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 ( http://tinyurl.com/ErnestIstookInterview ).  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 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K32-8 ).

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 ( http://westbend.pbworks.com/f/Hanrahan2Tyree051209.pdf ).  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 ( http://www.oif.ala.org/oif/?p=383 ).

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 [mailto:bjones@ala.org]
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 ( http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/03/DirtyDozenALA.html ).  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?"

You can often tell by the tone that something else is at play.Why do they try to squelch debate & discussion of issues of public importance?
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) December 10, 2013

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:

• "Pulitzer Prize Winner Julia Keller to Skype at Orland Park Public Library Book Discussion on May 22," by Orland Park Public Library, Chicago Tribune, 16 May 2014. ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/orland_park_homer_glen/community/chi-ugc-article-pulitzer-prize-winner-julia-keller-to-skype-a-2014-05-16,0,3750064.story )

  Author and Pulitzer Prize winner Julia Keller will Skype with the Orland Park Public Library ... in the library's meeting room.
  
  With the assistance of the Internet, a large screen, and audio, Keller will discuss her most recent novel "Bitter River." ....
  
  The group will have the opportunity to ask Keller questions through Skype....

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:

• "Exclusive: Citizens Arrest Park District Board for Refusing Public Comment," by Mike Flynn, Breitbart, 16 May 2014. ( http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/16/Exclusive-Citizens-Arrest-Park-District-Board-for-Breaking-Law )

Civil litigation may follow:

• "Clark County Park District Facing Open Meetings Act Civil Suit…," by Jim Kraft, Illinois Leaks by Edgar County Watchdogs, 15 May 2014. ( http://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2014/05/clark-county-park-district-facing-open-meetings-act-civil-suit/ )

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

• "Open Meetings Act Violations by the Board of Library Trustees of the Orland Park Public Library," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 17 February 2014. ( http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/02/OPPL.html )
• "Response re Orland Park Public Library Request for Review - PAC 27987 - Open Meetings Act," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 27 March 2014. ( http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/03/OMA.html )

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.

Sincerely,

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

CC:  Orland Park Public Library


NOTE ADDED 18 MAY 2014:

Post by Fans of Megan Fox.

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: http://tinyurl.com/ALAHateFest.


NOTE ADDED 22 MAY 2014:

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

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/05/NewEvidence.html

URL of ALA Hatefest:  tinyurl.com/ALAHateFest

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

Follow @SafeLibraries

SafeLibraries in ALA Media Again; Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom Plagiarizes Story ALA Planted in USA Today and Miller-McCune Magazine

ALA's Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom Logo

What is it called when two substantially similar stories appear in separate media sources authored by different people at about the same time for something not necessarily newsworthy?  What is is called when content is substantially copied then claimed as one's own?

The American Library Association [ALA] has caused false flag stories to be published in two major media sources.  It then plagiarized one of the stories.  Precisely because of the apparent deception by the ALA, both media sources should be held harmless.

Here are the stories, and I'll ignore for now the false information the ALA caused to be contained therein.  Notice the substantial similarities:

• "Those Challenging Books Find Strength in Numbers," by Didi Tang and Mary Beth Marklein, USA Today, 1 December 2010 (updated 6 December).

• "Book Banners Finding Power in Numbers; Efforts to Ban Books in Schools have Shifted Subjects and Tactics, with the Efforts of Single Parents Now Being Replaced by Organizations," by Lewis Beale, Miller-McCune, 10 February 2011.

This comes to my attention now as a result of the ALA writing about me, SafeLibraries, again, this time in the March 2011 edition of the ALA's Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom [NIF] (a subscription to NIF costs $70/year despite the "intellectual freedom"):

• "School Book Challenges Increasingly Organized Efforts," by American Library Association, Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, LX:2 (March 2011).

The ALA itself has apparently substantially plagiarized the USA Today story.  Compare the two.  It is interesting to see the differences. 

For example:

• USA Today: "The number of reported challenges in the past 30 years has hovered between about 400 or 500 each year, says Deborah Caldwell-Stone, an attorney with the American Library Association."
• NIF: "The number of reported challenges in the past 30 years has hovered between about 400 or 500 each year, according to Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Associate Director of ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom."  

I find the removal of the reference to being "an attorney with the [ALA]" to be telling, particularly where the attorney has possibly committed unethical and/or illegal acts that I will bring to the attention of her state's board of legal examiners for further disposition as befits the facts. 

Note also the claim to copyright by the ALA of the story it changed from the USA Today original.  I find the ALA is making plagiarism a regular part of its practice.

Excerpt of SafeLibraries in the ALA's Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 2011

Will someone tell me why the ALA that plants media stories and plagiarizes, including the planted stories, should be taken seriously?  Please comment below.

.

Child Porn Arrest in London Public Library That Had Internet Filters But Quietly Removed Them After Empty Legal Threats

This is unbelievable.  In a nutshell, London Ontario's Central Library had a patron arrested for viewing child pornography.  As a result it applied Internet filters.  But empty legal threats were made, so the library "quietly removed" the filters.  Result?  Another patron arrested for the exact same reason.

See, "Man Faces Child Porn Charge," by Joe Belanger, The London Free Press, 30 April 2010:

Two years ago, the library installed filter [sic] on the computers to prevent patrons from accessing pornography.

However, the filters were quietly removed when the board was advised it could face stiff legal action and public opposition.

In 2006, the library held public meetings and the library board voted in favour of putting filters on 54 of 60 computers on the second floor.

A freedom of expression group threatened to sue, and after seeking legal opinion, the board reversed its decision.

Part of the criticism was that it violated the public's right to freedom of expression and the filters often prevented people from accessing information on certain topics, such as sex education and related issues.

First off, blocking child pornography does not "violate[] the public's right to freedom of expression."  I don't need to source that—it's obvious.  Second, even the ACLU now admits Internet filters are 95% effective and no longer block health-related web sites, and the ACLU was a losing party in US v. ALA where the ACLU sought to squelch Internet filters.

As an aside, the American Library Association [ALA] just accused me of "dictating" to communities and "blow[ing things] up into a major conflagration."  See, "Libraries Fight Challenges to Graphic Novels; Libraries Fight to Keep Graphic Novels On the Shelves," by Brigid Alverson, Publishers Weekly, 28 April 2010.  (See also LISNew's "Libraries Fight Challenges to Graphic Novels" and its comments.)  Here is the type of dictating and blowing up that's okay with the ALA—it will never complain about this type of blow up:  "A freedom of expression group threatened to sue, and after seeking legal opinion, the board reversed its decision."

What is the lesson to be learned from caving to empty legal threats?  Why do you think the Internet filters were "quietly removed"?  Who's defending the children?  Please comment below.

.