Dear Assistant Attorney General Tola Sobitan,
Orland Park Public Library attorneys, namely, the law firm of Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, LTD [KTJ] (
http://www.ktjlaw.com ), 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 (
http://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov ). 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 (
http://www.iml.org/page.cfm?key=2558&parent=1168 ). 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 (
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-12/news/chi-orland-library-considers-new-internet-policy-20140212_1_bridget-bittman-adult-computers-library-computers ). 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.
Listen as library board of trustees president Nancy Wendt Healy (sister of George Wendt who played Norm Peterson on
Cheers (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wendt )) 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 (
http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/elections/4510498-418/nancy-wendt-healy.html ), 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 Fox,
YouTube, 27 November 2013 (
http://youtu.be/ge1GvJz5aqM ).
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 Fox,
YouTube, 5 November 2013 (
http://youtu.be/scdJA8f2DCk ). 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 Fox,
Facebook, 28 March 2014 (
http://t.co/XjQqi0KPSR ), 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 Bourret,
Organizing for Action, circa March 2014 (
https://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/affordablecareactcommunityoutreach/gs89p3 ).
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 [ (
http://cdn.pjmedia.com/lifestyle/files/2013/12/CrownsOrlandParkLibraryBoard.jpg ) ] 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.
See also:
1) Orland Park Police Department - Narrative - 2013-00130099 - James Fessler Esq Complaint - P2 of 3 by Kein (
http://tinyurl.com/Fessler1 );
2) Orland Park Police Department - Narrative - 2013-00130099 - James Fessler Esq Complaint - P2 of 3 by Eppolito (
http://tinyurl.com/Fessler2 )
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.
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)….” (
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1195&ChapterID=20 )
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 (
http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/12/BarbaraJones.html ). 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 SafeLibraries.org 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”
http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/11/LibrariesHarmVictims.html ).
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 (
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html ) 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 (
http://tinyurl.com/ILAttyGenOMA ). 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 (
http://youtu.be/rzyQvYmEds0?t=24m37s ). 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 (
http://www.iardc.org ), 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
