PeoriaStory

AMT sues blogger who needs a lawyer

PEORIA, IL -- A Peoria blogger has been sued for more than $50,000 in damages for posts on a Facebook page, in a civil lawsuit filed in Peoria County Circuit Court by AMT, Advanced Medical Transport of Central Illinois.

Blogger Zack Teague, 31, said the Facebook page was set up for his blog page, under a former address, and he doesn’t know who posted the comments and cartoon-style pictures which AMT officials claim are defamatory. It’s not his personal Facebook page, he said.

He said he has tried to have the posts taken down but has not succeeded.  

The lawsuit claims the posts are not just opinion, though if the case continues, that would be a legal issue to be resolved.   The posts accuse AMT of being a profiteer with blood on its hands, among other issues.

AMT’s CEO, Andrew Rand, is also the chairman of the Peoria County Board. AMT is a not-for-profit organization owned by Peoria’s three major hospitals. 

This lawsuit poses many questions, chief among them why AMT didn’t contact Teague and ask him to take down the posts. He said Rand never contacted him.

Teague said he has no money to hire a lawyer, and has been studying the law to defend himself.  His 30 days to respond to the lawsuit expires on Nov. 22, Thanksgiving Day.

 Another issue: why sue a guy without the money to hire a lawyer, for a Facebook post that few people likely will see?  Is this meant to intimidate AMT’s critics?  If so, it worked on me, as I am not putting a link to the page here.

Meanwhile, is it time to ditch Rand as board chairman, for throwing his weight behind such a ridiculous lawsuit?

Or is the AMT law firm manipulating AMT to get extra fees? If that’s the case, why not sue Facebook, where the deep pockets reside?

Then there are the facts. Does AMT really want to have to prove that it doesn’t make a profit, and that none of its patients have ever died?

This reminds me of the infamous Twittergate incident a few years ago, which cost Peoria $500,000 when Mayor Jim Ardis sent police to arrest a guy who mocked him on Twitter.  The ACLU sued over free speech issues, and the city lost that case and its good reputation after it was ridiculed everywhere for what Ardis did.   Stay tuned.

 -- Elaine Hopkins

UPDATE 12/12/2017:  Zack Teague has found an attorney, who filed a motion to dismiss.  A hearing is set for March 9, 2018. 

Scalia and the law: another view

PEORIA, IL -- Are we all sick of the commentary praising Antonin Scalia as brilliant?  It's not true. 

There are also many questions about his death, such as who was at the ranch when he died (lobbyists?).  The owner even had a case before the Supreme Court, according to news reports.

But back to his so-called brilliance.  Here's another view by Randy Fritz, a retired teacher of history and social studies.

 

With the passing of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, it is time to look back at his tenure with a more critical eye. Yes, I’m sure his reputation as a raconteur was well deserved. His judicial philosophy was, wanting, however; at least to me.

Let’s start with “originalism,” his cherished doctrine of the Constitution. To put it bluntly, there is no such thing, at least not in the sense he means it. It is a figment of the man’s imagination. His outsized personality was able to convince others on the Court of its validity; especially those with weaker minds (I name no names).

 A single example will serve to illustrate. The year was 1791 and Alexander Hamilton had convinced Congress to pass a bill creating the (First) Bank of the United States. It was to be capitalized 1/5 by government revenue and 4/5 by private investment.

Hamilton saw the law as a way to carry out several of Congress’ powers, as delineated in Article I, Section 8. Among them were: the power to borrow money, collect taxes, coin money and regulate the value thereof. Hamilton concluded, through his reading of the “Elastic Clause” or “Necessary and Proper Clause” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18): “[Congress Shall have the power to:] make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Let us remember that Hamilton was at the Constitutional Convention and influential in writing the document. “No,” he argued to president Washington, “we are not limited to the powers specifically created in I, 8 because the Elastic Clause allows us to” (of course I’m paraphrasing here—what he actually wrote would take pages to relate here you can find the actual report online).

Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, disagreed. He wanted a small national government and a rural society; he wanted, therefore, to limit the powers of the national government and therefore denied the “broad interpretation” espoused by Hamilton. The two were beginning to hate each other. Let us further remember that Jefferson was not at the Constitutional Convention. At the time of its writing he was the American ambassador to France.

George Washington, President and, earlier, president of the Constitutional Convention, signed the bill, thereby codifying the broad interpretation. There are other examples from the Washington/Hamilton era (like the Report on the Public Credit), but we needn’t go there.

In short, the broad interpretation is “originalism.” Any attempt to paint the Framers as “narrow” believers is completely wrong. From much other writing, other framers constantly saw changes in the document’s meaning, as situations warranted. Beyond “broad,” there is little original intent. I’m convinced this idea of “narrow Originalism” is a modern contrivance to limit federal power in the modern conservative mold.

Another point is germane here. Much of the Constitution is extremely vague. The framers knew the first president and Congress would begin the process, through precedent, of “forming” a new national government. Indeed they did so. The interpretation continues to this day, and Scalia’s claim that the Constitution is “not a living document [but] dead, dead, dead has no basis in reality. Read Article II and think about presidential power. There is almost nothing about it there. The framers left it to George Washington to fill in the blanks.

Finally, I would argue that Scalia’s argument is specious at a far more basic level. Would he deny the presidency’s ability to commit troops overseas? The Constitution gives that power exclusively to Congress. Should we not have an Air Force? It’s not mentioned anywhere in the document (for obvious reasons). There are a thousand other examples of agencies, boards, and applications in law that are necessary in a 21^st-century American government that would be impossible with a “dead” Constitution.

Antonin Scalia was indeed powerful in his 30-year tenure. I’m not convinced that power was well exercised or historically based, as he so often claimed. -30-

 

Saying 'no' to guns

PEORIA -- From a news release:

 

From: "Lee Goodman, Stop Concealed Carry Coalition" <[email protected]>

Subject: Official Sign for Banning Guns on Your Property

Date: October 13, 2013 7:31:32 PM CDT

Reply-To: "Lee Goodman, Stop Concealed Carry Coalition" <[email protected]>

The Illinois State Police has specified the signs that you will be required to post if you want to keep people from carrying guns onto your property in Illinois. Signs must be posted by offices, stores, and other businesses if they do not want people carrying guns into their establishments. The law says that people can carry guns into your home unless you tell them not to, either by posting a sign or in some other way.

Although the law says guns may never be carried in some places, including grade schools and on public transportation, it also says that signs must be posted at those locations.

If you want to post this sign, you can download one at the State Police's website at http://www.isp.state.il.us/firearms/ccw/CCWProhibitedAreaSign.pdf and print it out. The sign must measure 4 inches high by 6 inches wide. I am not aware of any place you can purchase the signs yet.

The State Police has proposed that people be allowed to post larger signs and include additional words on the signs if they want, but this proposal has not yet become law. The State will begin processing applications for permits to carry concealed weapons the first week in January, 2014.

Thank you,
Lee Goodman

P.S. You can keep informed on this and other peace issues on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/PeacefulCommunities

Questionable arrests in Woodford County

EUREKA, IL -- Two animal rights activists remain in Woodford County jail after their arrest a few weeks ago on what seems like very questionable charges.

The two are charged with possession of burglary tools, even though no burglary took place.  They were reportedly arrested during a routine traffic stop while driving through Roanoke, a small town near Eureka, the county seat.

Did the officer run the license tag, find out who the two are, and target them? 

The Peoria Journal Star published this story on Sept. 10, which then received criticism from a website supporting the two men.

Their lawyer,Woodford County public defender Don Pioletti, has not returned phone calls asking for more details on this case.

 -- Elaine Hopkins

Animal advocate arrested at big cat exhibit

PEORIA -- Animal advocate Doris Muller was arrested on Friday, Aug. 31 for taking photos of the big cat exhibit at the Shoppes at Grand Prairie (See Aug. 28 story below on this exhibit).

She was arrested for disorderly conduct, and given a citation to appear later in court. She had gone to the shopping center to check out the exhibit.

Her story involves abuse and harassment from the police, presumably the Peoria police. "They treated me with rudeness, they bullied me with their authority, and they were not interested in anything I had to say," she wrote.

Here is her account of what occurred:

"I arrived at Grand Prairie at approximately 8:00 p.m. I was alone. After getting to the exhibit, I looked for any signs that prohibited picturing taking. Seeing none and noting that others were taking pictures, I proceeded to take pictures.

"I only took two pictures of the animals. Other pictures were of various aspects of their set-up: their banner, posted information that was on an easel, their donation cans.

"The pictures of the animals included one of several small cats in a transport crate. The cats were in the transport crate because they were getting ready to close the exhibit for the night and they were going to take the little cats to the holding trailer.

"I had just taken the picture of the cubs in the crate when the handlers cautioned everybody to move to allow for the passage of the crate--I moved on.

"The other animal picture was of an enclosure that held (several) young cats of various species.

"The only time I spoke to any one was when I asked a young staff person if there was any literature. He handed me a small propaganda pamphlet.

"I thanked him and I left. As I was going back to my car I saw staff people loading cats into the travel trailer which was in the loading area on the side of Bergners--I was on the sidewalk at least 60' - 70 feet from the area.

"I thought I would take a picture of the trailer because I had never seen one like it. I had to go to the entrance of the approach to the loading area where I stepped off the sidewalk about six feet--I was still about 70 feet from the trailer. That is as far as I was going. I was not carrying any signs nor did I attempt to speak to anyone.

"I was attempting to take a picture of the trailer when a short dark haired man--Mr. Riggins, the exhibit owner came at me in a fast pace. He proceeded to read me the riot act about taking pictures because he said, I was on 'private property and picture taking was a violation.'

"When I questioned this he proceeded to tell me that taking pictures at any mall is prohibited. When I told him I have never seen any postings prohibiting picture taking he accused me of being a 'terrorist.'

"He further continued to tell me that he was calling the police and charging me with interfering with their work. When I asked in what way I was interfering. He said I was on private property taking pictures and I was interfering with their loading the animals which was a violation under the Animal terrorist Act.

"(Note: They seemed well rehearsed, including what kind of lies to tell.)

"While I remained standing where I was when Mr. Riggins began to harass me, a young, short women--also an owner--approached. She was very arrogant and rude and in my face. She sought to intimidate me by telling me how scared I was and that she could see that I was shaking from fright.

"She further told me her profession is "reading people, and she is very good at it." At one point she called me a "bitch." I told her if she wanted to see a bitch, she should look in the mirror.

"She announced that in deed "she is a bitch" and she is" proud of it!" When she insisted on being in my face, I asked her to back away. She said it was her truck we were standing behind and she was not about to move.

"(A little before police arrived, someone got into the truck and started it.)

"It was a while before the police got there. The minute they got there, they sided with the exhibitors.

"They approached and automatically assumed I was guilty of whatever the exhibitors wanted to say about me. The minute they got near me the female officer told me to" move." Unfortunately, I said "no, wait," as I tried to explain to the police that where I was standing was where Mr. Riggins confronted me and that was as close as I had gotten to these people or their trailer, period.

"The female officer immediately declared that I was disorderly--this seems to be their catch-all charge.

"They treated the exhibitors with respect and allowed them to tell whatever lies they wanted including that I would not move and I was blocking their truck, and that I had been there every night harassing them.

"But they treated me with rudeness, they bullied me with their authority, and they were not interested in anything I had to say.

"As I repeatedly declared that I had done nothing--I never got near them or their trailer, I never said a word to them, I was not guilty of any interference of any kind, I was not protesting, I carried no signs.

"The male officer repeatedly told me that he did not ever see an accused person who did not declare their innocence, and that they are all adamant about it.

"I referred several times to the exhibitors as unethical people.

"The female officer ridiculed me by stating that" I must be the most ethical person on earth" because (she chuckled to her partner) "I was really into ethical." At some point, I asked the male officer to take note of the way the female officer was speaking to me just because she was a Peoria Police Officer.

"I was handcuffed, the female officer asked me to spread my legs, which I did as much as I could considering I had heels on. But I did not spread them to her satisfaction, so she pulled one of my legs out almost causing me to fall. I had to draw my leg in a bit so I could remain standing.

"The mall security was called, Craig (?) who, I was told, would declare that I was banned forever from the property at The Shoppes at Grand Prairie.

"I had asked that Craig at least listen to me. Craig basically said the police are right because they are police.

"While we were waiting for Craig to arrive, the female officer asked me if my camera, which was hanging from my neck, was digital or 35. I told her it is 35. She asked me if I owned a digital. I told her I did, and I asked her what her point was. She said that everyone uses digitals. I still don't know what point she was trying to make.

"The officers insisted on arresting me, but released me with a citation for $100 for disorderly conduct.

"I will be stuck with the fine, while the liars are rewarded.

"The disorderly charge, in this case, indicates that it is okay for some to have outrageous behavior including making false accusations while the accused can be treated with disregard and disrespect.

"It's too bad I didn't have a cell phone. Perhaps I could have called the police and charged this group with trying to cause trouble by harassing me simply because they did not like my looks and they were horribly camera-shy."

So -- police will arrest an innocent, tax paying local citizen for taking photos, over the word of an out-of-town traveling circus. Here's hoping she finds the courage to fight this in court!

--Elaine Hopkins

Charges dropped, court confusion

PEORIA -- Anti-war protester Razia Ahmed lined up at the 9 a.m. Peoria County Courthouse misdemeanor "cattle call" on Aug. 28, only to learn that her name was not on the docket and the charges against her had been dropped.

Of course, no one bothered to tell her in advance.

And criminal justice system officials wonder why they're not trusted. They can't even operate an efficient court system. But they can turn out eight police cars to arrest a non-violent protester while murders in Peoria go unsolved!

She tried to learn from the Peoria County Circuit Clerk's office why the charges were dropped, but that office didn't know. She learned that $90 of the $118 bail she was required to post to get out of jail will be refunded.

Apparently the court system keeps the rest, even if the charges are dropped. That's a nice money-making gig for the system.

If she had stayed around long enough to talk to a judge, he might have ordered a full refund, but that would have meant waiting all morning until the hoards of people filling the hallway and courtroom had seen the judge. She left.

"I'm happy, I'm relieved. I didn't want to have to come back," she said.

For background on Ahmed's case, see the story below, and follow the links or click on the Law category.

Several of Ahmed's friends came with her to offer support. Some then went to the federal courthouse, where an anti-war vigil is taking place, to end with a 7 p.m. rally at the Peoria Public Library's downtown branch.

--Elaine Hopkins

Razia's case Aug. 28

PEORIA -- The Peoria activist arrested on July 30 at the Peoria Civic Center while protesting government torture and other issues goes to court on Aug. 28.

Razia Ahmed is scheduled to face the judge at 9 a.m. in Room 321 of the Peoria County Courthouse.

That's a "cattle call" time where dozens of people are usually scheduled, so she may be left to wait around for quite a while.

In an e-mail she wrote: "I don't know what is going to happen and I don't have an attorney. I did talk to Jay Janssen though. His office handles accident/injury cases, I was hoping he could recommend some one. He didn't think I needed an attorney.

"His advice was simply to tell the judge what happened. So, that is what I am hoping to do.

"I am not afraid to face any one alone about what I did, but it would be nice to have some support in the court. I believe it also speaks well for the community. Those of you who can come are most welcome."

How sad that a Peoria activist does not have a pro-bono lawyer to represent her!

Activists arrested recently in Chicago for unfurling an anti-war banner on a freeway bridge quickly found volunteer lawyers to help them.

Razia was arrested in a building owned by the public. She was totally non-violent and non-confrontational.

Read her full story under the "law" category or click here.

--Elaine Hopkins

Update: opening the juvenile courts

PEORIA -- Journal Star columnist Pam Adams has written a powerful column on opening access to the juvenile court system.

It's an update on the issue of bloggers as journalists, reported here earlier.

Update on Razia's arrest

PEORIA -- Activist Razia Ahmed has written a first person account of her July 30 arrest at the Peoria Civic Center where Michelle Obama was speaking at a luncheon.

See it and the original story here.

Activist arrested at Civic Center

PEORIA -- A Peoria activist protesting government torture and other issues was arrested on July 30 at the Peoria Civic Center.

Razia Ahmed was handcuffed and arrested for criminal trespass in the Peoria Civic Center building.

She had been with a group of Peoria Peace Network demonstrators at the Federal Building. They decided to move their demonstration to the Civic Center, activist Jack Ryan said, where Michelle Obama and Loretta Durbin, wives of the two Illinois senators, were speaking at a "Women for Obama" luncheon.

The Civic Center is a public building supported with tax funds. But a contractor operates the building so it is not public property, a Peoria police officer said.

The group was asked to leave the building but Razia refused, and knelt in protest. She was then arrested. Others went outside but stayed to offer support. They said they would post her bail at the jail.

She later was released from jail and has an Aug. 28 court date.

Seven police vehicles and several officers went to the scene to arrest the non-violent protester.

A flier the group distributed asked "Is this America?" It called for the restoration of habeas corpus, and end to extraordinary renditions and torture, and asked the government to "abide by the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions" in its treatment of prisoners.

--Elaine Hopkins

UPDATE: On Aug. 9 Razia wrote her account of the arrest:

"On Monday late morning, July 30th, Peoria area peaceniks and I donned orange jumpsuits like the prisoners wear and put black hoods over our head to protest mistreatment of prisoners and other related actions of the United States.

"After demonstrating in front of the federal building we decided to move to Civic Center where Michele Obama was speaking at a fund raising luncheon. The press was already there to cover Obama. It must have been quite a sight - all dressed in orange jump suits and wearing black hoods over our heads walking in line one behind the other.

"Obviously the press was curious, while interviewing Jack Ryan they took pictures/videos of all of us.

"A man in yellow shirt (the management?) ordered every one out. I was a little distance away from the rest and did not fully comprehend the situation except that every one was leaving including some press. Like a sheep I started following the crowd, but some thing inside made me stop and kneel on the carpeted floor. I heard the man in yellow shirt yelling at the remaining press not to shoot. Then he came and asked me to leave. I told him I'd like to ask Michelle Obama: what her husband was planning to do about the issues that concern us.

"The man in yellow shirt was very rude and arrogant, told me again to leave or he'll call the police. I repeated my request, he refused.

"Then came a woman, Bonnie somebody, asked me to leave. She was a little better than the man in the yellow shirt. She told me to go outside the building and she'll ask Obama if she'd talk to me. I told her I'd wait inside while she arranges a meeting. She even called some one on the phone to go to Obama. I offered to take my hood and jumpsuit off while I wait for Obama's response. Bonnie and I were still talking when the police came and told me to leave or risk arrest. I started to tell them what I was trying to do but they did not let me finish my sentence and put handcuffs on me.

"While I was led to the police car Bonnie came and told me that Michelle Obama would like to talk to me and I should contact the office.

"If any one would like to come, my court date is August 28 at 9 am in room 321, Peoria County Courthouse."