BEEN MOONLIGHTING? DOES SHERIFF DNA SNAFU KEEP INMATES BEHIND BARS?

Sloppy Data Entry Credits Mayor with Cases of Other Atty. Barrett

*   *   *

Who's Counting Good Behavior Time? Reader Claims Sheriff Deputies out Swabbing for DNA Instead

Special to the Readers of Milwaukeeworld

By Michael Horne

And The Milwaukee World Hound Dog Team

Has the Mayor been moonlighting? A search of cases handled by attorney 1005328, otherwise identified as Thomas M. Barrett of the City of Milwaukee's Mayor's Office, a 1980 graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law School and a lawyer in good standing, appears to show the mayor handling a divorce case as recently as 2006. In that same year, Atty. Barrett received $50 an hour as a court-appointed lawyer handling the case of an indigent defendant charged with disorderly conduct and bail jumping.
The answer to the question is, "no." Barrett, the Mayor since 2004, has not been moonlighting. Rather these cases were incorrectly coded into the state's CCAP system, and were actually handled by attorney 1001605, otherwise known as Thomas M. Barrett of the offices of Thomas Michael Barrett Attorney at Law. The 1990 Northern Indiana University graduate and a lawyer in good standing has a busy practice, according to a CCAP search. So busy, apparently, that court clerks are crediting the mayor with cases handled by his doppelganger. Perhaps policies can be changed so that attorneys are properly identified in court documents. It appears clerks look up these attorney numbers and take their best guess when entering the data into CCAP. And now look at the confusion! Maybe Attorney Barrett -- that is Clerk of Circuit Court John Barrett [1024360] -- could straighten this out.Or, maybe this could get all the more confusing with yet another Attorney Barrett in the mix. (John Barrett hasn't handled a case since a prostitute he was defending pleaded guilty in 2004.)

Thomas Michael Barrett (the Mayor is Thomas Mark Barrett) said he started his law office here just about the time the Mayor began his first term in congress. He doesn't know him, is no relation, and is "probably from the other end of the political spectrum," he says.
"It's amazing what people want from their congressman," Barrett says. They'll ask for help with litter and animal control problems. He knows: in the past he received many calls from folks who thought they were contacting Congressman Barrett's office. He says he has also been confused with a doctor and an owner of a troubled landfill. He now styles himself as Thomas Michael Barrett, and has used the name Michael Barrett in court, "but to my friends I'm still 'Tom,'" he says. "I don't need the notoriety. I need anonymity. People will hit you over the head with a lead pipe," he adds, showing a bit of the sense of humor we have come to expect from Thomas M. Barrett.

IS CLARKE'S DNA SNAFU KEEPING INMATES BEHIND BARS BEYOND THEIR SENTENCES?

It is not uncommon to hear complaints from those who are serving time behind bars, yet some are plausible. Milwaukeeworld called the office of Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. to ask for a comment on a report that some work-release inmates are overstaying their sentences because the officer who tracks their good time behavior has been assigned to collect DNA samples from inmates.
According to a reader who asked not to be named since his information came from a relative in the custody of the Sheriff:

After Clark was embarrassed by the revelation that his department was as negligent as the State in securing DNA samples, he assigned every available employee to this task.  By the way, there were no available employees as is evidenced by this story.
Work release inmates earn a 5 day reduction on their sentence for each month that they successfully serve without any rule violations.  What is occurring now is that the employee who is charged with handling this duty has been pulled from it to dig Clark out of his DNA crisis.  As a result, inmates who are earning reductions are not having that time credited resulting in some individuals remaining on work release beyond their completion time.  To add insult to injury, they are forced to pay rent to the Sheriff even though they aren't supposed to be there. 
It should be very interesting to see if any of them will attempt to get their money refunded after they are released.  The rent is substantial, having been dramatically increased when Clark took over the administration of the facility, and undoubtedly is significant to the individuals who make up this group.

The Sheriff did not confirm or deny this report when contacted by Milwaukeeworld. However, it seems plausible enough to merit this mention. Please contact this department if you know of other similar instances that might corroborate or refute this story. 
--Michael Horne