Showing posts with label local politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label local politics. Show all posts

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Comments on Former Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran's Supposed Assault of William Kelly


     The following two bodies of text were written in response to a question by my former campaign manager, Phil Collins, asking me whether I think former Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran is guilty of a crime, in the supposed “assault” or “battery” which he allegedly inflicted upon former Illinois Governor candidate and political podcast host William Kelly.
     The second body of text was sent as a follow-up email. It has been edited, but only to make it more coherent; the content of the second body of text has not been changed. The first body of text has not been edited.
     I should note that I have written all of these comments without seeing the entire video showing Curran's alleged assault on Kelly. I do not know where that video can be accessed. I have watched the most important part (the alleged assault), but I have not seen what took place beforehand, nor afterwards. I have also watched Mark Curran being interviewed by police after the supposed assault.



     It's difficult to say whether a crime was committed, because Illinois Criminal Code says assault includes when a person "engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery", while battery is when a person "intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an individual or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual".
     I personally don't think that what Curran did should constitute assault. Curran was not attempting to cause Kelly any harm or pain, and I suspect that Kelly did not suffer any injury or pain as a result of Curran putting his hands on him. That could mean that Curran had no malice of forethought, and it could also mean that there is no actual physical evidence of any harm or injury or trauma.
     On the other hand, Curran did "engage in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery", when he placed both of his hands on Kelly's arms. That could be perceived as a provocation, because Curran used physical power to move Kelly. Curran didn't shove or push any part of Kelly's torso, but instead firmly placed his hands on Kelly's arms, and pushed him towards the door, but with minimal effort and arguably no actual force.
     What Curran did might technically fall within a very very loose definition of assault or battery, but since there was no injury (that I can detect), and also considering that Kelly was arguably trespassing at the time when Curran informed him that he was no longer welcome. But on the other hand, Curran waited only half a second after saying "get out of here" before he put his hands on Kelly.
     Kelly responded by asking whether Curran wanted to fight; this means that Curran arguably engaged in "conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery", which is assault in Illinois. Arguably Curran wanted Kelly out in order to avoid a fight, but on the other hand, Curran should have had the sense to instruct Kelly to leave, and only consider using force or calling the police when Kelly refused to leave. Curran didn't give Kelly a reasonable amount of time to respond to his request to leave, and instead resorted to physical "force" (albeit arguably non-violent) to solve the problem.
     As a private citizen, I would say that this altercation doesn't bother me, but if I were a juror, I'd have to conclude that Curran did commit assault and/or battery, in the strict legal sense of how those words are defined. But if I were a juror, I'd also want to know about whether Kelly has a history of violence, or fighting, or being quick to fight, or being quick to assume that another person wants to fight when they do not. But whether Curran has a history of fighting, should also be taken into consideration.






     Watching the interview with Mark Curran, he seems to be exaggerating Kelly's "screaming" when he was pushed towards the door. On the other hand, it is also concerning that (according to Curran) Kelly has previously challenged Curran to physical fights such as boxing or wrestling matches.
     Kelly's behavior could arguably constitute stalking, if he were to begin making threats. If what Curran says is true, then Kelly has been following him around, trying to provoke him, and inviting him to take part in physical altercations (although they would be sanctioned). It's still concerning though, because Kelly seems to want a fight.
     It's hard to tell whom is the real provocateur in all this, but I'm leaning towards Kelly.





Post-Script, written February 22nd, 2020:

     Considering that Illinois defines battery as that which occurs when someone “intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an individual or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual", it is entirely possible that what William Kelly did, constitutes battery.
     That's because, if Curran is telling the truth when he says Kelly has repeatedly challenged him to fights before, then Kelly is the one whom is making “physical contact of a provoking nature with an individual”. However, that only constitutes battery if Kelly's following Curran around constitutes “physical contact”, which is debateable since there appears to be no evidence that Kelly has ever made any initial act of physically touching Curran in any way.

     Considering that Illinois defines assault as that which occurs when someone “engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery”, it is entirely possible that what William Kelly did, constitutes assault.
     That's because, if Curran is telling the truth when he says Kelly has repeatedly challenged him to fights before, it is Kelly who placed Curran “in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery”. Curran could reasonably conclude that he could receive a beating, from the supposed fact that Kelly has repeatedly challenged him to fights (that is, if Curran is telling the truth).






Learn more about this case of supposed assault by visiting the following links:







Emails written on February 12
th, 2020
This article created and published on February 22nd, 2020



Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Speech to the Waukegan City Council on August 5th, 2019 (Third Draft)


     In the matter of the mayor appearing in ads for the Waukegan Music Festival, the legal issue at hand is this: Whether it constitutes taxpayer fraud (an illegal use of taxpayer funds) for elected officials to appear in advertisements for public events.
     Since this is a tradition started by a previous mayor, we shouldn't blame the current mayor for this; we should only find fault if he continues this practice. You see, it unfairly benefits incumbents – not just the mayor, but all elected officials who are up for re-election – whenever sitting public officials allow their names, faces, or titles to appear in ads. It's arguably a misappropriation and misdirection of public funds to promote an incumbent candidate's campaign.
     The only thing appropriate for the current mayor to do about this controversy, for now, is to recuse himself from it, due to the possible conflict of interest involved. But I'd like to ask the rest of the city council to do whatever is in its power to cease including the names and faces of all elected officials in advertisements for the Waukegan Music Festival - and all other public events - and also to refrain from including the title of any elected official in the name of any public event. It must be made perfectly clear to voters that this is the people's festival, not the mayor's, and that the mayor did not personally give this festival to the people of Waukegan.
     This is a delicate legal issue that should be handled by the Illinois Supreme Court, not argued out between the mayor and one of our aldermen. Even if it turns out that this practice is totally legal, the appearance of public officials in ads still unfairly helps incumbents. So, for the sake of fair elections, this practice should end immediately; before someone gets charged with taxpayer fraud, and before the courts have to get involved.

     The set of career opportunities which the city will stand to offer our young people, following the opening of this casino - is appallingly disappointing.
     The city council should not be encouraging kids who just graduated high school, to join the police – nor enlist at Great Lakes Naval Base - because they could get shot and die before the age of 20. That should be obvious, but judging from the last meeting, it's not obvious to the city council.
     To the parents present: If you value your children's career prospects, and their lives and health (which you should not be willing to trade for career prospects), then you should offer them something better than the three most prominent career choices in this area once the casino moves in, which will be:
     1) deal cards, or serve alcohol (a neurotoxin and central nervous system depressant), at a casino or bar to men who will flirt with them and leer at them;
   2) join the police or military, and get beaten up, pepper sprayed, and injected with strange chemicals as part of basic training; or
     3) work for a company that makes medicine while polluting the air we breathe.
     The purpose of the Waukegan City Council should not be to abide by a jobs policy that lets outside companies exploit Waukegan residents' need for jobs; nor to allow local government to passively enable local parents to expose their young adult children to these very real dangers in exchange for the prospect of money and jobs. It's not worth it.
     Even if your kid ends up in government (or tourism), he's just going to convince a bunch of criminal businesses to set up shop in this polluted county. And who will that help? Only the exploiters and polluters.

     I'd like to thank the council for celebrating that a federal court ruled against including a citizenship question in the 2020 Census. However, on July 29th, N.P.R. reported that the U.S. Census Bureau sent out census forms including the citizenship question to 240,000 households.
     The Trump Administration says this was only a test. However, they've been criticized for not doing this test long enough before the 2020 census, before it can be approved in its final form. There are five months left until 2020.
     It was completely predictable that the administration would keep pushing on this issue, because pushing and doubling-down is what this administration does. We shouldn't wait for the Supreme Court to stop them from doing something illegal; they will find ways to keep enforcing policies even when they know they are unconstitutional, improperly authorized, or could easily be enforced differently or not at all.
     We should endorse Jeffersonian nullification. Although using a "states' rights" solution could be politically unpopular (or even offensive), the same power could also be used to justify keeping Illinois a "sanctuary state".
     What are you going to do, Waukegan City Council, to stop peaceful undocumented immigrants from being deported? I'll tell you what you're going to do; you're going to urge the public to cooperate with law enforcement personnel at all times, because that's your job, and that's the law.
     So if you don't intend to do anything to stop the continued operation of an illegal federal department that didn't even exist just 17 years ago, then you cannot rightfully claim that what you do promote either freedom or public safety, which I believe are the tasks with which you're charged.
     The city council should demand that Governor Pritzker use his power to nullify unconstitutional federal law, to stop federal agents working for the unconstitutional Immigration and Customs Enforcement, from attempting to operate within the state legally (that is, without being arrested).
     Is it really worth the cost of freedom involved, if all of us be encouraged to cooperate with law enforcement - including in the enforcement of a census that includes a citizenship test (which could carry with it the risk of deporting beloved members of our community who committed no violent crime)?
     The only benefit we get from cooperating with the census, is a guarantee to federal funds. The number and location of people determines where district lines are drawn, and how much money they get. Our elected officials make money off of the fact that we live in their districts. That sounds like slavery to me.
     The census is a deportation and extortion racket, and I urge my fellow citizens not to participate in it.

     Finally, it is Monday night. I do not come to the Waukegan City Council to pray. Who even prays on a Monday night? Which religion is that?
      I thought we were supposed to have a separation of church and state. Instructing all people present to pray for the public officials before them, seems like enough of an endorsement of religion by a public institution to me, to potentially conflict with the freedoms listed in the First Amendment.
     We cannot truly consent to anything if we are under such intimidating circumstances, because we could easily become intimidated into refraining from expressing our disagreement. I will remind you that children have been physically assaulted in American schools for failing to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance; this shouldn't happen to children or adults.
     I would ask that the city council stop inviting everyone to stand and pray. This should upset not only those who don't believe in any gods; it should upset the Christians who just went to church yesterday that they have to stand and pray again today... for the government... while the government watches them. When they'd rather be praying inside of a church.
     This is not only a First Amendment violation, it is just plain rude, and creepy. It tests our abilities to do what is in our conscience, when everybody around us is doing something that we are not doing. If the city council will not discontinue this practice of public prayer, then it should pass an ordinance that if your friend jumps off a bridge, then you have to too.
     We should not be urged to pray for our elected officials; that is feudalism-era thinking. If anything, our elected officials should be urged to pray for us. After all, their job is salvation; their job is to save us.

     And we
need the city council's help, in order to save us.
     And it can do so by helping us to protect ourselves; from the casino, from companies that pollute our air, from companies whose H.R. departments want to exploit us, from the fascist administration that's currently running the federal government, and from government overreach in general.
     And also, from possible white supremacists in our police departments who may want to cooperate with I.C.E. and let them operate within the state, and from people in our government who excuse the continued operation of I.C.E. under completely baseless constitutional foundation.
     And I understand why you'd want to keep a casino away from schools, but not from churches. Where are Waukegan fathers going to go for repentance, after they've gambled away all of their family's rent and food money on card games and alcohol? Any casino approved, should be required to be near, even surrounded by churches.
     What on Earth do you think you're doing? Please do the exact opposite of what you're currently doing.





Read previous, more detailed drafts of this speech at:
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/07/taxpayer-funded-local-events-should-not.html
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/07/licensing-breeds-licentiousness-speech.html
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/07/speech-to-waukegan-city-council-on.html

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Speech to the Waukegan City Council on August 5th, 2019 (Second Draft)


Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Waukegan Music Festival Controversy
3. Young Waukegan Residents Urged to Join Police Force
4. Council Tolerates Poor Set of Local Career Opportunities
5. Why the Council Urges Cooperation with the Census
6. Census Carries Deportation Danger
7. Local and State Government Must Avoid Betraying the People
8. Religion in the Public Square
9. Conclusion



Content


1. Introduction
     My name is Joe Kopsick, I'm originally from Lake Bluff, and moved to Waukegan a year and a half ago.

     When I last spoke here, on July 15th, I talked about garage sales, the census, immigration, and permits. I meant to explain my criticism of the casino approval, but I didn't have time then, so I'll address it today. But not before sharing my thoughts about the Waukegan Music Festival.


2. The Waukegan Music Festival Controversy

     At that last city council meeting, a citizen shared her concern that it might be a case of illegal taxpayer fraud, that the mayor appears in advertisements for the Waukegan Music Festival. I feel that that citizen's concerns were not adequately explained.
     Please imagine, for a moment, that someone else is the mayor of Waukegan. We don't know the person's name. But they're facing re-election, like all mayors do. If the mayor's name, likeness, and/or title, appear in advertisements for public events, then it's reasonable to expect that that incumbent mayor would get an edge in the election, because of that ad, right?
     We should not blame the current mayor personally for the fact that he has appeared in advertisements for public events, because – as he explained - this is a tradition which was started by an earlier mayor. But we can blame the mayor who started it (if indeed this is an improper and illegal use of taxpayer funds). We can't blame Mayor Cunningham for starting this tradition, but we can blame him if he doesn't end it.
     Elected officials – or at least those whom are incumbents and are actively running - gain an unfair advantage from being allowed to appear in ads for public events. The issue of whether this constitutes taxpayer fraud, should best be decided by either the Illinois Supreme Court, or by the voters gathered here in this room; not through a shouting match between the mayor and an alderman.
     The city council allowed the mayor to be his own judge, and acquit himself, without any charges being filed. The mayor should have done the legally appropriate thing, and recused himself from this controversy, seeing as he is a party to it. Either the state Supreme Court should be consulted on the legality of this matter; or if there is no question about the illegality of these ads, then charges should be filed against the mayor (and/or the city department that plans public events).
     The appearance of incumbent candidates in advertisements for public events, unfairly hurts the election chances of new candidates who wish to unseat incumbents, whom should have the same chance as the current mayor to get elected. Finally, the name of the festival should not contain the name, nor title, of any public official, for all the reasons I have explained above.


3. Young Waukegan Residents Urged to Join Police Force

     I have to express my concern about the city council congratulating high school students, who have their whole lives ahead of them, to sign up to be police officers. Eighteen-year-olds may be adults, but they are not old enough to decide whether to sign up to work as police officers and soldiers.
     What would you sacrifice to make sure that your child has a good career? Would you sacrifice their very health and safety? Police and military recruits are often subjected to being pepper sprayed and tased. Military recruits are injected with strange mixes of chemicals that they're never told what it is.
     Do Waukegan parents really think that whatever their kids are getting paid, is enough to offset the emotional and medical cost of enduring beatings in the military, and an onslaught of poisonous chemicals? Is this what you're willing to put your kid through, in order to secure them a job?
     We're told that we're supposed to be proud when young adults – especially racial minorities – join the police force. “Make the police look like the communities they serve”, they tell us. Well, it just so happens that tyrannical regimes throughout history, have co-opted the local communities, and found members of them who were willing to sell all the others out, and chalked it up as a mark of social progress and racial equality.
     For example: European colonizers got African tribal chiefs drunk, and bribed them into letting the colonizers round up their people as slaves. Other colonizers got Native American tribal chiefs drunk, and bribed and defrauded them into letting them claiming the land and kick everybody off. When the Nazis conquered Ukraine, Poland, and Western Russia, they found local military leaders who were willing to compromise with the Nazis. Similarly, the Jewish Ghetto Police enforced Nazi rule over the ghettos (with some degree of Jewish self-governance), while maintaining communications between imprisoned Jews and Nazis.
     Tyrannical regimes co-opted native peoples they conquered, and used the fact that a representative has been chosen from among them, to pretend that that conquered people has given their consent to be ruled. It is a lie, and the idea that more minority police officers will improve a deeply racist, intrinsically violent law enforcement mechanism, is a complete hallucination.
     We should not be encouraging our children to join the police force, especially not at such a young age. God forbid they get shot to death at the age of 18; not even in a war zone, but on the streets of America while doing their job (when they could have chosen any other job, most of them much safer for a young adult whom, again, has their whole life ahead of them).
     Lastly, I must note that I find it laughable that the city noted that the students present, decided to become police officers because of their feeling that “being a cop isn't just for the stupid kids”. I mean, if these are the smart kids, I'd hate to see the stupid kids! Especially the ones who want to become cops. By the way, I hope the city council warns those students against becoming police officers in New Jersey, where courts have ruled it's legal to refuse to hire police applicants if their I.Q. is too high. Because I'm not so sure that the world has any need for smart cops; not until we start training them to de-escalate violence (instead of escalate it) in the course of carrying out orders.


4. Council Tolerates Poor Set of Local Career Opportunities

     And what career opportunities the graduates of Waukegan High School have these days! Why, they can volunteer for the police, and get pepper sprayed and tased as part of training! Hell, why not bring police training directly to the high school, as one town down south did? Why not tase and pepper spray these kids right in their classrooms!? God knows that school security officers have tased and pepper sprayed younger children in public school classrooms in recent years; why stop now?
     But suppose the kid doesn't want to be a cop. They can go to Great Lakes Naval Station, and sign up to be in the military! And be injected with mysterious chemicals, and routinely beaten up as part of basic training, for a very difficult to determine amount of money. Fantastic.
     If your kid doesn't want to be a cop or a soldier, luckily, that new casino is coming to town! Your 17- and 18-year-old daughters can take this opportunity to work at the casino, dealing cards or serving drinks to older men. Men who will probably leer at them, and get away with it because your child will be expected to flirt with them as part of earning tips. Swell.
     Don't want your kid to be a cop, soldier, casino employee, or bartender? Well, she can work at Medline, or a cement company, or the local Sterigenics plants. Why not help her make some money polluting the air that we all have to breathe?
     Waukegan City Council, you are not protecting us. You're not protecting our job opportunities, because none of them are any damn good. You're not protecting public health, nor public safety. And you're not protecting our children's prospects for a clean environment, and a future with decent, honest, respectable careers.


5. Why the Council Urges Cooperation with the Census

     Anyone who was paying attention during the last meeting, will remember exactly why the city council urged us to cooperate with the 2020 U.S. Census survey. The first reason was that a court ruled that the Trump Administration could not include the citizenship question on it. But I ask the members of the city council: What will you do to protect us, if the administration insists on including it anyway (whether they figure out how to do it legally or not)?
     The Constitution authorizes the federal government and its census takers to collect no information other than the number of people. All questions about ethnicity, race, religion, country of origin or birth, and citizenship, are thus illegal, and laws providing for those questions to be asked are unconstitutional. We cannot legally be obligated to answer any of those questions, and I urge residents not to answer them.
     The second reason why the city council urged us to cooperate with the census, is that our elected officials use the census to make money off of us. Making sure that everyone participates in the census, is how government makes sure that congressional districts have equal numbers of people. But the number of people in the district also secures that district federal funding, as part of its “equal share” of federal funding. Of course, it matters to almost nobody that spending and the tax burden are not shared anywhere near equally by the districts and states. But the fact that equality is not furthered in determining where these districts lie, should show that the census's main purpose is to secure whatever funding the district can manage to get.
     This is nothing more than a scam to defraud us, the voters and taxpayers and residents, of our financial power (through our right to those funds), and our legal power (through allowing our elected officials to take away some of our power of attorney, and in so doing, to appropriate more of those federal funds towards themselves and their own offices than towards We the People).


6. Census Carries Deportation Danger

     Aside from the census being a money-making scheme for our legislators, it is also a plot to track us, and harvest our private personal information. Government-regulated credit rating agencies and banks routinely lose millions upon millions of people's personal information; do you really trust government to handle your personal information wisely?
     Moreover, the census could potentially be used as a way to round-up non-citizens and other “undesirables” or “enemies of the state”. I repeat, what do you – the city council – plan to do, if the Trump Administration goes forward with its plan to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census (whether legally or illegally)?
     Well, I know what you're going to do; You're going to urge cooperation at all times, because to do otherwise would be against the law, and the opposite of what you're supposed to do as elected officials. Which is to urge faith in all public institutions at all times. And you might think that elected officials and police have an obligation to do their jobs, and do as ordered.
     But if your job is to threaten force against people who entered this country illegally but without threatening force themselves, then your job is immoral, and you doing your job conflicts with the public's moral obligation to peacefully resist unjust laws.
     The Waukegan City Council should urge Governor J.B. Pritzker to instruct the Illinois National Guard, and all public police in Illinois, to refrain from cooperating with federal authorities. And that goes for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.), and agents of the 2020 census, alike. That's because the vast majority of these agencies' activities (and questions) are unconstitutional.
     Under no circumstances should the Illinois public be urged to cooperate with federal authorities in pursuit of these unconstitutional aims. The governor should immediately issue an order nullifying the federal law which authorized I.C.E.; effectively removing the authority of I.C.E. to operate legally within the boundaries of the State of Illinois. If necessary, Illinois National Guard troops should be mobilized to arrest federal troops or agents, and/or prevent more of them from entering the State of Illinois, if they insist on enforcing unconstitutional federal laws.


7. Local and State Government Must Avoid Betraying the People
     Just as the Waukegan City Council is doing its residents no service to help them find a clean environment or decent careers, it is also doing them no service to recommend that they cooperate with the Trump Administration.
     Even if the administration doesn't use the census to carry out deportations, it's deporting peaceful undocumented immigrants now. I.C.E. is hassling Hispanic-Americans who were born in America now. Seasonal farm workers are being trapped in America at the end of harvest season, and mocked and driven into the shadows for being here illegally (through no fault of their own), now. Immigrants are being funneled away from points of entry where they could easily declare asylum, and instead are forced to trek through dangerous desert, now.
     Whether the Trump Administration's immigration, deportation, and census policies going forward, will be legal and constitutional or not, why should you urge us to cooperate with those “authorities”? Aren't you supposed to protect public safety? The city government is supposed to work for the people, not the other way around.
     If the police and National Guard of Illinois do not come to the aid of all non-violent residents (not just citizens who pay them) during deportation raids, then neighbors will come together to protect vulnerable residents of Illinois who are in the United States without proper permission.
     And if that happens, then it will be the members of local government – of this city council - who will have urged resident and police cooperation with federal authorities, whom will be remembered as the people who urged cooperation with a blatantly authoritarian regime, and nearly suckered us into becoming fascist collaborators (in turning-in our undocumented neighbors).
     The Waukegan City Council is either against fascism and for its own people, or else it is against its own people and it is enabling the fascist Trump Administration and the companies that are polluting our air and our social culture. Now is the time to choose.


8. Religion in the Public Square
     Finally, I must express my dismay at the fact that these city council meetings begin with a public prayer. Participating in the prayer may be voluntary, but for some 98% of audience members to stand at being urged to pray for the officials here gathered today, should by any reasonable person's standards constitute at least the appearance of government endorsement of religion (even if not some particular religion).
     The people should not be instructed to pray for their legislators. If it is a legislator's job to be concerned with the problems and salvation of the people, then if anything, it's the legislators who should be instructed to pray for the people, not the other way around.
     Residents, look at the way your elected officials are gathered before you. How was Jesus displayed when he was crucified? He was elevated, as a mark of sarcastic reverence towards someone who was said to be a king. Well, your elected officials are elevated in front of you too. Of course, modern legislative chambers and courtrooms are modeled after royal courts; so it should be obvious that this was done intentionally. Under monarchies, kings got their power from God, and everyone below the king (including judges) got their power from the king, who got it from God.
     Fellow citizens, I came to the Waukegan City Council meeting on a Monday evening. I did not come here to pray. I did not come here to watch 98% of you turn this place, intended to promote civic engagement, into a place where we pray for our king as if we were in feudal times, ask the government to answer our prayers, agree to sacrifice our own neighbors for the sake of federal funds and the illusion of civil order, and agree to sacrifice our children's health and safety for the sake of humiliating jobs and depreciating money.


9. Conclusion

     Waukegan City Council: You have no intention of protecting us against fascist federal authorities enforcing unconstitutional deportation orders. You are poisoning your people physically and morally. You are behaving as if the public commons were a church. You are thus a usurpation of God. Everything you are doing is wrong and has no authority, because it comes from neither God nor the people.
     I urge the people to arm themselves, and to resist the census. The federal government has the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, not to enforce it, nor to establish any other types of immigration policy; and the federal government has no obligation to collect census data in addition to the number of people.
     Moreover, the governor would be fully within his right to nullify I.C.E., deportation orders, and additional census questions, and in so doing make Illinois a “Sanctuary State” (although I would not recommend that this designation be made in a way that secures Illinois federal funds). Thus, I also urge the people, and the police, to refuse to cooperate with federal authorities enforcing all immigration laws.
     The Waukegan City Council, and Governor J.B. Pritzker, have a decision to make: Whether they are on the side of freedom and the American people, or whether they want government to be a religious cult, in which we may trust nobody to solve our problems, except for the elected officials who happen to be in charge at the moment. And those officials may only attempt to solve those problems by enforcing whatever set of laws happens to be on the books.
     The Waukegan City Council does the youth of this community no service, by ruining their respect for the importance of civic engagement for the remainder of their lives, by blindly urging cooperation with - and trust in – government, even when the officials and laws we are expected to trust have authoritarian and fascist intentions.
     But even if the city council does put a generation of young adults off of the idea that the government deserves to be trusted, then frankly, so be it; it's not such a bad thing after all. Because government doesn't work - more bad untested laws and more violent enforcement don't work – and so, we should not teach young people to trust the government. If we do, then the next thing you know, their baby is missing, and they've been pepper-sprayed in the eyes, injected with toxic chemicals, and handed a wad of cash.
     Until the Waukegan City Council can start offering more than words when criticizing the Trump Administration's desire to implement legislation they know damn well is unconstitutional – if the council could offer condemnation and plans for action – then it could show a generation of young Waukegan residents that America is about not only civic engagement but also freedom and resistance to tyranny, and that the American people stood up to fascism, and will stand up to it again.




Written on July 30th, 2019

Based on "Public Officials Should Not Appear in Ads for Public Events:
Speech to the Waukegan City Council on August 5th, 2019"
(which can be read at the following address:
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2019/07/taxpayer-funded-local-events-should-not.html)

Edited on August 19th, 2019

Monday, July 15, 2019

Public Officials Should Not Appear in Ads for Public Events: Speech to the Waukegan City Council on August 5th, 2019 (First Draft)

     The following is the text of a short speech which I intend to deliver at a meeting of the Waukegan City Council on August 5th, 2019.
     The speech is addressed to the mayor of Waukegan and the other members of the city council (consisting of nine aldermen, a city clerk treasurer, and a corporate counsel).
     For more information on the members of the Waukegan City Council, see the following link: http://www.waukeganil.gov/Directory.aspx?did=4
     The speech reads thus:

     At the last meeting of the Waukegan City Council (on July 15th), a Waukegan resident urged the council to consider whether it constituted an illegal case of taxpayer fraud, that the name and likeness of Waukegan Mayor Sam Cunningham have appeared on advertisements for the Waukegan Music Festival, a local city event.
     I was not familiar with this controversy until that citizen made her comments, but it turns out that this issue goes back to September 7th, 2018, when the Chicago Tribune asked the same question, in an article by Emily K. Coleman, entitled "Waukegan alderman questions 'Chicago-style politics' in putting mayor's name on city festival ads".

     Typically, in our legal system, the accused and the judge are not supposed to be the same person. That's why - especially considering the fact that this controversy goes back at least ten months - I found it very inappropriate that the mayor would acquit himself, rather than recuse himself from the controversy, when Alderman Ann Martin tried to explain the resident's concern about the ad in which the mayor appeared.
     In my opinion, Mayor Cunningham should have recused himself from the issue, in the same manner in which Supreme Court justices (occasionally, albeit not enough) recuse themselves, when they are asked to be neutral arbiters in lawsuits in which the outcome stands to directly and materially benefit them personally.
     Mayor Cunningham should have said "I shouldn't comment on this matter any further, because I am the party whose innocence is under question, and, as such, I am not qualified to contest my guilt in such a public venue, Therefore, let someone with legal standing, file the appropriate charges against me, and the local election authorities or the courts can determine whether and how I should be punished, and how the Waukegan Music Festival should be funded and advertised."

     If our mayor is being accused of committing a crime - and I'm not yet suggesting that he should be - then his guilt or innocence of that charge is not going to be decided through a spontaneous (and very public) conversation between Mayor Sam Cunningham and Alderman Ann Martin. The issue of whether a public official has committed taxpayer fraud, or election fraud, ought to be dealt with by the police, and/or by the Illinois Board of Elections, or by the county or local election authorities.
     Similarly, the issue of whether it should be illegal to spend public taxpayer money on publicly-sponsored events that feature the name or likeness of currently seated public officials, is also not something that can be figured out through a two-minute conversation between the mayor and an alderman. Either the state or local election authorities, or whatever court is authorized to oversee election law that pertains to local elections in Waukegan, should be making such a decision.
     This is a very complicated issue; it is not just a legal issue, but very likely also a constitutional one, because it relates to issues like how public entities run their own elections, whether campaigns and political parties are private institutions, and how that affects their right to receive taxpayer funds.
     That is why the issue of the Waukegan Music Festival, and the issue of whether the mayor has found a way to improperly misappropriate taxpayer funds for the purposes of his own re-election, should not be decided through the mayor simply loudly insisting upon his innocence to an alderman (while the public has no right to weigh in on the matter).

     Alderman Martin explained to the mayor several times that what the Waukegan resident was concerned about, was not the issue of whether performers at the Waukegan Music Festival are legitimate entertainers. That is not the question at hand, although the mayor seemed to think that that was the issue at a few points.
     While I wish to commend Alderman Martin for trying to explain that that wasn't what the Waukegan resident was concerned about, I also have to say that I don't think Alderman Martin succeeded in explaining to the mayor what that exact concern was. The issue at hand here - I think - is whether taxpayer money may be used to promote events whose advertisements contain the name or likeness of currently seated public office holders. I believe that that is the specific issue we're talking about, is that correct?
     I haven't personally looked at the election law regarding this topic, but I suspect that there is a strong possibility that the expenditure of public funds on publicly-sponsored events, wherein the names and faces of seated incumbent public officials are featured in order to advertise the events, does constitute improper use of taxpayer funds. That is not to say, however, that I am accusing the mayor of anything inappropriate; I am only saying that he benefits from the tradition of involving the mayor in the promotion of the Waukegan Music Festival.
     As the mayor explained during the most recent city council meeting, several mayors have been associated with promoting the Waukegan Music Festival. If what he's saying is true, then Mayor Cunningham should not be blamed for improper use of taxpayer funds (especially if he only agreed to appear in advertisements for the event as part of local tradition). If this tradition was started by previous mayors, then if there is anything about these ads that defrauds taxpayers, then the blame lies with the first mayor who approved and appeared in ads like this; not with the current mayor.

     But still, the use of the mayor's title in the event's ads (whether his name or face are used or not) almost seems to suggest to the public that it is the mayor who is personally giving this festival to the residents of Waukegan. Especially if the Waukegan Music Festival is going to be called the Waukegan Mayor's Music Festival. Taken literally, the possessive "'s" after "Waukegan Mayor" in "Waukegan Mayor's Music Festival" could be misunderstood, and taken to imply that the music festival is the Waukegan Mayor's property.
     Of course, it is not, but do all Waukegan residents know that? Do all residents know that that is not how government works? The City of Waukegan should make it abundantly clear to the residents of Waukegan that the Waukegan Music Festival belongs to the people, and not to the mayor; that it is a publicly-funded, publicly-organized event; and that the mayor derives his authority and salary from the people.
     This should be the focus of our concern. It should be clear - by the name of the event, by how it is funded, and by whose names and faces appear on advertisements for it - that the Waukegan Music festival is a publicly-funded, publicly-organized event; not something which is primarily organized, planned, nor funded by the mayor. And that goes, regardless of who happens to be the mayor.
     The use of the names and faces of currently seated public officials, gives all incumbent public officials an edge, when it comes to getting elected, because it increases the chances that the public could come to see those officials as the people who give the public those festivals (rather than it being the public which organizes these events and gives the mayor his money and power to begin with).
     It would be unfair to all potential challengers to the current mayor in his next election, to unfairly favor incumbent public officials, by continuing to allow them to appear in advertisements for public events; events which were organized and funded entirely through the approval of the public, not by the mayor.
     Mayor Cunningham benefits from the current policy of allowing elected officials to appear in ads for public funded events, whether he wants to benefit from it or not; and that's why this policy must change. Mayor Cunningham may be totally innocent, and the policy may be good enough; but even if that's so, the mayor and the city should take extra precaution, and change the policy, because doing so would remove the potential conflict of interest involving the mayor. Which, I think, everybody has an interest in removing; the mayor most of all, because it would remove from the mayor the incentive and ability to misappropriate or reroute public funds in order to engage in that sort of self-promotion in the first place.

     The city of Waukegan should discontinue its policy of allowing elected officials to appear in ads for publicly funded events; lest the less intelligent members of our community feel pressured to re-elect the mayor, based on some ill-founded fear that if they don't re-elect the mayor, then nobody will provide them with the same sorts of music festivals and other public events which the mayor appeared to provide by agreeing to lend his title, name, and face for the sake of their promotion.
     We, as residents of Waukegan, have every right to be concerned about taxpayer funds being effectively rerouted so as to fund campaigns, through this legal loophole we've discovered, which allows incumbent elected officials to appear in advertisements for public events, at public expense. Political parties and campaigns are private organizations, and as such should never receive public funds. Yet they do; through this advertisement loophole, through the gift of taxpayer funds to all parties receiving more than 5% of the electorate's vote, and undoubtedly through other avenues as well.
     This should end, and we can take the first step right here in Waukegan, by ensuring that, going forward, all advertisement for public events should be free of association with any particular office holder, or title of an official, serving any government, be it at the local, county, state, or federal level.


Written and published on July 15th, 2019

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...