Harding Appeal OK'd 4-3

After a long evening of debate and public comments, the Woodstock City Council approved the appeal by Harding Real Estate to keep the double-hung window on the west side of its property at 223 South Tryon St.

If you'd like to read all the back and forth on it, wait a week or so for the Minutes of tonight's meeting and then wade through them.

Councilman Ahrens explained his reason for requesting a new vote. Basically, the Council was concerned about causing the Hardings to incur more expense, on top of the "six-figures" they had already spent on the project.

Councilman Webster started down the throat of a member of the Historic Preservation Commission who was required to speak as an individual, even though he was really there as a Commission member. And then Councilman Turner piled on, for which he later apologized. Mayor Sager also required Erika Wilson to speak as an individual, too. Allen Stebbins had spoken to the Council as Chair of the Commission, and the mayor didn't want to hear from others in their official, appointed capacity.

RB Thompson tried to get an answer from the representative of the City Attorney's office who was filling in for Rich Flood. When he asked the attorney whether the Council could properly consider the motion, since the Harding's appeal was filed beyond the 10-day period after the HPC's decision, the mayor cut in and answered the question.

When RB persisted, the attorney knew what answer the mayor wanted and hedged, finally saying that she could probably find some case law to, as I understood her, say that the appeal could not be heard. The mayor's position was that, since the Council had decided to hear the Harding's matter, then it could do so.

"The City Code be damned," was how it came across to me.

Councilman Turner asked how the window came to be removed. Andy Harding said the window had been broken and was measured for replacement. This was not the same story as told by Mr. Harding, Sr., on February 16. He said the window had been removed and went into the dumpster. Mr. Harding, Sr., did not say that the "broken" window had gone into the dumpster, as I recall his wording. So, where was the "honest mistake"?

My opinion is that the window was removed so that it could be replaced with the double-hung windows and that the HPC decision was ignored. That's how I see it.

The Council voted on the Motion to allow the Harding's appeal, if that is actually what the wording of the Motion was. When the mayor read the Motion that was to be voted on, he sounded to me like it was to deny the Harding's appeal. Councilwoman Larsen asked if a Yes vote meant in the Harding's favor, and the mayor agreed. But that isn't what the verbal motion sounded like to me and at least one other person? I suspect that will get cleaned up in the Minutes and, without listening to the tape-recording of the meeting, I'll never know.

What was the final vote?
Dillon - Yes
Ahrens - Yes
Webster - Yes
Turner - No
Thompson - No
Larson - No
Sager - Yes

The Power of a Badge

I can't resist passing this one along.

DEA officer stops at a ranch in Texas, and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, "I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs." The rancher says, "Okay , but do not go in that field over there," as he points out the location.

The DEA officer verbally explodes saying, " Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me." Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removes his badge and proudly displays it to the rancher. "See this badge? This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish.... On any land.. No questions asked or answers given. Have I made myself clear? Do you understand?"

The rancher nods politely, apologizes, and goes about his chores.
A short time later, the old rancher hears loud screams and sees the DEA officer running for his life chased by the rancher's big Santa Gertrudis bull.......

With every step the bull is gaining ground on the officer, and it seems likely that he'll get gored before he reaches safety. The officer is clearly terrified. The rancher throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs.....

" Your badge. Show him your BADGE ! "

Right to carry. Consider this...

This morning's Northwest Herald carried an article titled "At odds over handguns". You can view it at www.nwherald.com/articles/2010/03/01/r_zvugl9q3qaqtdawwadkanw/index.xml There were 50 comments, when I added this one:

"Keith Nygren's 'if' is a huge and dangerous word. That's exactly why many states have "shall issue" laws, not "may" issue. The legislatures were smart enough to take the decision out of the hands of sheriffs and police chiefs. The checks-and-balances are in place to keep permits out of the hands of the excluded classes."

When Sheriff Nygren read the February 2009 Resolution of the Illinois Sheriffs' Association to the crowd of 500 at the first meeting of the McHenry County Right to Carry Association, he never once said that he supported right to carry. He read the Association's position, taken the previous year.

If you'd like to hear exactly what Sheriff Nygren told the crowd at the McHenry County Right to Carry Association's meeting, go to www.illinoiscarry.com/

Nygren said that 90% of those that voted were in favor. That was incorrect. The "90%" was the percentage of the 79 sheriffs who returned the survey that led to the Resolution. That's 71 sheriffs who favored right to carry. The other 31? They either didn't respond or didn't favor it.

Only sixty (60) sheriffs (out of 102) attended the 2009 meeting. According to the Illinois Sheriffs' Association, the vote on the Resolution at the 2009 conference was unanimous. The ISA has no record of those sheriffs who were present and voted for the Resolution.

Nygren wants conditions on a permit. Some are reasonable, like State-issued and training, including live fire.

For a sheriff or police chief to have "input" into the State's decision? No way! And his wish for a legend on a driver's license to indicate that the driver has a concealed carry permit? I don't think so! Already, some cops in McHenry County are reportedly already making life difficult for FOID cardholders.

Same with his restrictions on locking up a weapon and ammo, when the permitholder is not "in possession" of his weapon. Suppose I'm home alone and my weapon is on the dresser or desk. Should I be in violation?

And "NO" to his idea about a "flash" law. To lose forever the privilege/right to a permit is wrong.

And then he said, "We trust our law-abiding citizens." No, I don't think this is the case (yet) in McHenry County.

Crystal Lake gives up on some parking tickets

How does a police department end up in such a pickle over parking tickets?

This morning's Northwest Herald reports that the Crystal Lake (Ill.) P.D. is sitting on some 6,800 overdue tickets. Well, wait; that's not right. They have sent 6,831 overdue tickets to a collection agency. How many overdue tickets are there, really?

According to the paper, 212 vehicles have ten or more outstanding tickets, and 497 have five or more tickets outstanding. And vehicles with five or more unpaid tickets could be booted (you know, the infamous "Denver" boot).

So that's 709 vehicles that could have been booted. Why not?

Booting a bunch of cars and publicizing it (betcha the Northwest Herald and the Daily Herald would help with that) would very likely clear up the problem pretty quickly.

Now, Crystal Lake will discount the overdue amount and call it an "amnesty". If violators pay up by April 30, they can get a 50% reduction in the total amount due on each ticket.

Can you imagine the animosity generated from those who have paid the full amount due on a parking ticket, such as $20 for the ticket and a $30 late fee? While crime doesn't pay, apparently it does pay to wait to pay your parking ticket in Crystal Lake.

Trial postponed 3 1/2 months!

This morning's Northwest Herald reports that a trial scheduled to start yesterday has been postponed to June 28. The case is the boating fatality on Wonder Lake in 2008.

If you want to see something stupid and OUTRAGEOUS, just go to the Court Events record for Case No. 08CF000695 at www.mchenrycircuitclerk.org Be sure to search by Case Number or by Ricky "Mc Guire" (space between Mc and Guire).

Just look at all the Court Events! Why don't the judges crack down on this nonsense? Why do they permit this abuse of court time? Why don't they set a date for a trial and stick to it???

The excuse given in the paper for the postponement was that a State crime lab employee was scheduled to be out-of-state this week. Hello??? Which came first - the scheduling of this court date (March 1) or whatever it is that is calling the employee out-of-state? Did the prosecutor not subpoena the State employee and order him to appear in court this week? Maybe that employee needed to alter his out-of-state travel schedule (State business? personal?), so that he could be available for this trial!!!

When you go to the Court Events public record, you'll see June 28 is "Status-Trial Date". Does that mean that the attorneys will show up in court that day to talk about when they'd like for the trial to start? And so, even more delay?

The Circuit Clerk needs to fix whatever is broken with the new online Court Records website, so that this case can be found in a simple search by the public. Requiring a space between Mc and Guire is asinine! How would the public ever know to separate Mc and Guire?

Open Carry in Wisconsin

Many gunowners may not know that, in Wisconsin, a person can legally carry a handgun, as long as it is carried in the open. It cannot be carried concealed.

Wisconsin was in gun rights' news a short time back, when the legislature almost passed a concealed carry law. The legislature did pass a concealed carry law; then Gov. Doyle vetoed it. Initially, it appeared the legislature had the votes to over-ride the veto, but Gov. Doyle was able to twist a couple of extra arms at the last minute, and his veto survived.

Wisconsin's existing open-carry law hasn't gotten much notice, but it's still there.

Today I received a faxed copy of the Wisconsin Attorney General J. B. VanHollen's opinion letter (Advisory Memorandum) dated April 20, 2009, which clarifies the State's approach to open carry. This memorandum addresses the relationship between open carry and disorderly conduct, because some police jurisdictions had confronted persons legally carrying a handgun in open view and charged them with disorderly conduct.

The memorandum states, in part, "The Wisconsin Department of Justice (the Department) believes that the mere open carrying of a firearm by a person, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge by a prosecutor."

If you plan to carry openly in Wisconsin, you might want to obtain a copy of this Memorandum and have it with you.

You'll probably want to make very sure that you do not permit any garment to obscure sight of your firearm. You probably should not even carry it on your belt in your car or placed on the car seat; even that may be construed as concealed carry.

Note the word "prosecutor". Carrying in the open could result in an arrest, but I guess you can hope that the prosecutor will abide by the Attorney General's Memorandum.

The Memorandum does not prohibit an officer from briefly stopping you and asking a few questions. Paragraph 9 of the Memorandum is very important. It reads, in part, "An officer may approach and question someone as long as the questions, the circumstances and the officer's behavior do not convey to the subject that he must comply with the requests. ... The person approached need not answer any questions."

Only parts of the Memorandum are discussed here. For your protection, you are urged to read the entire Memorandum.

The Wisconsin Attorney General's Memorandum can be viewed in its entirety at
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf

Grafton Trustees bite Moore

You may have been following the snit (OK, well; more than a “snit”) between the Grafton Township Trustees and Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore. Check out the entire statement by Grafton Township Trustees LaPorta, McMahon, Murphy and Zirk, as published at www.nwherald.com/blogs/huntleyblog/ on February 26.

The Trustees object to being locked out from the Township’s copy machine and stapler and at the Supervisor’s refusal to detach herself from the Food Pantry, which is completely independent of the Township. Apparently, since it is called the “Grafton Township Food Pantry”, Supervisor Moore think she has something to do with it. These Trustees say she doesn’t.

They have some pretty mean things to say about Supervisor Moore’s regard for legal advice she gets with which she doesn’t agree. Read it for yourself.

How do you keep yourself from hearing bad news? “She has also now dismantled her e-mail account, making it harder to contact her.” Are they back to smoke signals in Grafton Township?

And how about keeping the clocks running in the lawyers’ office? “When Linda receives a legal opinion she does not like, she disregards it, even from our current Township law firm which she, herself, selected and proposed at three meetings until we accepted them. When she is told she cannot legally do something she wants to do, or that she legally must do something she does not want to do, even by the attorneys she selected, she simply hires a different attorney. Then she complains about legal fees.”

Toward the end of their 982–word statement, they clobber Moore with “She needs to learn that a Supervisor is not a Dictator, and that collaborative efforts will get her farther than slapping, pinching, biting, or her current lock out policy.”