Sunday, April 27, 2014

School Boards and Challenged Books in Three Minutes; Discussion Urged, Not Weird Arguments; School Bullies Parent Saying She's Squashing Her Child's Sexual Being

Here is a three minute speech for a school board of education on challenged books.  It is three minutes because that is all the time the public is allowed to speak, in this case, at the West Essex Regional School District Board of Education meeting, and in this case regarding "The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao" by Junot Díaz.  But it applies to all schools across the nation, all challenges.

What can I say in three minutes that will make a difference?  I can say the censorship bullies are intentionally misleading and prove it, I can give out copies of the linked attachments for further consideration, and I can urge people to discuss book challenges in a civil fashion instead of "weird arguments," as popular young adult fiction writer Lauren Myracle puts it after graciously apologizing for maligning Wall Street Journal book reviewer Meghan Cox Gurdon.

Who Am I?

Greetings members of the school board, school parents, and guests.  I'm Dan Kleinman, Library Watchdog at SafeLibraries in Chatham, NJ.  I am here today to speak about the recent school book challenge in consideration of how the community has responded and should respond.  I am the nation's leader on the censorship bullying coming from the American Library Association [ALA] as acknowledged by the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act who said I was a "trusted source" on ALA's misinformation.  International press AFP called my website "a clearing house for information about challenging books."  I've even been on the cover of USA Today.

Why Am I Here?

I am here to provide truthful information about the process of discussing book challenges.  So far what I see in this community is personal attacks on the mother who brought the challenge where such attacks come from outside groups, media, students, and even the school itself, as illustrated in her statement below.  The knee jerk reaction is cries of "censorship."  As Dan Gerstein put it, "The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny.  ....  [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others."

In this community many people are afraid to speak up for common sense precisely because of the censorship bullies.  What is really needed is reasoned discussion, free from the shouting voices trying to bully people into being afraid to stand up for what we all know is right.  I am going to illustrate that to you today, as best as I can in the three minutes I'm allowed to speak.  To help make my points, I have handouts here with the reliable references supporting what I am saying.  You will not see these sources from anything ALA or its local acolytes sends you so please read them.

My hope is you'll listen to what I have to say and decide to consider the matter seriously instead of unwittingly kowtowing to the voices shouting "censorship" and "book banning."  Indeed, the reason they shout "censorship" is to intimidate people into never challenging a book in the first place, but people have every right and duty to challenge their government, including public schools.  Your children should take precedence over your fear of being falsely labelled a censor.

The Declining Values in Young Adult Fiction Is Not a Left or Right Issue

The first thing to know is the declining values in young adult fiction is not a left or right issue.  I say that because the first ad hominem argument people make to support inappropriate materials in schools is that the challenger is Christian or conservative.  In reality, everyone opposes inappropriate materials for children.  For example, Naomi Wolf, the non-Christian, non-conservative author of The Beauty Myth, wrote in the New York Times how shocked parents would be at the downward spiral in young adult fiction.

Handout 1:

New York City Removes Inappropriate Books From Hundreds of Schools

Even in ultraliberal New York City, the public spoke up when the school included a sexually inappropriate book for students in the curriculum.  The book was selected as a result of its being listed by the American Library Association as one of the top books of the year for "reluctant" young readers.  Nevertheless, it was pulled from hundreds of schools, so pulling a book from a school is no problem in the right circumstance.

Handout 2:
  • "City's Ed. Boobs," by Carl Campanile, New York Post, 13 October 2003.

Even the American Library Association Says "Get It Out of There" 

Here's something you won't hear from the American Library Association nowadays.  Even its own de facto leader, Judith Krug, the creator of the Banned Books Week hoax, said, "On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library.  In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials.  If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there."

Handout 3:

Despite the Shouting Voices, Most People Oppose Sexually Explicit Material in Schools

Most people oppose books with explicit language in school libraries.  62%, according to a recent Harris Poll.  That's another reason for shouting "censorship."  They want you to think you're alone in wanting to keep inappropriate material from children. For example, in 2009, ALA labelled all 460 parents bringing book challenges as "censors."  Even a self-described progressive librarian said this was wrong since occasionally books are challenged for good cause and removed.  The truth is, of course, that you are in the majority and you are not a censor if you decide to keep inappropriate material from children.  I urge you to get over your fear of being bullied and falsely called a censor.  Apply your school anti-bullying policy to the ALA and those who act in a similar fashion.

Handout 4:
  • "Most Americans Opposed to Banning Any Books," by Harris Interactive, The Harris Poll, 12 April 2011.

It's Parenting, Not Censorship

Besides, it's parenting we are talking about, not censorship.  The idea that this is censorship came from Judith Krug of the American Library Association, and she was a board member of the Illinois American Civil Liberties Union who joined ALA and created all the new anything-goes rules.  They are ACLU's anything-goes rules, pushed into ALA, and now they are being pushing into your community.  Does the ACLU control your school or do you?

Handout 5:

School Superintendents Oppose Sexually Inappropriate Material in Schools, Even If ALA Recommends It

You don't need to kowtow to outside groups like the American Library Association.  Even a book on ALA's list of top books for "reluctant" young readers gets rejected, and one superintendent exposed the false cries of "censorship."  The super showed some spine and acted to protect the children, not the American Library Association or its local acolytes.

Handout 6:
  • "Book Ruckus Divides Montgomery County Residents," by Jim Warren, Lexington Herald-Leader, 29 November 2009 (the link appears to be dead so I'm linking where I quoted the matter, and notice the many comments, including by young adult book authors like Ellen Hopkins and Chris Crutcher).

Schools Oppose Book Review Sites Like Scholastic for Hiding Information About the Potential for Sexually Inappropriate Material for Children

How many times do you hear how the book is so highly rating by all the book reviewing sources?  A lot, right? As if the ratings are more important than common sense.  Well one school principal finally noticed this and ordered his teachers to stop relying on the rating services.  He then removed a book from the school.  So if you are being told the book got excellent reviews, now you know educators have noticed the reviews lack key information.

Handout 7:
  • "'Lush' Causes Uproar by Parents," by Cortney Mumaugh, Putnam County Sentinel, 15 December 2010. 

ALA Censors and Blacklists Common Sense Media for Providing Book Ratings About the Potential for Sexually Inappropriate Material for Children

We learned above how book ratings groups like Scholastic and ALA's own Booklist leave out material educators and parents can use to determine the potential for sexually inappropriate material for children.  There is one major group that provides that, namely, Common Sense Media.  Aren't we told it is parental responsible for what their children read, not others?  You've heard that, right?  Well there's a major web site for parents and teachers to learn about books.  It's ALA's own Great Websites for Kids.  Your school or local public library links to this, right?  Parents, we hear, are supposed to be responsible for their own children and only their own children, right?  So they use ALA's Great Websites for Kids to makes judgements, right?  Guess what.  ALA censored the Common Sense Media site from its Great Websites for Kids then blacklisted Common Sense Media so no other librarian anywhere would ever refer anyone to it for book ratings.  An ALA "Intellectual Freedom Committee" did this, no less.

This is the ALA that is saying parents need to be informed while it shapes the messages so parents miss out on exactly what concerns them.  This is one of the smoking guns of why the American Library Association is not to be trusted; it actively works to mislead you, parents and schools, while acting as some kind of authority.

Handout 8:

Author Supports Wall Street Journal Book Reviewer Who Dared to Suggest Young Adult Books Might Be Inappropriate For Children

As you know, even a hint of a challenge to reading material in schools brings out administrative malfeasance, howls of protest, cries of censorship, and personal attack.  It is all designed to intimidate and bully others into never saying a peep about materials inappropriate for children.  Your school has an anti-bullying policy, right?  So why is such bullying allowed here?  Hopefully not because you agree with or are perpetrating the bullying.

The backlash can be so bad that few brave authors are willing to speak out in defense of those simply speaking the truth about books for children, as Meghan Cox Gurdon did in the Wall Street Journal where she suggested, as I pointed out above, book reviews are incomplete and uninformative.

Handout 9:

Reasoned Discussion, Free From the Shouting, Bullying Voices Crying Censorship, Is What Is Needed to Address School Book Challenges; A Great Example is Author Lauren Myracle Apologizing to Wall Street Journal Book Reviewer Meghan Cox Gurdon

I hope you can see book challenges in schools should be conducted fairly and in an atmosphere of truth and honesty, not shouting.  After all, most people oppose inappropriate material in schools and schools remove inappropriate material all the time, yes even in New Jersey.  Even ALA itself says if a book does not meet a school's book selection policy, "get it out of there."  And school principals and superintendents are not fooled by uninformative book reviews or ALA books lists and awards and neither should you, especially were ALA censors and blacklists sources that contain information about the potential for sexually inappropriate material in children's books.  ALA has dirty hands.

As an example of the kind of positive atmosphere in which book challenges should be discussed, I urge you to read the transcript of the National Public Radio discussion of Meghan Cox Gurdon and her Judy Bloom-like critic and author Lauren Myracle.  Lauren apologized to Meghan for jumping on the censorship bandwagon.  I urge you to read this.  Then I urge you to set aside the shouting and the bullying and the false arguments about how well rated the materials are and how some parents are censors and instead focus on amicably resolving the issue in a manner that best suits the community and its children, not the bullies.
"I lashed out at you," Myracle said.  "When people get outraged they get angry, and then it becomes this weird argument instead of a discussion. ...  I should welcome people who aren't on the same page with love and generosity. ...  And I didn't with you.  And I'm sorry."

Handout 10:


I could say so much more, but that concludes my three minutes of fame.  Thank you for this opportunity to speak and provide handouts.  I welcome any questions now or in the future and will be happy to appear at local PTO meetings or the like.

# # #   30   # # #


I attended my local BOE meeting to voice my concerns regarding a book that my 10th grade son was reading.  My son came to me with an excerpt of the book and said to me that the language was disgusting and the topic was inappropriate for 10th graders.  My son made a copy of a chapter of the book and highlighted what he thought was inappropriate and I brought it to the attention of the board and administration.

I asked them if they could read the passage out loud, then I would drop the issue.  I also asked them who picked the book, and if anyone had read the book prior to putting it the classroom.  I was told that the head of English Dept did read the book, felt that it was ART and very appropriate.

I was also told that I was "hovering and overprotecting my son," as well as "squashing his sexual being."

I didn't respond in public to the head of English, because I didn't want to stoop to her level.  I questioned why the kids are not reading books to enhance their vocabulary to better prepare for the SAT/ACT tests.  I was told that it was more important to expose our kids to other cultures (implied that we live in a very wealthy community) and that vocabulary building was as important.

What I really don't understand is that the school has such a tough non bullying policy for the students, yet when a parent has a question or a challenge such as this,  I feel like I am being bullied.

I don't understand why the BOE and the administration will not respond to my requests.  I understand that there are policies in place, but a simple email with an update from the meeting would be the least they can do.

I also found out that we as parents can opt out of books (a little too late for most), but my son turned in his book and was given a replacement.  I was also told that next year that because my son will be in AP english we will not be able to challenge a book.  I responded, that was not a concern because the AP curriculum is not picked by the head of the English department, but by the AP board.

My son did speak at the BOE meeting regarding the book choice, and the head of the English Dept was rolling her eyes at him and implied that I wrote his speech.  By all means at 16 years old I do not have to put words in his mouth.  He is the one that brought this to my attention, and as his mother I am his best advocate.

I never asked the school to ban or censor the book, I asked them to make the best choices for our kids.


I attended the above meeting.  I really messed up my speech, or rather the three minutes I was allotted was not a lot and I rushed.  What a mess.

Someone filmed me (via iPhone) and I am certain ALA is reviewing that now as I see my email, never sent by me to ALA, is being read by Chicago, IL, ALA employees using ALA email servers.  So the school has definitely contacted ALA, an organization that, among other things, is the nation's leading facilitator of porn:

That said, the bullying of students and parents by the school itself is FAR, FAR WORSE than what I have reported above.  If I get a chance I will be reporting more on this soon, perhaps publishing several people directly describing their ordeal.

If I recall correctly, a girl was, did I get this right, ordered to read some sexually inappropriate part of a book in front of the class?  She opted out of reading it so she was placed in the back of the room, facing away from the class, told to wear head phones and to occupy herself on the computer while the class discussed the racy book?  It was something like that.  That's bullying.  It is also a failure to comply with the law to provide an adequate education.

But oh, it gets even worse.  One of her friends was acting on behalf of her coach, engaged her in text messaging, then her text messages, her private text messages, where emailed to many teachers?  Did I get that right?  And her father is being investigated by the school?

Oh, it was EXPLOSIVE!

Someone in the audience hinted I should be sued for supposedly making defamatory statements about the bullying the school is doing, then it turns out the bullying is WAY WORSE than what I reported.  And there were anti bullying signs right in the next room!  If you don't read that racy book, you AND your family will be bullied to teach others NEVER to dare challenge the government!

Oh I hope I get the time to do a full report on this.  Just wait.  This kind of bullying I see in school after school, setting aside the privacy invasion and the parental investigation, each one following ALA advice to keep the kids reading the inappropriate material by giving "alternate" material to the complainers and by bullying them.

Oh I can't wait to write about this.

Saturday, April 19, 2014

American Library Association Blames YouTube Video for Benghazi Attack; Passes Policy Silencing Prayer After Jewish Man Prays for Dead Colleagues at ALA Meeting; Does Not Support Free Speech

ALA claims Benghazi attack was
"fueled" by a YouTube video.
The American Library Association [ALA] claims a YouTube video was responsible for the Benghazi attack.  Yet the video had absolutely nothing to do with the attack.  Instead its use supports Islamist efforts to use blasphemy laws to silence the free speech of those speaking out about Islam from a different point of view than the Islamists.  ALA now evidences agreement with that anti-free speech goal.

ALA, supposedly a supporter of free speech, has in the past censored a speaker in response to complaints from Islamists and maintains a block on speech from Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.  Now it has joined with those promoting blasphemy laws to silence free speech.  The video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack, yet ALA calls it, "the radical anti-Islamic video that fueled the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi"?
  • "Appeals Court Decision Undermines Free Speech, Misinterpret Copyright Law," by Carrie Russell, Director of the Program on Public Access to Information in the Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP), American Library Association, 14 April 2014 (hyperlinks in original, emphasis mine, grammatical errors in title and text are in original):
    Last week, the American Library Association (ALA) joined an amicus brief calling for reconsideration of a 9th circuit court decision in Garcia v. Google, case where actress Cindy Sue Garcia sued Google for not removing a YouTube video in which she appears.  Garcia appears for five seconds in Innocence of Muslims,” the radical anti-Islamic video that fueled the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi.  The video was uploaded on YouTube, exposing Garcia to threats and hate mail.  Garcia did not know that her five second performance would be used in a controversial video.

ALA Policy Silencing Impromptu Prayer at ALA Meetings

By the way, at ALA's latest annual conference, it passed a policy silencing prayer at ALA meetings in response to a Jewish ALA member saying a quick prayer over other ALA members who had just died:
As former ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon said, "When Mr. Friedman intoned the Jewish mourner's 'Kaddish' after the sudden deaths of 2 Councilors, I was highly indignant and walked out.  It never should have been allowed and before the second incident I begged Mr. Friedman not to repeat the prayer-at least on Council floor." Source: ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon.
Anyone is free to pray at any time, anywhere.  What people are not free to do is to force others to participate in their prayers, which is what happens when one prays aloud.  If Mr. Friedman wished to offer a prayer in his own particular religious format, he has a temple or synagogue in which to do so.  An ALA meeting is not a religious service, & if Mr. Friedman wished to express his sadness over the deaths of the councilors there, he's free to do so in a non-religious way.  Source: Sherry Rhodes.
So the self-arrogated free speech police who claim it violates free speech to keep children from inappropriate material and decry "banned books" think one has free speech to "express sadness over the deaths of the councilors" but only "in a non-religious way," unless you go your own "temple or synagogue."

A single ALA member (ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon) was incensed at a Jewish prayer being said in a single ALA meeting and ALA has now banned such prayer.  The free speech police banned free speech.  Remember, ALA claims a single parent should not be allowed to "censor what others students can read" in public schools; one parent should not control an entire school.  But it is okay for one person to react to Jewish prayer and cause ALA to block religious free speech ALA wide.  Just another double standard.

It is right that ALA is not a religious institution and should not have official prayers or prayer times, but a colleague saying an impromptu prayer upon news of the death of another colleague is not official ALA prayer and ALA had no right to silence people in such a fashion.

ALA Censorship Double Standard; ALA Does Not Support Free Speech

What we see here is ALA censorship promoted by impromptu Jewish prayer while ALA promotes censorship of those who oppose radical Islam.  All while telling communities it is censorship to block porn in public libraries and censorship to keep school children from inappropriate material.

ALA supports Islamic blasphemy laws that silence free speech, censors points of view that differ from Islamist views, and silences its own members after a Jewish man makes a quick Jewish prayer at an ALA meeting out of respect for a dead colleague.  ALA does not support free speech.

On Twitter:  @ALALibrary @JihadWatchRS @OITP

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Jack Ryan Editorial Strongly Opposes Libraries Using Bullying and Character Assassination to Assist In the Distribution of Pornography

Jeri Ryan as Star Trek
's Seven of Nine,
former spouse of Jack Ryan
An Orland Park Prairie editorial by owner Jack Ryan has come out strongly against the Orland Park Public Library for its policy of 1) allowing Internet pornography in the library with false First Amendment claims and 2) personally attacking those who oppose its pro-porn policy so as to be "bullied into silence or submission" and undergo "character assassination."  For those not yet aware, the OPPL library's pro-porn policy and use of character assassination to protect that policy is such a joke that even Saturday Night Live with guest star Lady Gaga made fun of the library.

Jack Ryan's editorial should set an example for other media to "try to improve things."  I republish it here so my readers can benefit from what it says and use it to oppose Internet porn as promoted by the American Library Association in their own libraries.

As Jack Ryan put it, "we hope that our library will reexamine with fresh eyes its assistance in the distribution of pornography," something for which the American Library Association has been recognized by Morality in Media's Porn Harms as one of the nation's leaders:


by Jack Ryan, Owner of 22nd Century Media
Orland Park Prairie
10 April 2014

We hope that the Orland Park Public Library will reexamine its decision to be an access point for pornography.  We also appreciate the people who bring these issues to the public's attention.

Anyone who speaks about values puts themselves at risk in two ways.  First, those who prefer a valueless society will claim that the person speaking up is hypocritical.  Because we are human and have all made mistakes, that statement will be true.

Second, that statement will possibly be supplemented by a specific assertion about that person that is contrary to an individual with a high moral standard.  They will therefore argue that the person asserting the moral standard should be ignored.  Then, the individual standing up for the value is maligned, not only with the accusation of hypocrisy, but also and possibly even worse, with some assertion about their life that he or she would prefer not to be made public.

In that way, anyone who would stand up for values is effectively bullied into silence or submission.  However, if no one who has ever made a mistake can speak to promote a moral value, then that of course bans any human from speaking about moral values.  And that outcome would be a bad result, because what kind of society will we have if no one can speak up about moral values in the public square?

If we would like to have a better society, then individuals must be able to assert publicly, without fear of character assassination, that there are some higher values or ideals that are worth aspiring to.  And we are grateful for all people, including the ones who have brought this issue to the public's attention, who speak about the better angels in our nature.

It is with that background that we suggest that the library board revisit its decision to allow access to pornography at its public library.  It may or may not be free speech to produce the material, but the First Amendment does not include that the government has to subsidize the distribution of it.

Citizens may have a point of view about many issues, and under the First Amendment are free to express them, but that does not mean everyone else has to pay money to make sure that point of view is disseminated.

It could be that our current culture has moved to such a place where we now have to start reproving the obvious, and we are willing to start doing so in future editorials if need be.  However, to save our readers that proof here, we hope that our library will reexamine with fresh eyes its assistance in the distribution of pornography.

On Twitter:  @22ndCM @IntolerantFox @JeriLRyan @LadyGaga @NBCSNL @OIF @OPPrairie @OrlandPkLibrary @Porn_Harms @SNLUpdate @VillageOrlandPk

Monday, April 7, 2014

Library Lawyers Manufacture Evidence But Inspire Humorous Video; ALA Takes Opportunity to Teach How to Thwart Complaining Patrons

Library lawyers manufacture evidence to enable a public library to continue to violate the law.  The strategy is to malign the people complaining about crime in the library to avoid the real issue.  The means of doing this is opposition research and participation in the actual manufacturing evidence.  A law firm did this.  Naturally, the American Library Association is using this law firm's efforts as an example for other libraries to follow to thwart complaining patrons.

I'm talking about Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, LTD, Chicago, IL; Orland Park, IL.  I'm talking about Orland Park Public Library, Orland Park, IL.

Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan, then former employee Linda Zec have been trying to raise the issue of unreported criminal activity in the library that results from the unfettered access to inappropriate material on Internet computers.  They have asked the library for public records or an opportunity to speak under both the Freedom of Information Act and the Open Meeting Act.  The library, counseled by its law firm, repeatedly denied such requests and have been repeatedly compelled to provide the information by the Illinois Attorney General.  Even then the library only releases harmless material and hides the actual evidence of collusion to violate the law, but I digress.  The relevant issue is the library has in three months paid about $24,000 in legal bills for counseling the library how to thwart compliance with the Sunshine Laws.

And the law firm knows the law so well its members apparently think they can council the library on how to thwart it:
Megan Fox has produced a humorous but sad but humorous video (hat tip @EvilEsq) depicting the lawyers enjoying getting rich by getting the library to continue to use its legal services to stonewall requests under the Sunshine Laws.  Look:

The law firm has misled the library, but worse, it has misled the Illinois Attorney General in official filings based on a matter I myself filed, among others.  But to explain this, I'll just republish (for the first time) what I wrote to the Attorney General in response to the law firm's then-latest manufactured evidence.  After which I will provide evidence, including video, of the American Library Association's current de facto leader using the matter to malign patrons who complain about crime in libraries:

GmailDan Kleinman

FOIA Request for Review -- 2014 PAC 27987 - Response to OPPL re Affidavit of Director Mary Weimar
2 messages

Safe Libraries Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:22 AM
Cc:,, Dennis Walsh ,,,,,,,,,,,,, "Mary K. Weimar"
Dear Assistant Attorney General Tola Sobitan,

This letter is in response to the latest substantive letter from the Orland Park Public Library ( ) as it contained new evidence, mainly the affidavit of the library director, but also statements regarding the library law firm’s own book, and I should be given the opportunity to respond to this new evidence. I have made two previous submissions in this matter ( (1) Request for Review: (2) Response: )

Orland Park Public Library attorneys, namely, the law firm of Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, LTD [KTJ] ( ), use obfuscation and manufactured evidence to defend the library’s board of trustees having met without legal notice on the Lincoln’s Birthday holiday in a fashion that violates the law.  This defense is put forth in response to the Illinois Attorney General ( ).  Since candor in responding to tribunals is required by Illinois attorney ethics rules, and since obfuscation and manufactured evidence does not meet that standard, the defense by KTJ may be unethical, but that’s an aside to be addressed in another forum.  

The obfuscation relates to the argument that Lincoln’s Birthday is not a legal holiday in Illinois.  This argument is made even to the point of contradicting the law firm’s own book used by municipalities to comply with the law ( ).  After using “statutory construction” to argue there is no way to determine if Lincoln’s Birthday is a holiday in Illinois, the argument is then made that a sort of “statutory construction” of KTJ’s own book means KTJ’s own finding in that book that Lincoln’s Birthday is a holiday actually does not mean Lincoln’s Birthday is a holiday.  The individual member of KTJ making this argument explains that he did not write that part of the book.

The manufactured evidence relates to the supplied affidavit of the library director that she gave legal notice of the meeting by notifying the Southtown Starand posting an agenda five days before.  Yet no production of physical records support her sworn statements.  Further, evidence to the contrary shows no notice was ever posted until the very day of the Lincoln’s Birthday holiday meeting, including statements that Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan checked the notice board everyday precisely to prevent this kind of illegality.  Further, the first and only media report of the Lincoln’s Birthday holiday meeting appeared in the Chicago Tribune, and that one and only instance occurred on the same day as the meeting ( ).  There is no published notice of the meeting from the Southtown Star or any other media source, and the library has not produced such evidence. The library can provide false sworn testimony and knowingly KTJ can proffer it to the Illinois Attorney general in violation of attorney ethics codes, but the Southtown Star cannot go back in history and manufacture evidence that is not there.

When it comes to manufacturing evidence, public records prove the library directory has in the past manufactured evidence, as well as head of the library’s board of trustees, and even one member of KTJ itself, one James Fessler, Esq.  Such things were done intentionally to besmirch Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan for discovering the library is violating Illinois library and criminal law, and other law and policy, by allowing, even fostering, unfettering Internet pornography and allowing the resultant sex crimes, including child pornography and public masturbation, to go unreported to the police.  Mrs. Fox and Mr. DuJan are trying to bring sunshine to these illegal activities.  In contrast, this whole action is about the library working in the dark to prevent that, such as by meeting without notice on a legal holiday to approve a policy that allows porn despite the law, etc.  The library and particularly the library director who signed the affidavit swearing that she gave legal notice, and even the library’s law firm, have in the past manufactured evidence against Mrs. Fox and Mr. DuJan.  Having manufactured evidence in the past and repeatedly so, no less, there is no compunction about manufacturing it again or proffering it to the Attorney General.  KTJ itself having manufactured evidence in the past, there is no compunction about proffering newly manufactured evidence to the Attorney General.

Some of the manufactured evidence is detailed here: “Orland Park Public Library Calls Police 5 Times on Critics But Fails to Report Sex Offenders; What Happened To Me When I Challenged the Library's Policy of Providing Free Pornography on Public Computers,” by Megan FoxPJ Media, 4 December 2013 ( )

Listen as library board of trustees president Nancy Wendt Healy (sister of George Wendt who played Norm Peterson on Cheers ( )) calls the police to say she “feels threatened” by Megan Fox for dropping a letter on the doorstep of her legally published address since she’s an elected official ( ), then recants and says that she is only trying to “go on record more than anything, uh, that this should not be tolerated, so, I mean, where did she get my name, you know, ha ha, I mean my home address, I certainly didn’t give it out to her, so, um, thank you”:  “Nancy Healy, President of the Orland Park Public Library Board of Trustees, Calls Police!,” by Megan FoxYouTube, 27 November 2013 ( ).

Listen as library director and affiant Mary Weimar calls the police to say, “I was concerned about some people outside our building who are handing disruptive and damaging, uh, leaflets on our property and according to our patron behavior policy that we, um, we, ah, are not allowed to distribute leaflets, survey taking, collecting signatures or petitions on library property and they are saying that you said it was okay, … the one is Megan Fox and the other is Kevin DuJan”: “Orland Park Public Library 911 Call! November 4th, 2013,” by Megan FoxYouTube, 5 November 2013 ( ).  So the library called the police on Mrs. Fox and Mr. DuJan, characterized their pamphlets on the criminality in the library as “disruptive and damaging,” advised that library prevents such activity, and generally sought to curtail free speech in a library that defines porn as free speech.  Notably, the pamphlet distribution policy claim is either false or is selectively applied against Mrs. Fox and Mr. DuJan as the library even on Saturday, March 29, 2014, allowed the distribution of pamphlets about ObamaCare.  Some would consider the Affordable Care Act “disruptive and damaging” as well.  See: “Case Study in Hypocrisy: Library Calls Cops on Public for Handing Out Flyers But Invites Obamabots to Hand Out Obamacare Flyers,” by Megan FoxFacebook, 28 March 2014 ( ), and see “OPPL Tabling Session (Affordable Care Act Community Outreach); Distributing Flyers About the Affordable Care Act to Local Orland Residents at the Public Library,” by Robert BourretOrganizing for Action, circa March 2014 ( ).

Even KTJ itself manufactured evidence or built the “record,” including making complaints to the police about a “satirical picture.”  Notably, the current KTJ response to the Illinois Attorney General to which I am responding complains about another satirical picture.  KTJ complains about Kevin DuJan’s “degrading and offensive homemade calendar.”  In the past another KTJ attorney called the police:

2. October 23, 2013 James Fessler called the police and claimed he was being harassed by phone calls and “annoying emails.”

In order to tie his critics to the phony phone calls and “annoying” emails and bulk up the false reports against library critics with the police, Fessler named Kevin DuJan and me as “subjects” of his concern despite there being no link to either of us and any of the “annoying” things happening to him. One of his complaints detailed that someone had sent this satirical picture [ ( ) ] to him.

This picture so upset Fessler he felt the need to call the police to report that someone had sent it to him. In the investigation that Fessler insisted the police conduct at considerable cost to the taxpayers over “annoying emails” and amateur prank calls, they found that “John Jenkins” was sending missives from somewhere in Crown Point, Indiana and that other emails were coming from another unnamed man unconnected to DuJan or myself. The “harassing” phone calls were not traced to anyone. Fessler was not charged with making a nuisance call to police.

For contrast, note that on August 20, 2009 police were not notified about a man who was “fully exposed” and masturbating in the computer lab [ ( ) ]. Further the staff notified the perpetrator that he would be asked to leave on the second occurrence.

Source: “Orland Park Public Library Calls Police 5 Times on Critics but Fails to Report Sex Offenders; What Happened To Me When I Challenged the Library's Policy of Providing Free Pornography on Public Computers,” by Megan FoxPJ Media, 4 December 2013 ( )

See also: 
1) Orland Park Police Department - Narrative - 2013-00130099 - James Fessler Esq Complaint - P2 of 3 by Kein ( ); 
2) Orland Park Police Department - Narrative - 2013-00130099 - James Fessler Esq Complaint - P2 of 3 by Eppolito ( )

Mrs. Fox and Mr. DuJan asked for the recording of KTJ’s call to the police to be released but it was not.  But the written report is available.  Some is linked immediately above.

And there are other instances of manufacturing evidence but enough examples have been given.  The point is the library director’s affidavit about adequate notice under the Open Meetings Act being timely given is likely manufactured.  Her statements are unsupported by the evidence, and there is corroborated counter evidence.  There is a history of the library and even the library’s law firm manufacturing evidence or building a record against Mrs. Fox and Mr. DuJan for complaining about the library’s various violations of the law and the resultant harm to the community.

So there’s 1) the making of false statements of fact, 2) the submission of evidence KTJ knows to be false, 3) the failure to take reasonable remedial measures where KTJ knows the library is offering false evidence, and 4) KTJ is not avoiding conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process.  KTJ’s knowledge that evidence is false can be inferred from the circumstances, including that KTJ participated in manufacturing evidence in the past.

Based on the above and elsewhere already submitted to the Attorney General, the affidavit from the library provided by KTJ contains manufactured misinformation and is otherwise not credible.

Let us turn back to the issue of the continued claim by the library that Lincoln’s Birthday is not a legal holiday in Illinois, therefore the library’s meeting on that holiday was perfectly legal.

In the past, KTJ has argued that “statutory construction” leads one to preclude Lincoln’s Birthday holiday as a holiday under the Open Meetings Act. That was countered by a number of means, including revealing that KTJ wrote a book on the subject that is a standard in Illinois and that is taught in part at the Illinois Library Association.  The book revealed that basically Lincoln’s Birthday holiday could and should be considered a holiday for the purposes of the Open Meetings Act.

Confronted with that evidence that KTJ says one thing in its book and another thing to the Attorney General, KTJ responded by essentially saying “statutory construction” of its own book reveals it was wrong to say what it said in its own book, Lincoln’s Birthday is likely not a legal holiday in Illinois in respect of the Open Meetings Act, therefore the library’s meeting on that holiday was perfectly legal and no OMA violation occurred.

The individual KTJ lawyer who submitted this argument on behalf of the library, Dennis Walsh, even bent over so far backwards as to say he did not write that portion of the book!  That is like his previous argument that his secretary misspelled libel as liable, not he himself.

So part of the library’s argument why Lincoln’s Birthday holiday is not a holiday under the Open Meetings Act includes contradicting the law firm’s own book used by municipalities to comply with the law and used by KTJ itself to train librarians at the Illinois Library Association that basically says Lincoln’s Birthday holiday could and should be considered a holiday for the purposes of the Open Meetings Act.

Let’s look at statements by the library’s law firm in response to the Attorney General explaining why what they said in the past really does not apply now (emphasis in original):

As to Ms. [sic] Fox’s “additional information” submitted on March 25 that “complements the 40-page document that Kevin DuJan sent to the PAC,” Ms. [sic] Fox and Mr. DuJan misread … the referenced book….  Although it is nice to be known as one of the authors that literally wrote the book on the Open Meetings Act, I must confess that I did not write that section of the book, but I can assure you that it does not say, as Ms. [sic] Fox suggests, that the authors cite the “Promissory Note and Bank Holiday Act” as the definitive authority on legal holidays in Illinois for the purposes of the OMA.  Instead, and quite the opposite, what it does say specifically and pointedly is that Open Meetings Act “does not define ‘legal holidays’ or the source of such days.”  In the next sentence, there is a recognition that, when it intends to, the General Assembly will set out (unlike in the Open Meetings Act) a specific list of “legal holidays” as it did in the Bank Holiday Act. It does not, nor does the Open Meetings Act say, however, that the Bank Holiday Act is the source of determining the list of “legal holidays” under the Open Meetings Act.  As was specifically pointed out in the prior sentence, the Open Meetings Act doesnot provide guidance or direction to public bodies as to the source of determining such days under the Act. In the next couple of sentences of that section, the book explains that the Illinois legislature determined that holding a special meeting on such a “legal holiday” under the Open Meetings Act would not be convenient to the public but that if a public body’s regular meeting falls on a legal holiday, it can meet on that day. The question, of course, remains what did the Illinois legislature mean by the term “legal holiday.”  At this time, we have no guidance from the legislature or the courts as to its intent.

Contrast that with the lawyer/author’s own book, page 28 ( ):

B. Legal Holidays

In addition, no meeting is to be held on a “legal holiday” unless a public body's regular meeting day falls on such a holiday. Simply stated, a public body cannot schedule a special meeting to take place on Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Thanksgiving or any other legal holiday. The Act does not define “legal holidays” or the source of such days. However, the Bank Holiday Act (205 ILCS 630/17(a)) does set out a list of “legal holidays.” A special meeting on such a legal holiday would not be convenient to the public. However, if a public body regularly meets, for example on the first Monday of the month, and one of the legal holidays falls on such a Monday, the public body may, nevertheless, meet on such a holiday, provided, of course, that a quorum of its members are present.

The book makes it clear that a public body may not meet on a holiday unless the holiday falls on the day of a regularly scheduled meeting.  The book also makes it clear that the Open Meetings Act does not define or list the public holidays to which it refers.  The book then uses the term “however” as in the sense of “on the other hand” to say such a list of holidays is in the Bank Holiday Act, and that “a special meeting on such a legal holiday would not be convenient to the public” unless that is the day regularly scheduled meetings are conducted.

In the library’s response to the Illinois Attorney General, its KTJ law firm, namely the book’s authors, argues that the book it wrote is wrong.  To say otherwise is to “misread” the book, apparently.  Dennis Walsh, the author of the library’s response to the Attorney General, admits he “did not write that section of the book,” but then goes on to use a sort of “statutory construction” to argue against his own book.

First he argues the book does not say what Mrs. Fox and Mr. DuJan say it says, that the Bank Holiday Act is the “definitive authority” on holidays under the Open Meetings Act.  That is a straw man argument.  He builds the argument then destroys it.  By implication we are to believe Mrs Fox and Mr. DuJan are wrong.  But that is not their argument.  We all agree the Bank Holiday Act is not the definitive authority on the holidays contemplated by the Open Meetings Act, so that is a moot point.

The next argument is that the Open Meetings Act does not define nor list the legal holidays.  The same argument is made again.  That is moot as well since we all agree to that.

Next comes the argument that the General Assembly will list holidays if it wants but it did not set out such a list in the Open Meetings Act.  We know this already, so that is moot too.  It is pointed out that the General Assembly did not say the Bank Holiday Act applies to the Open Meetings Act.  Agreed. That is moot.

Next is a repetition that holding a special meeting on a holiday would not be convenient to the public unless it falls on a regularly scheduled date.

So we know all this already.  In the section discussing his own book, so far the library has presented a straw man argument and several moot points.

But the library argument regarding the KTJ book continues, “The question, of course, remains what did the Illinois legislature mean by the term “legal holiday.”  At this time, we have no guidance from the legislature or the courts as to its intent.”  So basically we are supposed to ignore that his own book revealed basically that Lincoln’s Birthday holiday could and should be considered a holiday for the purposes of the Open Meetings Act. 

His own book says, “Simply stated, a public body cannot schedule a special meeting to take place on Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Thanksgiving or any other legal holiday.”  That is indeed simply stated, yet the library is arguing essentially that it is not.  

And Lincoln’s Birthday is just such a holiday.  How do we know?  Setting aside common sense and all those government offices being closed for the Lincoln’s Birthday holiday on that day, 12 February, of course.  We know because we turn again to KTJ’s own book.  It states, “The [Open Meetings] Act does not define ‘legal holidays’ or the source of such days. However, the Bank Holiday Act (205 ILCS 630/17(a)) does set out a list of ‘legal holidays.’ A special meeting on such a legal holiday would not be convenient to the public.”  The key words are “however” and “such a holiday.”  The Act does not list the holidays, “however,” the Bank Holiday Act does, and a special meeting on “such holidays” would not be appropriate.  “Such a holiday” clearly references the Bank Holiday Act listed holidays.  KTJ’s own book reveals this.  The Bank Holiday Act says, “The following days shall be legal holidays in the State of Illinois … the twelfth day in February (Abraham Lincoln's birthday)….” ( )

So a fair reading of the KTJ book reveals that although the Open Meetings Act did not list holidays, one can look to the Bank Holiday Act for guidance and that lists Lincoln’s Birthday, February 12, as a legal holiday.  Nowhere does the library disclose that to the Attorney General.  In a form of “statutory construction” of its own book it sets out moot points then skips over the key information that makes Lincoln’s Birthday holiday inappropriate for a special meeting of a public body. The library then makes the same claim it previously made, namely, that we really don’t know if Lincoln’s Birthday is a holiday for the purposes of the Open Meetings Act.

Given that KTJ wrote the leading book on the Open Meetings Act, has a hundred or so library-related clients, and teaches at the Illinois Library Association on the law, this very law, and given that its own book finds the legal justification for the obvious that Lincoln’s Birthday is a holiday in Illinois, the library cannot now argue that it is not a holiday for the purposes of the Open Meetings Act or that we just don’t know.  Such argument in such a circumstance appears intentionally false.  When the library is directly addressed on this very issue and responds to it by skipping over its own law firm’s book with moot and straw man obfuscation merely to conclude what it already argued that Lincoln’s Birthday may not be a holiday under the Open Meetings Act, this rises to the level of an intentional effort to mislead the Attorney General of Illinois.

A few more comments are in order.  The OMA established the Public Access Bureau to deal with issues arising under the OMA.  The intent of the OMA is that the Public Access Bureau should be open on days open public meetings are taking place.  No way does the OMA intend for the Public Access Bureau to be closed on a legal holiday then not have that same legal holiday be considered a legal holiday under the OMA.  It is undisputed that the Attorney General’s office and the Public Access Bureau were closed on Lincoln’s Birthday holiday.  Given the Public Access Bureau created by the OMA was closed on Lincoln’s Birthday holiday, it makes no sense for Lincoln’s Birthday holiday not to be a legal holiday under the OMA, nor for anyone to honestly argue otherwise.  “Honestly” being the key word.

I also note that throughout this entire Request For Review that I made to the Attorney General, the library has never once addressed the issues I raised.  They stand as I originally asserted them.  For example, I was removed from a list of speakers, literally rubbed out, at a regularly scheduled meeting despite my being an expert in this area and wishing to respond to the misinformation provided by the American Library Association ( ).  I’ll add that even the library itself is aware I am an expert in the area as FOIA requests have revealed the library received documentation from the American Library Association, specifically the ALA’s Internet filtering expert Sarah Houghton, that discloses the “influence of outside lobbying groups,” as if ALA is not one, then names my as an example.  

Note also that the ALA was allowed to speak in a manner that twice violated the library’s published rules about being given only five minutes to speak and allowing only one representative from each group to speak.  ALA spoke longer and had two speakers.  So the library rubbed me out in one meeting after allowing ALA to violate its rules in the previous meeting.  I think the remedy for that should be that I am allowed to speak for just as long as the ALA spoke and not be restricted to only five minutes.

In conclusion, the library has failed to adequately defend its violation of the Open Meetings Act.  Its arguments have included obfuscation, manufactured evidence, ad hominem argument, ignoring issues it does not want to address, efforts to sidestep free speech and open government, and potentially unethical legal activity, such as colluding to hold a meeting on a holiday in violation of the law.  Regarding the later, the Attorney General is listening to a tape of the closed session immediately preceding the Lincoln’s Birthday holiday meeting.

The library is in the position of arguing why denying people free speech and open government is a perfectly legal means to defend maintaining porn in libraries as free speech. In part it is because “statutory construction” of the law provides no controlling legal authority, and “statutory construction” of the law firm’s own book reveals it was mistaken in the book.  We are now to believe a library may legally meet with no notice on a legal holiday without allowing the public to speak.  We are now to believe a library may pass its most important policy ever at that meeting, one that is a significant detriment to the community and to the victims displayed in the Internet pornography (“Libraries Harm Sex Trafficking Victims If They Allow Porn Viewing; Megan Fox Outs Orland Park Public Library” ). 

So now, despite Illinois law and other law and policy to the contrary, unfettered Internet pornography will be allowed in the Orland Park Public Library as if it were an open public forum despite what the US Supreme Court found in US v. ALA ( ) proving that wrong.  And this was done by elected officials during an essentially unannounced meeting on a legal holiday where the public did try to speak but was shouted down, including by the colluding law firm’s own representative, the very same Dennis Walsh, Esq., now argument the library did not violate the OMA..

In plain English, the library has repeatedly manufactured evidence to make ad hominem arguments against those who expose its repeated sex crimes, including child pornography, that result from unfiltered Internet pornography that itself is a violation of law.  The law firm itself has manufactured evidence when it called the police on the same people.  Now it submits evidence that proper notice was given for the Lincoln’s Birthday holiday meeting under the OMA.  That evidence is the affidavit of one of the people who have in the past manufactured evidence.  There was no production of additional evidence such as proof of letters sent to the media, photos of the bulletin board, or proof of dates files were posted to the web site.  Other cases the Public Access Bureau has handled has required just such evidence, such as 2010 PAC 11730, Prospect Heights School District #23 Board of Education ( ).  The School District was compelled by the Public Access Bureau to produce a record of when an agenda was posted to the website.  The case showed a public body has the ability to show when a change was made to its website and when something was posted.  

Such evidence has not been produced by the Orland Park Public Library despite request.  It doesn’t exist.  We know because, among other reasons, others have disclosed they checked the notice board on the days immediately before February 12 and nothing related to the February 12 meeting was present until February 12.  Similarly, no newspaper disclosed the meeting until the Chicago Tribune did on February 12.  All that exists is the manufactured evidence/affidavit from a law firm that has deep knowledge of the law and acted to thwart the law, as the closed session tapes will likely reveal.  The library’s claim that it complied with the OMA requirement to provide adequate notice is not credible.

With respect to Lincoln’s Birthday holiday supposedly not being a holiday under the OMA, the library knows it is a holiday but simply claims it is not despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including the Public Access Bureau itself being close for the holiday, but most significantly, because the law firm hired to represent the library is basically the leading library law law firm in the state of Illinois based on the number of library-related clients, the repeated trainings provided at the Illinois Library Association, and most especially its book that the Illinois Municipal League sells as the only source for information on the OMA.  That book states or implies that Lincoln’s Birthday is a holiday for the purposes of the OMA.  When the law firm was presented with evidence that its own book says Lincoln’s Birthday is a holiday while it is currently arguing it is not a holiday, the response was ad hominem argument, a restatement of moot points to which we all agree, then a conclusory statement that we really don’t really know whether or not Lincoln’s Birthday holiday is a holiday under the OMA.  The response pointedly avoided addressing the issue that the book says the opposite of what the lawyer now argues.  So basically the library has no answer and is attempting to use irrelevant argument to obfuscate the issue.  Let’s be clear.  Both the library and its law firm know full well Lincoln’s Birthday is a holiday in Illinois for the purposes of the OMA.  That they argue otherwise in the face of KTJ having written the book saying or implying Lincoln’s Birthday is a holiday under the OMA is untenable.

And again, the library intentionally remains silent on issues it does not want to address, such as why it removed my name from the list of speakers.

So the library 1) did not provide legal notice and manufactured evidence to say it did, 2) held the meeting on a legal holiday despite the law that it knows in KTJ’s own prominent publication and in defiance of the law as evidenced by the conversation available in the closed meeting before the holiday meeting, and 3) admitted that it suppressed free speech claiming a special meeting does not require public comments where KTJ’s book says otherwise and in the previous closed meeting they colluded to cut off free speech.

At Chicago Loyola Law School on March 14, 2014, as part of FOIA FEST 2014, the Public Assess Bureau held a public meeting to help educate the public about the law.  Kevin DuJan attended that meeting and learned criminal sanctions are rarely triggered since most OMA errors do not rise to that level but that State’s Attorneys are looking for evidence of knowledge of the law and a deliberate attempt to avoid it ( ). Such is the case here.  In this case, KTJ are experts in the law as described.  There is no way at all, none, that KTJ made errors in ignorance of the law.  It wrote the leading book on the topic that says the opposite of the false argument it is now foisting on the Attorney General.  It contributing in manufacturing evidence against those who complained about the unreported crimes in the library.  One member of the firm literally picked up the phone to call police to claim he was being harassed when in reality that was not the case and the matter was closed.  Perhaps most telling, KTJ colluded in the closed meeting before the Lincoln’s Birthday holiday meeting to violate the OMA, according to a tipster that led to the Attorney General asking for the tapes.  

OMA provides, “Any person violating any of the provisions of this Act … shall be guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.”  If there was ever a time for the Public Access Bureau to refer a matter to the State’s Attorneys and completely void a public body’s actions over the course of several meetings, this would be it.  If there was ever a time a referral was made to Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois ( ), this would be it.

Thank you, Assistant Attorney General Tola Sobitan, for your willingness to look into this matter.  I am looking forward to speaking electronically at a future library board meeting so I may advise about issues relevant to the community so they may be fully informed and make an informed decision for themselves, not a misinformed one shaped in part by egregious violations of the Open Meetings Act.  I am hoping what you decide will help me obtain the ability to make that presentation and will otherwise benefit the Village of Orland Park and surrounds.

Dan Kleinman, Library Watchdog
About Me:

By the way, the American Library Association's so-called "Office for Intellectual Freedom" is using this matter in Orland Park as an example for other libraries on how to oppose patrons who complain about illegality in libraries—not how to eliminate the illegality:

Indeed it is possible this Orland Park matter and the success Fox, DuJan, and Zec have had in exposing this library, including its appearance on Saturday Night Live, Weekend Update, that ALA has started/joined a new nationwide propaganda effort called "404 Day" to try to convince people library filters stink so badly that no one should ever use them despite what the law says or what the ALA OIF leader said (filters work and work well) when forced into it:

On Twitter:  @EvilEsq @HillBuzz @ILAttyGeneral @IllLibraryAssoc @IML_Legislative @IntolerantFox @LindaZec @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @VillageOrlandPk