Saturday, May 31, 2014

Library Board Commits Felonies and Misdemeanors

A felony is not a game.
Did a library commit a Class D Felony by calling the police needlessly during a library board meeting and by other means?  A complaint was made via a 911 call about a "disruption" by library patrons who have investigated the library and found it repeatedly defies the law, covers up the crime of child pornography, and thwarts police efforts to stop registered sex offenders from violating the law.  Even the state's Attorney General has found the library repeatedly violates the law and commits Class C misdemeanors.

Remarkably, this is all captured in YouTube videos.  Watch the videos, then make your own conclusions.  A felony is not a game, especially when committed by elected officials seeking to silence whistleblowers.

As a background, a public library board quorum meets illegally and in secret before the official library board meeting.  The quorum apparently firmed up plans already in place for how to entrap patrons who complain about the library board repeatedly breaking the law:

Then the meeting begins.  Here is the library board meeting in progress.  It contains a "disruption," the resultant 911 call to the police, and the arrival of the police:

Here is the recording of the 911 call to police that occurred at the meeting shown above:

Here is the library personnel, the library lawyer, and the police colluding to entrap the patrons (though the police have been provided with false information by the library designed to mislead them, such as the false claim on the 911 call that the call was intentionally disrupted by one of the patrons):

If "disruption" is a crime, look at all the actual disruption by the library board itself and the library attorney himself:

Here is a very good overview of the crimes, including the fake 911 call felony, from another source:

Now here is the state law on disorderly conduct, emphasis mine:

    (720 ILCS 5/26-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 26-1)

    Sec. 26-1. Disorderly conduct.

    (a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he or she knowingly:
        (1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace;
        (2) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to the fire department of any city, town, village or fire protection district a false alarm of fire, knowing at the time of the transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the fire exists;
        (3) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to another a false alarm to the effect that a bomb or other explosive of any nature or a container holding poison gas, a deadly biological or chemical contaminant, or radioactive substance is concealed in a place where its explosion or release would endanger human life, knowing at the time of the transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the bomb, explosive or a container holding poison gas, a deadly biological or chemical contaminant, or radioactive substance is concealed in the place;
        (3.5) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a threat of destruction of a school building or school property, or a threat of violence, death, or bodily harm directed against persons at a school, school function, or school event, whether or not school is in session;
        (4) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to any peace officer, public officer or public employee a report to the effect that an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed, knowing at the time of the transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed;
        (5) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report to any public safety agency without the reasonable grounds necessary to believe that transmitting the report is necessary for the safety and welfare of the public; or
        (6) Calls the number "911" for the purpose of making or transmitting a false alarm or complaint and reporting information when, at the time the call or transmission is made, the person knows there is no reasonable ground for making the call or transmission and further knows that the call or transmission could result in the emergency response of any public safety agency;
        (7) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report to the Department of Children and Family Services under Section 4 of the "Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act";
        (8) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report to the Department of Public Health under the Nursing Home Care Act, the Specialized Mental Health Rehabilitation Act of 2013, or the ID/DD Community Care Act;
        (9) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to the police department or fire department of any municipality or fire protection district, or any privately owned and operated ambulance service, a false request for an ambulance, emergency medical technician-ambulance or emergency medical technician-paramedic knowing at the time there is no reasonable ground for believing that the assistance is required;
        (10) Transmits or causes to be transmitted a false report under Article II of "An Act in relation to victims of violence and abuse", approved September 16, 1984, as amended;
        (11) Enters upon the property of another and for a lewd or unlawful purpose deliberately looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in it; or
        (12) While acting as a collection agency as defined in the Collection Agency Act or as an employee of the collection agency, and while attempting to collect an alleged debt, makes a telephone call to the alleged debtor which is designed to harass, annoy or intimidate the alleged debtor.

    (b) Sentence. A violation of subsection (a)(1) of this Section is a Class C misdemeanor. A violation of subsection (a)(5) or (a)(11) of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor. A violation of subsection (a)(8) or (a)(10) of this Section is a Class B misdemeanor. A violation of subsection (a)(2), (a)(3.5), (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(7), or (a)(9) of this Section is a Class 4 felony. A violation of subsection (a)(3) of this Section is a Class 3 felony, for which a fine of not less than $3,000 and no more than $10,000 shall be assessed in addition to any other penalty imposed.
    A violation of subsection (a)(12) of this Section is a Business Offense and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $3,000. A second or subsequent violation of subsection (a)(7) or (a)(5) of this Section is a Class 4 felony. A third or subsequent violation of subsection (a)(11) of this Section is a Class 4 felony.

    (c) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, a court shall order any person convicted of disorderly conduct to perform community service for not less than 30 and not more than 120 hours, if community service is available in the jurisdiction and is funded and approved by the county board of the county where the offense was committed. In addition, whenever any person is placed on supervision for an alleged offense under this Section, the supervision shall be conditioned upon the performance of the community service.
    This subsection does not apply when the court imposes a sentence of incarceration.

    (d) In addition to any other sentence that may be imposed, the court shall order any person convicted of disorderly conduct under paragraph (3) of subsection (a) involving a false alarm of a threat that a bomb or explosive device has been placed in a school to reimburse the unit of government that employs the emergency response officer or officers that were dispatched to the school for the cost of the search for a bomb or explosive device. For the purposes of this Section, "emergency response" means any incident requiring a response by a police officer, a firefighter, a State Fire Marshal employee, or an ambulance.

(Source: P.A. 97-38, eff. 6-28-11; 97-227, eff. 1-1-12; 97-813, eff. 7-13-12; 97-1108, eff. 1-1-13; 98-104, eff. 7-22-13.)

You saw the evidence.  You saw the law.  You saw the whistleblowers speaking up to stop the criminality in the public library.  Now you make up your own minds.  Has the library or has it not committed at least one felony requiring a minimum prison term of one year? 

Orland Park Public Library's many false police reports to stifle whistleblowers.

 URL of this page:

On Twitter:  @ECWDogs @HillBuzz @IntolerantFox @OrlandPkLibrary @VillageOrlandPk

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Library Censorship to Defend Child Porn; Another Request for Review Filed With the Illinois Attorney General

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out
who you are not allowed to criticize."
Not Voltaire but it fits OPPL-BoT perfectly.
Dear Illinois Attorney General,

I respectfully request a review of the actions of the Orland Park Public Library [OPPL] for violation of the Open Meetings Act [OMA] by denying me the right of public comment at its 19 May 2014 OPPL Board of Trustees [OPPL-BoT] meeting. This is the second time I have been denied that right despite OMA and library policy and the second time requested a review. The first Request for Review was for violating OMA during the 16 December 2014 OPPL-BoT meeting: “Open Meetings Act Violations by the Board of Library Trustees of the Orland Park Public Library.” ( )

OPPL Censorship Policy Is Ultra Vires

After that first time I attempted to speak, was denied, and I filed a Request for Review, OPPL-BoT reacted by creating policy specifically designed to exclude me since I’m the only person who wants to speak electronically. I live in New Jersey so a personal visit just to speak for five minutes to a library board that repeatedly violates the law could be obviated by speaking electronically. OPPL policy in place at the time of both meetings and now is “Section 7. Teleconferencing shall not be provided for members of the public to use in order to attend or participate in a meeting.” I was going to participate via Skype or FaceTime provided by OPPL library patron Megan Fox, not by teleconferencing provided by OPPL. I was not restricted from speaking via policy, yet both times I was blocked from speaking by OPPL-BoT in violation of OMA. These are elected officials acting in their official capacity as a library board to refuse to follow the law that allows public comment. They also violate state and local law that created the library and does not permit the library board to act ultra vires or outside the law. These elected officials defend child pornography in the public library despite the law, as evidenced by their actions as opposed to their words, while practicing government censorship when it comes to someone seeking to illuminate the illegality of allowing porn in OPPL under Illinois state law, Orland Park local law, and OPPL policy–until they change it, that is, but even then it will violate the law.

OPPL-BoT Shows It Will Not Comply With Law Nor Attorney General Determinations

Worse than simply blocking me repeatedly, OPPL-BoT’s latest free speech denial comes at a time when the Attorney General has already warned the library, “This office cautions the Board to avoid restricting public comment on substantive bases that are not addressed by its established and recorded rules.” And worse than a mere warning, the Attorney General determined OPPL-BoT violated OMA by holding an illegal meeting on a legal holiday, and it was at this illegal meeting that OPPL-BoT approved the policy specifically designed to block me, and OPPL-BoT used that policy from that illegal meeting as the excuse to block me from speaking days ago. So in the face of the Attorney General ruling the meeting was illegal, OPPL-BoT just ignored the Attorney General and held up its illegal policy to block me. On advice of counsel, no less. When library patron Kevin DuJan specifically pointed out the library was refusing to allow me to speak in violation of the law and the Attorney General’s determination finding violations of the law, the library reacted by threatening to arrest Mr. DuJan. OPPL-BoT has shown a clear and convincing disdain for the law in general and the Attorney General’s determinations specifically.

What OPPL Sought to Block: My Advising State and Local Law Precludes Porn In Public Libraries Statewide

What is it that so motivates OPPL-BoT to defy the law and the Attorney General with cheerful briskness by repeatedly blocking me? What could I possible say in five minutes that they don’t want people to hear? This is relevant as it shows why OPPL-BoT is blocking me, specifically, I’m saying the exact opposite of what it says to mislead people at meetings and in the media, and I back up what I say with reliable sources, such as Supreme Court cases. If people knew the truth, they would know Internet porn in Illinois libraries is illegal, libraries that allow it are acting outside the law, and municipalities that allow libraries to act outside the law are exposing all citizens to the potential for serious liability, let alone the harm done to the victims of Internet pornography on both sides of the camera. In short, if people knew porn may be legally excluded from public libraries as the law requires, they would choose for themselves to block Internet pornography and would not be misled by anyone into keeping porn available despite the law.

Municipal Law Precludes Internet Porn in OPPL

OPPL was created by Village of Orland Park Ordinance No. 77 issued 14 July 1941 stating “That a free public library and reading room be established for the use and benefits of the inhabitants of the Village of Orland Park … in accordance with the provisions of the Libraries Act, Chapter 81, Illinois Revised Statutes….” ( ) We see the library has a limited purpose. It is for the “use and benefits” of the local population it supports. It is not established for any purpose whatsoever, rather, it has limitations. Internet pornography is effectively excluded by that “use and benefits” clause because it has neither use nor benefit. On the contrary, Internet porn harms people. It harms the viewers, it harms the people who interact with the viewers by accident or force including librarians and library employees, and it harms the people who are forced to create pornography, such as sex trafficked children and adults.

The word “benefit” is from the Latin bene factum. Bene meaning good. There is nothing bene about Internet pornography in a public library, let alone anywhere else. The display of Internet pornography in OPPL violates Village of Orland Park Ordinance No. 77. It is not for the “use and benefit” of anyone, as required by law. Rather, it does the opposite and causes harm. To any extent OPPL-BoT permits Internet pornography in OPPL, it is acting ultra vires and harming the community.

State Law Precludes Internet Porn in Illinois Libraries

The Illinois Local Library Act (75 ILCS 5) referenced by the municipal ordinance also limits what governments may provide in public libraries, only it applies across Illinois, not just in OPPL. Throughout the entire state of Illinois, the law states public libraries may be created “[t]o provide local public institutions of general education for citizens of Illinois” ( ). “General education” does not mean Internet pornography. Also, “the library board may adopt [reasonable rules and regulations] in order to render the use of the library of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of such residents and taxpayers.” So, similar to the “use and benefits” clause of the ordinance, the state law requires that the library’s use be “of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of such residents and taxpayers.” Any library in the entire state of Illinois, not just OPPL, is violating state law if it allows Internet pornography. It would be acting ultra vires. For example, have you heard the news for many years about the constant crimes attributable to porn in the Chicago Public Library? Have you been there lately and seen the rows of unfettered porn with children walking about? Did you know the library’s director blamed the parents for letting their children walk about in the library? Now if Internet porn is so beneficial, why is she criticizing parents for letting children see such beneficial material?

The US Supreme Court Finds Pornography Is Traditionally Blocked From Libraries

And how do we know pornography neither educates nor benefits communities, from a legal basis, let alone common sense? We look at the United States Supreme Court case that the American Library Association [ALA] and the ACLU brought and lost big to try to stop the Children’s Internet Protection Act, the law requiring libraries to use porn filters if obtaining certain federal funding. US v. ALA, 539 US 194 (2003) ( ) made it clear that the purpose of public libraries does not include providing Internet pornography. Indeed, tame-in-comparison print pornography is excluded from most libraries:

Public libraries pursue the worthy missions of facilitating learning and cultural enrichment. …. [P]ublic libraries seek to provide materials “that would be of the greatest direct benefit or interest to the community.” [NOTE: substantially similar to the language in 75 ILCS 5 and the municipal ordinance.] …. To this end, libraries collect only those materials deemed to have “requisite and appropriate quality.” …. A public library … provides Internet access … for the same reasons it offers other library resources: to facilitate research, learning, and recreational pursuits by furnishing materials of requisite and appropriate quality. ….
A library's need to exercise judgment in making collection decisions depends on its traditional role in identifying suitable and worthwhile material; it is no less entitled to play that role when it collects material from the Internet than when it collects material from any other source. Most libraries already exclude pornography from their print collections because they deem it inappropriate for inclusion. We do not subject these decisions to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently, when these judgments are made for just the same reason.
[P]ublic libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment rights….

Internet Pornography Has Neither Use Nor Benefit so US Supreme Court Ruled It May Be Blocked

So we learn from the US Supreme Court that Internet pornography may be legally blocked from public libraries precisely because it does not benefit communities. And since the state and local law requires libraries to act for the benefit of the people, Internet pornography is excluded. Libraries in Illinois providing Internet pornography are acting outside the law that restricts libraries in a way that precludes Internet porn.

Has OPPL-BoT Ever Explained Why Porn is Beneficial in Libraries Despite the Law?

Has ALA or OPPL-BoT ever once explained why people are supposed to think Internet pornography is beneficial in public libraries and should be allowed despite the law saying it shouldn’t? I understand both groups have been for months attacking Megan Fox, Kevin DuJan, and me to avoid substantive issues. Have they explained how Internet pornography benefits the community? Of course not. They can’t. There is no benefit. Having no benefit, and indeed being harmful, Internet pornography allowed by an Illinois library violates Illinois law. And OPPL is an Illinois library. And ALA and OPPL and their attorneys attack or silence people who expose their misinformation as their means of pushing ahead with the porn agenda–by not addressing substantive issues. It is a tactic that often works. Just look at how long child porn has gone unreported in OPPL–years. Right now OPPL-BoT is ignoring the Attorney General. I predict if the Attorney General continues to find violations of the law, at some point OPPL-BoT and/or ALA will begin attacking the Attorney General instead of just ignoring her.

This is Why OPPL-BoT Bullies and Will Continue to Violate OMA

I suspect my saying the above in a five minute public comment combined with OPPL-BoT not wanting people to hear that message is why OPPL-BoT repeatedly violates OMA to censor my free speech and the speech of others. I also suspect OPPL-BoT knows it is breaking state and local law by making Internet pornography available, thereby acting ultra vires. I suspect its repeatedly silencing its critics and violating OMA is a bullying effort to impose its harmful lawlessness on the community by freezing people into inaction or by running out the clock. Fortunately for Orland Park, neither Megan Fox nor Kevin DuJan are intimidated or are giving up. Sadly, the illegality in OPPL continues on. For over eight months now OPPL-BoT has successfully defended its illegal actions with threats, intimidation, false calls to the police, illegal meetings on a legal holiday passing policy to allow porn despite the law and silence critics despite the law, violation of Illinois library law, repeated violations of OMA, etc., and never once an explanation of how providing Internet pornography benefits the community and complies with the law. They have turned the tables on innocent victims forcing them to suffer from porn, all while attacking them for complaining and not explaining why Internet porn is supposedly legal in libraries. I am hoping the Attorney General will see the open defiance in OPPL-BoT’s actions and being to restore law and order in this local library and perhaps statewide.

Local Police Are Stymied by Lawbreaking Library

Recent investigations by Megan Fox reveal the Orland Park police have been stymied by OPPL in efforts to stop a registered sex offender from viewing pornography ( ):

Meet David Varlotta. He likes Orland Park Library a lot. An informed source told me this man has been seen by police on a regular basis on the computers at OPPL. He is unemployed and goes to OPPL “nearly every day.” Mary Weimar has been informed by police that he is not legally allowed to use the internet. The Library claims they disconnect the device he is on from the internet but they do not ask him to leave. Let me ask you a question. What might a sex offender be doing on a computer for hours on end without access to the internet? Knowing the Library lies about pretty much everything (and I have proof of that from the Illinois Attorney General) do we believe that they actually do cut off internet access to this man on a daily basis and yet he continues to return? What is he doing? Writing his memoirs in a Word doc? Why does Mary Weimar continue to allow a sex offender who committed aggravated sexual abuse against a minor child sit for hours in her building full of children? This is like putting a shark in a kiddie pool. We have FOIAd his record and will have his complete story soon. Stay tuned.

Back to the Policy OPPL-BoT Wrote to Block Me Personally

The policy OPPL created to block me was supposedly effectuated during the OPPL-BoT meeting on the 12 February 2014 holiday. It has been effectively ruled void ab initio by the Attorney General. It is not in effect. The policy in effect before the illegal meeting remains in effect.

The updated policy sought to be implemented at the illegal meeting was designed to block me and me alone since I was the only person seeking to speak electronically. Current policy prohibits merely teleconferencing provided by the library. The updated policy seeks to include other means of communication, including Skype or FaceTime, provided by anyone. The policy used to exclude me states, “All public comments must be given in person. No telephone, video conferencing or other electronic means will be accommodated.”

OPPL-BoT, in its meeting after the illegal 12 February meeting, claims to have affirmed the policy it supposedly effectuated, but such policy is not yet in effect because legally it is impossible to affirm something found to be void ab initio. But OPPL-BoT wants people to think the policy is in effect, despite the law, despite how it discriminates against the disabled since they must only participate in person, so it just acts like the policy is in place.

Again, OPPL-BoT Ignores the Illinois Attorney General

Worse, OPPL-BoT is again ignoring the Attorney General. It used its policy from the illegal meeting and revoted on at the next meeting to block my speaking. The attorney did this. Remember, this is the attorney whose firm represents possibly hundreds of library clients, who wrote the book on Sunshine Laws that is sold throughout the state by the Illinois Municipal League, and who trains librarians on FOIA and OMA laws at the Illinois Library Association. This is no inexperienced attorney. This is no rookie mistake. This is an intentional abuse of authority to bully people into silence in the face of the law and of Attorney General determinations. This is the attorney telling the Attorney General her determinations don’t matter one whit.

The Lack of Public Recital Tossed Aside While Kevin DuJan Gets Threatened with Arrest

To remind everyone, OMA has certain requirements intended to ensure the public’s rights are protected from the very kind of illegal activity OPPL-BoT does repeatedly. Those requirements are not met when a library passes policy at an illegal meeting then claims the next meeting validated what was done at the illegal meeting with a mere quick vote. Public Access Opinion 14-001 dated 10 April 2014 ( ) makes it evident that the mere quick vote to reaffirm action at an illegal meeting does not supply a public recital sufficient to comply with the law, namely, section 2(e) of OMA: “(e) Final action. No final action may be taken at a closed meeting. Final action shall be preceded by a public recital of the nature of the matter being considered and other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted.” That was simply not done by OPPL-BoT, the attorney knows it given his expertise and experience, and the Attorney General warned against further restricting public comment, but the library went ahead, ignored the Attorney General, and threatened Kevin DuJan with arrest if he did not stop trying to point out is was illegal to block my public comment.

Library Silences Critics with Illegal Policy

So OPPL-BoT is attempting to silence critics with policy not legally in effect and that violates OMA and the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]. “Teleconferencing shall not be provided for members of the public to use in order to attend or participate in a meeting” has supposedly been changed to “All public comments must be given in person. No telephone, video conferencing or other electronic means will be accommodated.” So not only are additional and modern means of communicating ruled off policy, but also the library reveals no one may participate remotely, whether or not the library provides the services. I am hoping the Attorney General will address this.

Setting aside that the library is supporting Internet pornography as free speech when that is not true in libraries, and stifling free speech when anyone reveals the library is acting outside the law by allowing pornography including child pornography, the new policy language OPPL wants people to think is in place appears to represent a clear violation of OMA and ADA. If that policy ever does get properly adopted by OPPL-BoT, it will represent a codification of a violation of OMA, and I or others will seek another Request for Review from the Attorney General. I am certain you cannot simply write library policy that abrogates state law such as OMA.

The Specific Instance That Violates OMA

At the 19 May OPPL-BoT meeting, Kevin DuJan points out I am next to speak on the list but the library denies the request, and that is the action I am asking the Attorney General to review. Exactly how it happened was recorded and placed online. As part of the evidence for this Request for Review, please view the recordings of the meeting, particularly at the end of Kevin DuJan’s public comment. Kevin DuJan says, after he completed his own comment, “Actually, Dan Kleinman is the next person that’s on the list.” Megan Fox then says, “He’s here,” referring to the FaceTime connection. The library then blocks my speech in violation of OMA. Kevin DuJan says, “You have no policy that bans this … that policy is void ab initio. …. You are in violation of the Open Meetings Act.” The library board persisted in blocking my speech even after being told it was violating the law. Mr. DuJan was threatened with arrest if he did not stop arguing that I should be allowed to speak. A fuller transcript can be found at so the facts that evidence the breaking of the law can be fully reviewed. It is the Request for Review filed 21 May 2014 by Kevin DuJan. That Request for Review contains even more detail about exactly how the OMA violation occurred with respect to the subject of my own Request for Review. In the interests of brevity, I ask its facts related to how OPPL-BoT violated OMA by refusing to allow my public comment be included here in my own Request for Review. That Request for Review is hereby incorporated by reference.

Megan Fox Files Request for Review About OPPL-BoT Blocking Me

On 27 May 2014, Megan Fox also filed a Request for Review with the Attorney General ( ). Her request is predominantly about the library’s lawbreaking with respect to blocking my public comment. I consider what she said to be factual as well and is hereby incorporated by reference into my own Request for Review. After all, she was the one to whose iPad I was electronically connected and ready to speak. As she points out, “OPPL-BoT desired to keep Dan Kleinman, the national expert on child porn and other evils being accessed in libraries, from speaking during the Public Comment segment.”

OPPL-BoT Evidences an Intention to Defy the Law

And by that time OPPL-BoT was well aware of the Attorney General’s admonition where representative Steve Silverman warned, “This office cautions the Board to avoid restricting public comment on substantive bases that are not addressed by its established and recorded rules.” So OPPL-BoT threw caution to the wind, as it were, and plowed ahead with its lawbreaking by again restricting public comment on substantive bases not addressed by its established and recorded rules.

That evidences an intention to continue to defy the law and shows absolutely no respect for the Illinois Attorney General. Such an intention indicates the crime of child pornography in the library will continue to go unpunished and unabated. This is a major consequence of a library acting outside the law.

OPPL-BoT Purposefully and Knowingly Defies the Law to Protect the ALA

OPPL-BoT’s defiance of the Illinois Attorney General is purposeful and knowing. It will not back down on its provision of pornography in the library no matter what the consequences because, inter alia, ALA has been holding out OPPL’s successful but lawbreaking tactics as being exemplary. If OPPL is eventually forced to comply with Illinois library law, that will spell disaster for ALA’s efforts to promote porn in public libraries throughout Illinois and nationwide. For an example of porn promotion, teaching new library trustees that libraries must allow Internet porn when the law says the opposite is promoting porn in libraries ( “How State Library Associations Endanger Children; NJ Libraries and You: Not Perfect Together ). ALA has for two years in a row now been found to be one of the nation’s leading facilitatators of porn (“ALA Listed as Top Facilitator of Porn in America and a Leading Contributor to Sexual Exploitation of Women ). Even now there is Illinois library filtering legislation SB2784 that ALA opposes, and OPPL following library law and filtering the Internet would be disastrous to efforts to oppose such legislation. I say this not to promote my view but to illustrate how strongly OPPL-BoT will resist Attorney General determinations, as if that is not already becoming evident from OPPL-BoT’s own actions. And I’m not the only one saying this. Consider Jim Kraft at the Edgar County Watchdogs ( ):

Behind the scenes, the real power play at issue here is that the American Library Association cannot afford to allow a plum like the OPPL to shut off the child porn access, since the ALA is based in Chicago and fears losing control of another public facility. Currently, the ALA in effect controls the OPPL, via the OPPL’s Director Mary Weimar (who is a committed acolyte of the ALA). If the OPPL Board of Trustees voted against the ALA and stopped allowing itself to be an access point to child pornography this would be a clear repudiation of the ALA’s “guidelines” for libraries…and would diminish the ALA’s clout.

The fear in the ALA’s offices is that if the OPPL votes to block the child porn then other libraries in Chicago could follow…and if that happens then the ALA’s entire house of cards could tumble.

This is why every effort imaginable is now being undertaken by the OPPL’s Board of Trustees to violate the OMA and FOIA in our State to thwart the public’s demand that child porn be permanently blocked in this Library.

Not Even the Appearance of Compliance with the Attorney General is Present

OPPL-BoT has shown absolutely no interest in ever giving even the appearance of compliance with Attorney General letters of determination and OMA. For example it used policy passed at the illegal 12 February meeting that the Attorney General found to be void ab initio to continue to silence me as it had in the past–even though it already knew that meeting was illegal, the policy was invalid, there was no required public recital at the next meeting, and the library’s attorney is supposedly an expert on sunshine laws.

A Third Library Patron Speaks Up for My Free Speech But OPPL-BoT Turns a Deaf Ear

At least one other person besides Kevin DuJan and Megan Fox also commented at the recent OPPL-BoT meeting how it was wrong for the library board to refuse to allow me to speak. He said: “However, rather than compromise, this elected board, with help from the ALA, has turned a deaf ear to the public, and instead taken it upon themselves to initiate inept activities to undermine its critics. You lied to the media. You stonewalled FOIA requests. You filed baseless complaints with the police. You arbitrarily moved public board meetings and changed rules just to avoid criticism. I ask why you wouldn’t allow that man who wanted to Skype in today, hear what he has to say? What is wrong with a free and open exchange of ideas here?”

Request for Review of Government Censorship and Law Defiance

So I request this latest denial of my free speech, what amounts to government censorship, be reviewed as yet another instance in a continuing string of illegality and OMA violations by OPPL-BoT. I also look forward to a decision on my first Request for Review for the first time the library violated the law regarding my public comment in December.

It would be worthwhile to consider at the same time whether the new policy language, were it to be properly effectuated, would also represent a violation of OMA. I understand that since the policy is not yet legally in effect, the issue might not be ripe for review. Nevertheless, OPPL-BoT acts as if the policy is in effect, and it will certainly place it into effect eventually, so that may make it valuable to make it clear to OPPL-BoT that such a policy of blocking electronic participation would violate OMA.

The Village of Orland Park Has the Right and Duty to Step In or It May Face Liability

Now that the library is acting outside the law, the Village of Orland Park has every right and duty to step in and require the library to follow the law that created the library and the board. It can do this without piercing the veil of autonomy that allows the library to act freely to carry out the purposes of that law. Where the library steps outside that law, the local government must act. The local government has the power to remove library trustees who have broken the law. The law has been broken. Given how the library ignores Attorney General admonitions and continues to defy the law with alacrity, it is my opinion that removing such library trustees is likely the best means of restoring respect for the law to the library board. If the local government does not move to stop the library board from acting in defiance of the law, it condones such illegality and risks serious liability, at a minimum. If it needs notice of potential harm, consider this to be that notice.

ALA Targeting Me By Name May Be Why OPPL-BoT Repeatedly Silences Me

A significant fact has come to light regarding these violations as it tends to show an intention to violate OMA at the time the crimes were committed and likely a continuing motivation to violate the law. Basically, ALA targeted me by name when setting up library training in which it featured OPPL personnel. If I were present, it would have to tone down its message to librarians–that’s basically what ALA wrote. As it turned out, I was not present, and if I heard correctly, ALA trained librarians how to thwart the law by destroying evidence otherwise available via FOIA requests. No wonder ALA didn’t want me to be present and OPPL-BoT silences me despite the law. And I’ll bet there’s more where that came from. More FOIA’s are being filed but the level of compliance is near ALA perfection, namely, few things of major significance has been supplied so far and the rest is likely destroyed, per ALA diktat, but in violation of state criminal law.

On 7 November 2013, ALA sent an email asking if I would be present at its librarian training featuring OPPL personnel because, if so, it would have to change its message: “IF Dan Kleinman or some of our detractors attend, we will need to change our content.” See the full email published at “Illinois Attorney General Update Evidencing Orland Park Public Library's Defiance of the Open Meetings Act; Arrests Possible” ( ).

Now I know why OPPL-BoT has written policy expressly to deny my public comment. I was targeted by the ALA over a month before I had attempted to speak at any OPPL-BoT meeting. So now I’m targeted by OPPL-BoT for silence. The targeting is evidenced by, among other things, a refusal to follow policy that allows my public comment, the drafting of new policy that specifically targets me, the supposed adoption of the policy during an illegal meeting held during a holiday, and the overbreadth of the policy such that it may violate ADA as well as OMA. As a result my public comment has been suppressed again and again in violation of OMA and is likely to continue to be suppressed without intervention from the Attorney General. And even then, OPPL-BoT has shown no proclivity to follow the Attorney General’s determinations/opinions.

Attorney General Intervention is Needed to Stop the Lawbreaking

Given this, Attorney General intervention is needed to begin to stop OPPL from violating the law. OPPL-BoT has demonstrated that mere warnings are not enough of a remedy to stop a recalcitrant library board from breaking the law to defend its various lawbreaking activities, including aiding and abetting child pornography by, among other means, failure to report such crime to the police and destroying evidence. Therefore, I respectfully request the Attorney General review my request and take action to stop the repeated criminal activity.

Thank You

Thank for for reviewing my request regarding OPPL-BoT violating OMA yet again. I look forward to a response at your earliest convenience, but OPPL-BoT shows no sign of slowing its crime spree on its own, so I hope to have resolution as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,


Dan Kleinman, Library Watchdog
[address/phone elided]

The above was submitted today, sans the graphics and captions.

More about this very incident of OPPL-BoT committing another Class C Misdemeanor crime by censoring me, besides what's provided by Kevin DuJan (link) and Megan Fox (link) as discussed above, is available here:



On Twitter:  @ChiPubLib @ECWDogs @HillBuzz @ILAttyGeneral @IllLibraryAssoc @IML_Legislative @IntolerantFox @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @Skype @VillageOrlandPk

Saturday, May 24, 2014

The Ghost of Judith Krug Continues to Haunt America's Libraries Today

ORLAND PARK, IL. (ECWd) - The Orland Park Public Library has been fighting for seven months now to maintain its status quo, where child porn is accessible over the Library’s unsecured internet for pedophiles and predators who know where to find it.  This horror was discovered back in October of last year, when internal incident reports completed by Library staffers and obtained through FOIA requests showed that child porn was accessed in the Library, but employees never called the police, never reported the act to the FBI, and the Board of Trustees never lifted a finger to make sure that this access point to child porn in the southwestern suburbs of Chicago was permanently closed.

In addition to the child porn being accessed in this library, the internal incident reports produced under FOIA pressure also showed instances of men openly masturbating in the Library, men accosting women and children sexually, and many other times when people using computers in this Library committed acts of disorderly conduct that warranted police involvement (yet, Library staff deliberately chose not to call the police!).  An official investigation by the Orland Park Police Department that was conducted in November of 2013 determined that there were at least 22 instances of crimes committed in the Orland Park Public Library that Library staff did not handle properly, with most of these involving women and children accosted by men who had aroused themselves sexually in the Library using its anonymous, unfiltered Internet.

For point of reference, businesses like Starbucks or Kinko’s filter their Internet to block access to sites providing child porn (and instantly call the police if anyone is observed masturbating or accosting women or children in those businesses) but the Orland Park Public Library (OPPL) refuses to do this, citing the policy of the American Library Association (ALA) in keeping child porn accessible and “respecting patron privacy” (even when the “patron” in question is seen breaking the law by viewing, downloading, or distributing child porn!) .

The irony here is that though Village of Orland Park ordinance 8-6-1-1 requires Library staffers to call the police and report a crime when lewd and disturbing acts like open public masturbation occur in the Library, the Library staff chooses to look the other way and enable this criminal activity because the OPPL is run by a Director and Board who are true believers in the preachings of the American Library Association (which just happens to be a radical group funded largely by people like George Soros that sees its main purpose as “transforming communities by transforming libraries”).

The ALA says that child porn is “information” and all such “information” must be available to any person, of any age, with no filters on library computers.  The Supreme Court of the United States, however, ruled in 2003 in the landmark case US vs. ALA that public libraries are allowed to use filtering software to prevent horrors like child porn from being accessed in public libraries.  The Orland Park Public Library is, unfortunately, one of a minority of libraries in this country that listens to the ALA instead of the residents of its surrounding community: most libraries block child porn from being accessed, but the Orland Park Public Library’s Board of Trustees refuses to do this very simple thing to protect children from harm in this library and to shutdown an access point to child porn that attracts sex offenders.  Because of the unsecured, anonymous internet available no-questions-asked in public libraries, criminals know these buildings are places they can evade law enforcement and do whatever they like with little chance of being caught.

The Orland Park Police Department has reported that known sex offenders in the area have been regularly spotted in the OPPL, using the Library’s computers as well as tablets and other mobile devices to anonymously log onto the Internet.  These men are banned from using the internet or computers and the terms of most of their paroles state that they must not be within 500 feet of a school or other place where children congregate.  Yet, they are allowed into the Orland Park Public Library by its Director, Mary Weimar, where these men can evade their parole officers and log onto the Library’s computers and internet any time they want.  This particular Library chooses to use a program called Drive Shield every night to wipe every computer in the building clean (so that authorities can never go back and check what was accessed or downloaded in this public library). Criminals know this and use the Orland Park Public Library as a safe haven for their crimes.

Think of a public library as being a kind of extradition-free zone where cyber criminals of all stripes have automatic sanctuary: library staff will look the other way in places like the OPPL

Judith Krug
The ALA has known for years that this has been happening and they encourage this sort of thing in libraries across the country. You should know that a woman named Judith Krug, the former head of the ALA’s Orwellian-sounding “Office of Intellectual Freedom” said after 9/11 that she hated that some libraries cooperated with the FBI after the terrorist attacks, when the feds were investigating if these libraries were used as access points for terrorist activity over the anonymous, unsecured internet there.

Judith Krug is the woman who encouraged libraries like the OPPL to invest in Drive Shield (to wipe computer records clean nightly so that terrorists and pedophiles can never be caught) but fight the installation of child porn filters (which would end the days of public libraries being used as access points for illegal material).  Though deceased, the ghost of Judith Krug continues to haunt America’s libraries today.  The OPPL certainly seems to need an exorcism to get rid of her influence.

In their prolonged battle to keep child porn accessible in the OPPL, the Board of Trustees has repeatedly violated both the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act.  The OMA violations have involved the Board: silencing critics by refusing public comment on topics critical of the Library (January 20th); violating its own rules and shoving public comment to the back of a meeting so most people will leave before Public Comment is allowed (January 20th); holding a surprise special meeting on a legal holiday to ram through a vote on keeping the child porn available when the public wasn’t looking (February 12th); refusing Public Comment altogether at an open meeting (February 12th); improperly voting to “ratify and affirm” agenda items for final action that were void ab initio (“from the beginning“) because they were originally voted on at an illegal meeting (March 17th); allowing a woman who was never legally appointed to the Board to vote at Board meetings (February 12th, February 17th, March 17th, April 21st, and May 19th); inventing new arbitrary and extemporaneous speaking rules meant to discourage public comment (April 21st); and holding a secret “strategy session” before their Open Meeting for the purpose of plotting ways to stage a disruption of their own meeting so that they could invent an excuse to call the police on their critics as revenge for all the recent complaints against them with the Public Access Counselor (May 19th).

Since October of 2013 (when it was first uncovered that child porn was accessed in the OPPL and the staff chose not to call the police and handle the situation properly), around 30 requests for review were filed by various members of the public against the OPPL with the PAC office for OMA and FOIA violations.  The January and February Board meetings were determined to have been conducted improperly and the OPPL is facing several important determinations regarding the March, April, and May meetings in the weeks ahead.  Some of the matters that the PAC is currently investigating (with decisions coming down soon) are:

* the illegal vote taken on February 12th to continue allowing child porn to be accessed in the OPPL = this vote is void ab initio because the February 12th meeting was held improperly on a legal holiday and, thus, everything done on that day is void; the OPPL created a huge mess for itself by ramming through a vote on seven controversial items and installing a new Board member on a day they were not allowed by law to hold a meeting.

* in a related matter, on March 17th the OPPL voted to “ratify and affirm” everything void ab initio that was done at the illegal February 12th meeting, but the OMA requires that recital and deliberation be performed at an Open Meeting before a vote can be taken on an agenda item; since everything the Board did on February 12th was done improperly and no proper recital and deliberation was performed for anything the Board voted to “ratify and affirm” on March 17th, that means that none of the controversial matters (including voting to keep child porn available) were properly handled.

* the PAC is expected to determine that a new vote must be taken on the policies that continue to allow child porn to be accessed at the OPPL, since the February 12th vote (at an illegal meeting) and the March 17th “vote to ratify and affirm” (without proper recital and deliberation) were both bungled

* part of the chaos the Board caused by holding that illegal special meeting on February 12th is the fact that one OPPL Board Member, Beth Gierach, has never been legally appointed or properly sworn-in…and yet the Board continues to seat her and allows her to vote month after month; this means all votes she took in February, March, April, and May should be voided since she was not a properly appointed Board member at the time of those votes.

Judith Krug mocking United States
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The February 12th illegal meeting that the OPPL held was clearly a gambit this Board played to force a vote to continue allowing access to child porn and other evils in this Library on a day that was inconvenient to the public.  Also, this Board was advised by the lawyers of Klein Thorpe Jenkins that if it held a vote on the child porn issue in a special meeting (not a regular board meeting) that the Board would not have to allow public comment at that meeting.  The OPPL was advised in particular by Dennis G. Walsh of the KTJ firm that it could vote on February 12th and prohibit public comment, thereby giving Board members cover to vote to keep child porn accessible without the public being able to shame these cowards for voting the way that the ALA directed them to vote.

The OMA does not allow a Board to prevent public comment at any Open Meeting and all votes for final action must be made in Open Meetings.  This means that no vote on any matter for final action can be taken at a meeting where public comment is not permitted.

The OMA also does not allow a vote for final action on an item to be taken if proper recital and deliberation is not performed for that agenda item…and, once again, recital and deliberation must be performed at a meeting that is open to the public (where public comment is allowed).  This clearly means that a Board cannot on March 17th “ratify and affirm actions it took on February 12th when that February 12th meeting was not a properly held Open Meeting. Proper recital and deliberation needed to have been conducted at the March 17th meeting for any agenda items to have been voted on for final action…as everything done on February 12th was void ab initio,

What a head-spinning mess this Board has made in its increasingly more desperate attempt to keep child porn accessible in a gorgeous, spare-no-expense architectural gem of a library in an upscale Chicago suburb.

Behind the scenes, the real power play at issue here is that the American Library Association cannot afford to allow a plum like the OPPL to shut off the child porn access, since the ALA is based in Chicago and fears losing control of another public facility.  Currently, the ALA in effect controls the OPPL, via the OPPL’s Director Mary Weimar (who is a committed acolyte of the ALA). If the OPPL Board of Trustees voted against the ALA and stopped allowing itself to be an access point to child pornography this would be a clear repudiation of the ALA’s “guidelines” for libraries…and would diminish the ALA’s clout.

The fear in the ALA’s offices is that if the OPPL votes to block the child porn then other libraries in Chicago could follow…and if that happens then the ALA’s entire house of cards could tumble.

This is why every effort imaginable is now being undertaken by the OPPL’s Board of Trustees to violate the OMA and FOIA in our State to thwart the public’s demand that child porn be permanently blocked in this Library.

Source of the above excellent work and the title of this blog post:

Also, see Kevin DuJan's latest filing with the Illinois Attorney General, linked below.  It happens to feature me as Kevin DuJan was threatened with arrest for speaking up for my right to speak, but it is also a detailed description of planning for and committing white collar crime by the Orland Park Public Library board and its attorneys.  It's really an eye opener, all to defend child pornography, and the police are eventually called by the library to further harass those trying to stop the child porn:

The ghost of Illinois ACLU board member and ALA de facto leader Judith Krug continues to haunt America's libraries today.  In Orland Park, both of her successors (Deborah Caldwell-Stone and Barbara Jones) are actively involved in the deception and the criminality.  As I pointed out in the past, Tom Lehrer's "Smut!" is ALA's anthem.  As Jim Kraft points out, "The OPPL certainly seems to need an exorcism to get rid of her influence."


Here is a graphic of one library removing the ghost of Judith Krug and her ACLU/porn legacy:

Library removing the ghost of Judith Krug and her ACLU/porn legacy.
Photo Credit:  Kevin DuJan; Used with permission.

URL of this page:

On Twitter:  @ECWDogs @HillBuzz @ILAttyGeneral @IntolerantFox @OIF @OpenSociety @OrlandPkLibrary @VillageOrlandPk

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Illinois Attorney General Update Evidencing Orland Park Public Library's Defiance of the Open Meetings Act; Arrests Possible

Dear Illinois Attorney General,

New evidence has been uncovered proving intent to defy the Illinois Open Meetings Act [OMA] in Orland Park Public Library's [OPPL] defiance of the OMA.  Therefore I ask to update the record of my previous Request for Review by taking into consideration this new evidence.

The new evidence consists of OPPL working with the American Library Association [ALA] to produce training on how to use OPPL's successful stonewalling, censorship, and suppression of free speech to defend free access to pornography in public libraries and advise librarians nationwide how to emulate OPPL's results, where ALA makes me the enemy of such efforts by saying, emphasis on IF in the original, "First off is whether you have any way to limit attendance to RAILS members.  IF Dan Kleinman or some of our detractors attend, we will need to change our content.  We've dealt with this before, so if it is an open webinar, we just need to know that."

Below is the new evidence, the ALA email dated November 7, 2014, naming me and disclosing self-censorship or the need to hide things if I or "detractors" are present.  Ernest Istook, the author of the Children's Internet Protection Act, has called me a "trusted source" on ALA misinformation ).  Now it appears ALA itself tacitly admits I'm a "trusted source" on its own propaganda as it announces the need to hide the propaganda when I am present to record it or debunk it.

It is no wonder the efforts within the library community in Illinois are so strong to defy Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] law.  The contents of that webinar/training would be very revealing as I was not present so ALA spoke freely.

I heard part of what ALA taught was that libraries should destroy public documents or evidence of illegality that could be accessed via FOIA requests.  In Illinois, that may be a Class 3 Felony with loss of public office and benefits, and there's a three year statute of limitations ( 720 ILCS 5/32-8 ).

I'll note FOIA requests on OPPL have produced no substantive communications between OPPL and ALA, none, but tons of advertising, almost as if OPPL has already instituted a policy of destroying public documents in violation of the law.  Indeed, the more we wait for OPPL to comply with FOIA requests to produce a recording of the ALA/OPPL webinar/training, the more concern there is that public records are being destroyed.  I wonder if the Attorney General has any power to seize computers and iPads before OPPL destroys any public records, any more public records, or evidence of illegality.

In another community, West Bend, WI, ALA quietly gave a $1000 grant to one of its acolytes and the only evidence discovered was via FOIA requests, and only in a single email from the acolyte herself bragging to the library ( ).  I bet the library didn't realize the import of the simple message.  In typical ALA fashion, ALA used that person too and library personnel to give training to other librarians on how to thwart, not help, patrons raising legitimate concerns ( ).

With pressure like this from the ALA to violate law, it is no wonder OPPL violates OMA with alacrity, including by singling me out, just as ALA singles me out.  And this email is before I was blocked from the December OPPL-BoT meeting:

From: Barbara Jones []
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 12:28 PM
To: Deborah Caldwell-Stone; Dee Brennan; leadership
Cc: Barbara Jones
Subject: RE: Possible workshops to address Orland Park situation 
Dear Dee, please see below.  Any date below is OK with us.  Here's how I envision it.  We can work together so this is something that works for you and your audience.  It needs to be what they need. 
First off is whether you have any way to limit attendance to RAILS members.  IF Dan Kleinman or some of our detractors attend, we will need to change our content.  We've dealt with this before, so if it is an open webinar, we just need to know that. 
Thanks for letting me know that ALA can have the content to use later on if we need to.  We want to repeat this for trustees.  And/or, this session can include trustees as well. 
IF it is closed, here is a draft of what I propose: 
  1.  20 minutes: I go over the timeline of what happened in Orland Park, with examples of press coverage, et al.  Mary Weimar may not want to participate.  On the other hand, she might!  I want to say right off that I think she is doing a fabulous job, so the idea is not to be negative about Orland Park.  We actually will show some of the things they did so well. 
  2.  30 minutes, plus 30 minutes Q & A:  Deborah lists the legal issues, at each point, and tells the audience what she and Orland Park's attorney advised. 
  3.  20 minutes, plus 10 minutes Q & A:  Macey Morales (PIO) or I list the public relations/press issues. 
  4.  20 minutes, plus 10 minutes Q & A:  Bob Doyle (or Kip) list the political issues to pay attention to.  For example, Kip alerted all the legislators who might get involved. 
  5.  20 minutes, plus 10 minutes Q & A;  Marci Merola or I review the advocacy issues, developing talking points, getting out in front of the situation. 
Times can be adjusted, of course.  This is 3 hours and maybe that is too much!  We will help with publicity if you want.  Thanks so much for this opportunity!  Barbara

That is a telling communication.  It is from the nation's leading facilitator of harm to women via unfiltered library computers ( ).  OPPL-BoT undoubtedly saw that communication.  As terrific reporter Sharyl Attkisson tweeted, "You can often tell by the tone that something else is at play.  Why do they try to squelch debate and discussion of issues of public importance?"

Further new evidence of an intention to violate the OMA is that when OPPL director Mary Weimar initially told me it was technically impossible for me to attend a board meeting electronically, "The library is unable to accommodate your request," that was a lie.  It was a lie then, as I previously stated in my Request for Review, but new evidence shows it's a big lie, a big screen lie.  In reality, not only can OPPL communicate electronically, but it can do so in a big way, per this Chicago Tribune story from yesterday:
The next OPPL Board of Trustees [OPPL-BoT] meeting is Monday, May 19, 2014.  I will be on the list of speakers.  1) The library's previous claim that it is technically impossible for me to speak is false.  2) The library's expected claim that new policy specifically in place to prevent me from speaking is also false since that policy is void ab initio as it is part of the Lincoln's Birthday OPPL-BoT meeting that is likely in violation of the OMA.  3) ALA's diktat in an analogous situation that "IF Dan Kleinman ... attend[s], we will need to change our content," has no bearing on the requirements of the OMA and the law requiring OPPL to follow the law.  4) The library's previously removing me from its list of speakers at its recent December meeting as I raised in my original Request for Review is likely a violation of the OMA given the May 2, 2014 letter from the Attorney General's office captioned "RE: OMA Request for Review – 2014 PAC 27713 and 27771" that concluded the OPPL-BoT violated OMA "by imposing restrictions on public comment which were not authorized by the Board's established and recorded rules."

If I am not allowed to speak at the OPPL-BoT meeting Monday night, with or without "the assistance of the Internet, a large screen, and audio," it will likely be another unauthorized "restriction on public comment."  Further, it will be in the face of the Attorney General whose representative Steve Silverman warned in the opinion cited above, "This office cautions the Board to avoid restricting public comment on substantive bases that are not addressed by its established and recorded rules."

If the OPPL-BoT blocks my speaking again, it will likely be a violation of OMA, evident defiance of the Attorney General, and a Class C Misdemeanor.  The OPPL-BoT may be subject to arrest.  Another Illinois board was arrested for violating OMA by suppressing public comment:

Civil litigation may follow:

Here is my original Request for Review and response that I have now supplemented with new evidence above:

I am copying OPPL on this submission of new evidence to be sure they know ahead of time that I should not be blocked from speaking at Monday's meeting.  Today, Friday May 17, I have asked the OPPL director to allow me to speak at Monday's OPPL-BoT meeting.  We'll see what happens.

Thank you for your consideration of this new evidence tending to show an intention by OPPL-BoT to violate the OMA law and perhaps an inducement by ALA to have OPPL break other law as well.  I sincerely hope the Board will begin to follow the law and obviate any possible arrests and civil litigation.  I hope I will be able to speak at Monday's meeting.


Dan Kleinman
Library Watchdog at SafeLibraries
641 Shunpike Rd #123
Chatham, NJ 07928

CC:  Orland Park Public Library


Let's be clear we are talking about a public library that is allowing the viewing of child pornography, then it does not report the crime to the police and destroys computer evidence.  You see, ALA teaches that while child pornography is a crime, no librarian is in a position to judge what it is, only judges can do that.  Then ALA teaches libraries to delete the evidence so police cannot get it, and that's exactly what happened and happens in OPPL.  ALA orders libraries to delete public records, including those evidencing crimes such as child pornography, and many libraries follow its diktat despite laws designed to prevent such public record destruction.  ALA calls it "patron privacy" but no patron has the privacy to break the law and no library has the legal right to destroy public records.

Look at OPPL's "Incident Reports" and look how the police were not called for child pornography viewing:

Multiple reports of child porn viewing in library, then police not called.
Source: "Library Crisis Communications Workshop Presentation Recreation"
Source of the above graphic showing detailed reports of child pornography viewing is one of the two patrons who raised this issue well over half a year back–yes the library still makes child porn available.  Kevin DuJan produced the above graphic based on actual responses to FOIA requests by OPPL.  There was a "hatefest" consisting of various training designed to advise librarians how to thwart the law, the same training/webinar I mentioned in the original post above.  Mr. DuJan is being stonewalled in requesting documents and recordings to which the public is entitled, including this training/webinar, so he put together a document that essentially contains the training the librarians got, based on what's been FOIA'd so far.  To see his entire Library Crisis Communications Workshop Presentation Recreation, go to:


I fixed an oops, so now it correctly references West Bend, WI.

On Twitter:  @ECWDogs @HillBuzz @ILAttyGeneral @IntolerantFox @Istook @Flynn1776 @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @SharylAttkisson @VillageOrlandPk

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Child Porn Scandal in Orland Park: A Summary

After well over a half a year of effort, the Orland Park Public Library, Orland Park, IL, has continued to make child pornography available to the public and does not report such crime to the police.  The American Library Association has seen that as an opportunity to train libraries nationwide on how to thwart the law—unless I am present, no kidding, but more on that in the future—so libraries can maintain access to porn despite the law.

And the whistleblowing patrons Megan Fox and Kevin DuJan have won the first of likely many rulings from the Illinois Attorney General that the library has violated free speech and practiced censorship by not complying with the Open Meetings Act.

Here's a summary of the matter directly from Megan Fox:

On Twitter: @HillBuzz @ILAttyGeneral @IntolerantFox @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @VillageOrlandPk

Saturday, May 10, 2014

BOLO Library Patron Harassing Librarians in Idaho

Let's all appreciate librarians.  Look at the kind of harassment they undergo to provide us services, and this is mild, but I'm republishing it to help get the word out:

Hello everyone,

So, here's an odd story:

The manager of one of our small library branches in Latah County got a phone call yesterday from a man saying that he wanted to get a romance book for his wife and he wanted help picking out a title.  After talking to him for a few minutes our branch manager clarified to the caller what he needed to do to borrow a book from the library, and then he started telling our branch manager – in graphic detail – about the kind of romance book he wanted to get for his wife.  What he wanted could probably be better described as "erotica" than "romance" and the conversation ended with something along the lines of "I'll be over at your library to talk more about this in just a little while."

When I reported this issue to our director this morning she said, "The same thing happened to me a few weeks ago."

Our guess is that this is some pervert making phone calls trying to get attention, scare people, or maybe he just wants to be an ass – who knows.  It's hard to say.  We were going to try to let all of our other branch managers know about this and see if any of them have had similar calls and, at the very least, let them know that this is going on.  It occurred to me a few minutes ago, though, that if this is happening to us in Latah County, it might be happening in other places around Idaho too and that lib-idaho might be a good place to ask and see if anyone else has had similar calls or knows anything more about this situation.

My sincere hope is that nobody else has had to put up with this guy, but if anyone has had a similar experience or knows anything, please let me know,

[Name, email, address elided, but there's enough information for those interested to help out.  The email is dated 9 May 2014, 8:07 PM, so the request is current.]


The author of the above plea has commented on this post.  I'm including it here because it's important.  It establishes a pattern of harassment of librarians and evidences they are working to resolve the matter.  Please assist if you can:

George Williams
Mon May 12, 06:01:00 PM 2014

I'm the originator of this e-mail from LCLD and I posted this e-mail to the Idaho Library Association's e-mail list server to see if anyone else had a similar situation in Idaho.  So far I've gotten about 20 responses saying "Yes, it's happened to us too."

The theories are as follows:

  1. This guy is a pervert
  2. This guy is just annoying
  3. This guy is trying to find out if Idaho libraries have "erotica" on the shelves so that he can mount a complaint with state lawmakers to get erotica off of the library's shelves

Many Idaho librarians now seem to be aware of what's going on so, hopefully, we can develop a plan to shut this guy down.


On Twitter:  @IdahoLibraries