What Chicago Experience Suggests about "Stop and Frisk"

Last Saturday, I discussed what "Stop and Frisk" is, and that the U.S. Supreme Court approved its use as a police law enforcement street tool in Terry v. Ohio (1968). The primary intent was to allow the police to get guns off the street before they could be used in the commission of a crime, rather than to gather evidence after the crime for prosecution.

The Supreme Court saw a "stop" on the street as a less intrusive form of a seizure, and the "frisk" ("pat down") on the street as a less intrusive search, which nevertheless had to be objectively "REASONABLE," based on all the facts known to the officer at the time. The stop and frisk would be over in a few seconds, and an innocent person stopped would be quickly on his way.

Stop and Frisk has understandably provoked adverse reaction in minority communities. It seems un-American to be stopped on the street, required to answer question and patted down -- even if the stop lasts 30 seconds or less, and you're allowed to go your way.


In Chicago, there was a reaction. The ACLU and some leaders of the black community lobbied for additional restrictions on the use of Stop and Frisk. They got them.

According to a Feb. 1 report by ABC 7 Chicago, "For decades when Chicago police stopped and frisked someone on the street, they only had to fill out a small card called a "Contact Card." It required simple, basic information about who was stopped and why."

Beginning Jan. 1, a new Illinois law regulates when cops can stop and pat down people in public, and additionally requires officers to fill out a two-page "Investigatory Stop Report" - essentially a full-blown police report.

IL SB1304 provides:

The officer will record the following data on the stop card: the officer's subjective determination of the gender and race of the person stopped; the reason for the stop; date, time and location of the stop; whether a protective pat down or frisk was conducted of the person; and, if so, the reason for the protective pat down or frisk, and whether it was with consent or by other means; whether or not contraband was found during the protective pat down or frisk; and, if so, the type and amount of contraband seized; whether or not a search beyond a protective pat down or frisk was conducted of the person or his or her effects; and, if so, the reason for the search, and whether it was with consent or by other means; whether or not contraband was found during the search beyond a protective pat down or frisk; and, if so, the type and amount of contraband seized; the disposition of the stop, such as a warning, a ticket, a summons, or an arrest; if a summons or ticket was issued, or an arrest made, a record of the violations, offenses, or crimes alleged or charged; and the name and badge number of the officer who conducted the detention.


Information obtained via a FOIA request, covering from Jan. 1-Oct. 24 shows, "Stops over that same period have plunged to 91,438 -- down 82 percent from 513,161 a year earlier."

Opponents of SB1304 contend that the time-consuming form that officers now must fill out for each stop has played a significant part in the drop. They further argue that if a cop makes no stops, he will never be charged with making unlawful stops.

Proponents argue there are fewer stops because the new reports prevent unlawful stops.

Dec. 2, 2016 Dispatch report states, "Chicago experienced more than twice as many homicides (77) in November" 2016, than it did in November 2015, and over 700 for the year. Chicago Fraternal Order of Police president Dean Angelo says less-aggressive policing no doubt coincides with the spike in Chicago murders and shootings.

So it seems that in Chicago, citizens are more secure against searches, and less secure against being shot to death. A cause/effect relationship is unprovable, but the numbers are suggestive.

Posted: QCOline.com December 17, 2016

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

"Stop and Frisk" - a Layman's Guide

What is Stop and Frisk?

Both presidential candidates discussed it. President-elect Trump was for it. Mrs. Clinton was against it. Neither explained it.

In this piece, I explain it so a person without law school training can understand it. In the next, I'll deal with the controversy surrounding it.

The starting point for the inquiry is the Fourth Amendment which provides that before a search or seizure can be constitutional there must be "probable cause" for that search or seizure.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath ... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The courts have held that probable cause means "reasonable cause" or "reasonable grounds." If all the facts known to the officer make it "reasonable" for him to search or arrest, he may constitutionally do so. To be constitutional, the search must be REASONABLE.

In Terry v. Ohio in 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer "briefly stops" a suspect on the street and inquires as to his identity, and what he is doing, even though the officer might lack "probable cause" to arrest and haul a person off to jail, or conduct a full search -- if the police officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The officer could take the further step of "frisking" the defendant if he had a "reasonable suspicion" that the person stopped might be armed or dangerous to the officer.

This reasonable suspicion -- like probable cause -- must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's "hunch." The bottom line is that the officer's conduct still must be REASONABLE as required by the 4th Amendment, which prohibits only unreasonable searches or seizures.

But fewer "specific and articulable facts" are generally thought to be necessary to make a brief stop and/or frisk REASONABLE than would be required to justify a full "custodial arrest," and/or a complete search of the person.


The governing idea behind allowing Stop and Frisk is that it was to be a rather brief, minimal intrusion, done on the street, and an innocent person stopped would be free to go in a few seconds.

Stop and Frisk was perceived to involve a brief inquiry as to the person's identity, and what he was about. But even for such a brief stop "specific and articulable facts" were required. And if additional "specific and articulable facts" existed to justify a "pat down search" -- such as a bulge in the person's pocket indicative of a gun -- the officer could pat down the person's outer clothing.

An additional justification was that unlike traditional Fourth Amendment search for evidence in a criminal case after the commission of the crime, Stop and Frisk was envisioned as a law enforcement street-tool - designed rather to prevent commission of a crime and to insure officer safety during the brief stop.

Stop and Frisk was in the first instance designed to be a public safety measure -- akin to the often times far more pervasive airport security check, designed to keep terrorists and bombs off air liners. The inconvenience to law abiding passengers is deemed reasonable given the danger of planes being blown from the sky, with the death of all passengers.

Stop and Frisk has understandably provoked adverse reaction in minority communities. If you are a law-abiding citizen it is damn unpleasant, if not humiliating, to be stopped on a public street, required to answer questions and patted down even if the "stop" lasts no more than 30 seconds and you're allowed to go on your way. But the same can be said of security checks of law-abiding citizens boarding civilian airliners.

(Editor's note: This is the first of two columns looking at the constitutionality of the law enforcement tool known as Stop and Frisk.)

Posted: QCOline.com December 9, 2016
Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Was Fidel Cuba's George Washington? No!

ABC’s Jim Avila says that “Fidel Castro was Cuba’s George Washington.”

Really? Washington was the American commander in the field during our war for independence against Britain. Fidel Castro was the commander in the field in Cuba’s revolution to overthrow the Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista. There the similarity ends.

Washington (and his fellow founders) created a government designed primarily to insure the national security and personal liberty to the American people. The U.S. Constitution that Washington et al. created made no provision for national health care or universal public education. Those matters, at least in the first instance, were left to the states to deal with as they saw fit.


Fidel Castro eschewed liberty for the Cuban people and instead opted for “equality.” In lieu of personal liberty, the Cuban people were given free national health care, and a free public education -- a public education where every student was taught precisely what the Castro government wanted taught.

Washington’s America is the nation-of-choice to which people from around the world have chosen to immigrate for 200 years. It has also been a place from which any dissident could freely leave.

Nobody immigrates to Cuba. Castro’s Cuba is a prison from which people escapee across shark-infested waters to America: 120,000 in 1980 alone.

When the American Revolutionary War was over, neither Washington nor his administration imprisoned Americans who opposed the Revolution, or Americans who agitated against out new Constitution, or who spoke or worked to undermine Washington’s presidency.

When Castro’s seized power, hundreds of members of Batista’s government were rounded up, quickly tried and executed.

When Washington became president, private ownership of American businesses and farms, large and small, saw no change.

When Castro became prime minister, foreign corporations and plantations were “nationalized” -- i.e., confiscated at far below their fair market value. Castro’s First Agrarian Reform Act limited the size of land holdings and forbade foreign property ownership. The pretext was to “develop a class of independent farmers.”

Instead, the state essentially assumed land ownership, with the farmers becoming mere government employees.

Then (1959) came the purges of military and government officials and the suppression of any media critical of Castro’s policies. Even Manuel Urritia, the Revolution’s first president was purged.

Washington avoided foreign alliances, and in his “farewell address” cautioned his countrymen “to avoid entangling alliances.”

Castro, instead, established diplomatic relations with the Communist USSR, and accepted 100 Russian “advisers” to help organize his “defense committee.” When Castro agreed to purchase oil from Russia, American refineries on the island, refused to process the oil.

This gave Castro his justification for their expropriation.”What followed was President Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs invasion/fiasco. Kennedy’s ineptitude allowed Castro to consolidate his power.

On May 1, 1961, Castro announced an end to democratic elections in Cuba. At year’s end, Castro declared himself a Marxist-Leninist and announced the Cuban government was adopting communist economic and political policies.


When Castro agreed to place Russian nuclear missiles in Cuba, an American Naval Blockade followed, and for 13 days the world was on the brink of nuclear war.

Washington tried to create an America without parties or factions. Castro opted for one party. In 1965, he merged his revolutionary cadre with Cuba’s Communist Party, and became its head.

Washington refused to become a king. After being freely elected twice, he retired after eight years and became a private citizen. A free election followed.

Fidel Castro, a Stalinist, clung to power from 1959 until 2008 -- 49 years!

He turned Cuban power over to his brother.

Castro-philes credit Castro with setting up 10,000 schools, and increasing Cuban literacy to 98 percent. They extol his “universal health care system.” But there was a terrible price.

Unions lost their right to strike. An independent press was eliminated. The Catholic Church and other churches were shackled. Dissidents were imprisoned or executed. People drive cars from the 1950s. In June 2012, Cuba’s National Statistics and Information Bureau disclosed that the current average salary of Cubans had reached 466 pesos (US $22) a month!

Fidel Castro? Mao, maybe. But not George Washington. Schools and health care? Si.

Liberty? No.

Posted: QCOline.com December 2, 2016
Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Riot Has Never Been Constitutionally Protected

The post-election leftist anti-Donald Trump protests and/or riots are nothing new.

In 1714, a German prince became George I, King of England. He came to the throne because Queen Anne died without issue. He was Anne's closest living Protestant relative. The Act of Settlement of 1701, prohibited some 50 Catholics, who were closer relatives, from inheriting the throne. Protests, unlawful assemblies and riots ensued, encouraged by the Jacobites, on behalf of James Stuart, Anne's half-brother.

To suppress these riots, Parliament (1714) passed The Riot Act ("An act for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies, and for the more speedy and effectual punishing the rioters.")

The act defined the offense of riot" and made riot a felony punishable by death -- but only after the King's "Proclamation to disperse" was proclaimed:

"If twelve [persons] or more, unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assemble together, to the disturbance of the public peace, ... and are ... commanded by any ... justice.... , or ... sheriff ... , where such assembly shall be by proclamation, in the form hereinafter directed, to disperse ... and peaceably to depart to their habitations, ... should ... twelve or more (notwithstanding such proclamation made) unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously remain together ... for one hour after such ... proclamation, ... [they] shall be adjudged felons ... and shall suffer death."

The act specified both the form of the proclamation, and how it was to be made:

"The justice of the peace [or other authorized person] shall [go] among the said rioters, or as near to them as he can safely come, [and] with a ... loud voice make ... the proclamation in these words: 'Our sovereign Lord the King ... commandeth all persons ... assembled, immediately to disperse ... and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act ... for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King."

It is from this act that we get the expression, "He read them the riot act."

Recall, "Disperse, ye rebels" at Concord Bridge?

Our First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note that the operative word is "peaceably." Mob actions, unlawful assemblies and riots -- which by definition are not peaceful -- are beyond the pale of First Amendment protection.

Modern-day Illinois law also makes provision for suppressing mobs, riots and disturbance. "Whenever there is a tumult, riot, mob ... of persons acting together by force ... to commit felony, or to offer violence to persons or property, the Governor has a duty ... to order such military force ... to aid the civil authorities in suppressing such violence and executing the law."

The governor's order specifies "only the work to be done" and that "It shall not include the method to be employed." It also says the "military officer present shall exercise his discretion and be the sole judge as to what means are necessary."

The law also provides: "Whenever 12 or more persons, any of them armed with clubs or dangerous weapons, or 30 or more, armed or unarmed are unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled, it is the duty of the commanding officer of such military force ... present on duty, to go among the persons so assembled, or as near them as safety will permit, and in the name of the State command them immediately to disperse, and if they do not obey, every person refusing to disperse shall be deemed one of the unlawful assembly and shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor...

When those unlawfully assembled refuse to disperse, the officer in command has the duty of suppressing the assembly "in such manner as may be most expedient." If in the process, rioters or spectators are killed or wounded, the military personnel "shall be held guiltless of any crime and justified in law."

What should be noted is that once the National Guard is sent in, the commanding officer present exercises his discretion and is the "sole judge as to what means necessary."

One caveat: While the soldiers acting to suppress the riot are immune under Illinois law, they are still subject to being charged with civil or criminal federal civil rights violations, if they use excessive force.


Posted: QCOline.com November 25, 2016
Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Time to Review our "Fundamental Principles"

We have just elected our 45th president. Therefore, this is an ideal time to review the principles which have come to be America's "fundamental principles."

The principles that I am referring to appear in our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. But they appeared some 13 years earlier in The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, and adopted by the 1776 Virginia Constitutional Convention. Jefferson, who drew our Declaration of Independence, and the men who drew our Constitution, respected and borrowed lavishly from Mason's Declaration. Here are some excerpts:

"Section 1. All men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights ... which ... they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

"Section 2. All power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people ... magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

"Section 3. Government is ... instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes ... of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. When any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an ... inalienable ... right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

"Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community ... neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

"Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken. The vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

"Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.

"Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

"Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments. ...

"Section 15. That no free government, or ... liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

I have omitted Sections 8 -11, and 13 and 14 owing to space limitations. Eventually they became amendments tow and four through eight of our Bill of Rights. Mason generally is deemed the "Father of our Bill of Rights."

Note that George Mason not only sets out his principles, but frequently explains the need for them. If all men are equally free and have inherent right" to life and liberty, and to pursue happiness, and possess property, they cannot deprive their children (who are also "men") of those rights. Public officers are "trustees and servants."

The best governments produce "happiness and safety;" and protects against "maladministration." Nobody is entitled to "special emoluments or privileges."

Public officers, after "fixed periods" of service, should return to private life. Nobody, including the president, has the power of "suspending ... the execution of laws."

"Free government, and the blessings of liberty" can only be preserved by "frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

George Mason was one of three delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention who refused to sign the proposed Constitution -- largely because it contained no Bill of Rights.


Posted: QCOline.com November 20, 2016
Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Seven Lawyers I Would Trust with my Liberties

Since Shakespeare, it has been fashionable to hate lawyers - "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Henry VI, Part 2.


Two events recently, have caused me consider that line. The first was the 2016 Presidential election; the second was a recent Bar Association meeting. I only attend one or two RI County Bar Association meetings a year, but on October 20, I went.


Being rather old myself, I found myself sitting with seven other "senior" lawyers - all but one, older than myself. Like myself, three were Notre Dame grads: Jim Coryn, Pete Fieweger, and Frank Edwards. Also present were Curt Trevor, Bob Alvine, Ken Collinson and Bob Scott.


As we dined and visited, I suddenly realized that any of the seven men would have been an infinitely finer candidate for President than either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump.


I met six of these men directly upon moving to RI County in 1966 to work for State's Attorney Dick Stengel. I met Bob Alvine, a few years later. In the fifty years that I have known them, I have never heard a word from anybody impugning - or even questioning - their ethics or their legal competence. All seven were possessed of fine legal minds. All served their profession, their clients and their communities with grace and distinction. Each has had a knowledge of the law which would have allowed them to discuss the great constitutional issues at stake with ease, understanding and grace. I  can say with conviction that during my 26 years on the bench, I was privileged to hear the arguments made by Pete Fieweger, Bob Alvine, et al. I feel certain that anyone of the seven during his prime would have made "mincemeat" of Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton in any Presidential debate, anytime, any where.


Unlike either candidate, when asked about "stop and frisk," "late-term abortion," or the Citizen's United case, any of these men - with modest preparation - would have cogently and persuasively explained the meaning and import of these matters to the American people. None would have "pivoted' (i.e., ignored the question asked, or answered a question not asked). All would have had an informed position on the issues, and all would have clearly explained their respective positions.


To me, the most important issue in this campaign was "what sort of judge will you (Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton) nominate the the U.S. Supreme Court? I see our government slowly - but persistently - "nipping away" at our liberties as understood by the men who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In lieu of "individual liberty" we are offered "equality/income redistribution."


Our founding fathers understood that Kings - and even Democracies - will always chisel away at personal liberties, in the name of some other perceived good - equality, national security, financial security, etc. And in the end, the King, with his prosecutors and powers of taxation, always wins; and the liberties of the people are always subverted.


At the third Presidential debate Chris Wallace asked Mrs. Clinton: “Do the Founders’ words mean what they say or is the Constitution a "living document" to be applied flexibly according to changing circumstances?” That was a false choice.


The real question is this: Taking for granted the our Constitution and Bill of Rights were crafted to govern American life not only in 1789, but also in the ensuing decades and centuries, (and is therefore a "living document"), do you believe it should be construed to carry out the intent of the men who wrote it, or should it be construed to carry out the intent of later political men, such as George Wallace, Richard Nixon, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or whatever politically appointed judge who happens to be hearing the case, as they think best?


I am satisfied that my liberties would be secure in a modern cell-phone case under our Constitution if Washington, Adams or Lincoln were the judges. I have no such confidence in Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton. But I would feel secure if any of the seven lawyers named above, were the judge.


The bottom line: Speak well of good lawyers.

Posted: QCOline.com November 6, 2016


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

On Taxes, Who is JFK's True Heir? Trump; not Clinton

Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be our next president.

Mrs. Clinton wants to raise federal income tax rates. Mr. Trump wants to lower them. Mrs. Clinton claims Mr. Trump's plan will increase annual deficits, and increase the national debt -- the total of our annual deficit -- which as I write has exceeded $22 trillion. Mr. Trump believes lowering tax rates will, paradoxically, raise government revenues.

Why?


His first premise is that when personal and corporate incomes rise, those individuals and corporations pay more in federal income taxes. For purposes of illustration, ignore Mr. Trump's tax plan, and consider what happens when an individual's income doubles under the present tax code.

Last year, if you were a single woman and your taxable income was $100,000, you paid $21,064 in federal income tax. If you were single and your taxable income was $200,000, you paid a federal income tax of $46,606.25. You paid that much because once your taxable income reached $189,300, your tax rate increased from 28 percent to 33 percent. (At a net income of $411,500, the tax rate increased to 35 percent; at $413,200 the tax rate increased to 39.6 percent -- the highest rate.)

Mr. Trump's second premise is that it is impossible for a nation to be prosperous unless its taxpayers are also prosperous. The corollary to that is a taxpayer's prosperity is reduced in direct proportion to the amount of taxes paid. A taxpayer with a $200,000 per year net income who pays a federal income tax of $46,606.25 will be less prosperous if you increase his taxes by $10,000 (and the government will be $10,000 more prosperous).

Mr. Trump looks at the American economy, and he accurately sees wage stagnation. A Dec. 9, 2015, Pew Research Center study confirms his belief.

According to that study, the median income, in 2014 dollars, scaled to reflect a family of three in the year 2000 was: Lower class, $26,496; middle class, $76,819; upper class, $180,769. The median income for the same family in 2014 was: Lower class, $24,474; middle class, $73,392; upper class, $174,626.

Mr. Trump would contend that the vaunted "Obama recovery," is a recovery in name only -- political spin. And given wage stagnation, he sees that increasing the tax rates on "the rich," as Mrs. Clinton proposes, won't eliminate the deficit. There simply are not enough rich people.

You could tax "the rich" at a rate of 100 percent, and rather than eliminating the deficit, you might well push the country from recession to depression.


Accordingly, Mr. Trump's third premise is that the only way to cure the deficit and pay down the national debt is by raising the earnings of rich, middle class and poor alike.

When incomes go up, tax collections go up. If our single woman's income increases from $100,000 to $110,000, she pays an extra $2,800 in taxes. If a person on welfare gets a job that pays enough for him to have a taxable income, that also increases tax revenues. And when the rich and corporations have more income, they historically expand their businesses and hire.

In December of 1962, John F. Kennedy addressed the Economic Club of New York and said:

"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system. This administration pledged itself ... to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes. ...

"Our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... It siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. ... To increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures."

If Jack Kennedy was right, Trump is right and Hillary is wrong.


Posted: QCOline.com October 14, 2016


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

School Tax Promoters Are Like Spoiled Children

For the fourth time since 2009, Rock Island County voters will be asked to approve a 1 percent sales tax to be “used exclusively for school facility purposes.”

Voters defeated similar proposals in 2009, 2014 and 2015.

According to an Aug. 6 Dispatch-Argus article, “School officials say passage of a 1 percent sales tax is critical ... Along with infrastructure work needed in the districts, school officials say there is a potential loss of students and families to Scott County in Iowa which already has a 1 percent sales tax dedicated to improve district facilities.”


Business owner Pryce T. Boeye points out that what school officials say is misleading. “What they forget to mention is, with the school sales tax in Iowa, the sales tax is a total of 7 percent. ... That’s already built into their sales tax.” (Mr. Boeye is not an enemy of education; he serves as a director of the Rock Island-Milan Education Foundation).

What Mr. Boeye is saying is that the general sales tax in Moline and Rock Island is already 7.5 percent, but that each city already collects an additional 1.5 percent on sales of liquor and prepared foods. People who buy food at Mr. Boeye’s Hungry Hobos already pay a 9 percent Illinois sales tax. If the school officials get their way, it will be 10 percent. But the county is also asking the voters to pass its half cent referendum!

The bottom line is this: The Scott County sales tax totals 7 percent; if these two referenda are approved, the total general sales tax in Moline and Rock Island will be 9 percent; and the sales tax on liquor and prepared foods will be increased to 10.5 percent -- 3.5 percent greater than in Scott County.

In his Aug. 12 letter to the editor, Lawrence Bay, of Port Byron, writes, “The arguments for and against the 1 percent school sales tax remain as they were when the voters wisely rejected this tax in 2009, 2014 and 2015. It should again be rejected for the same reasons.”

But there are additional good reasons for voting “no” on the School’s 1 percent sales tax.

Look at your 2015 (payable in 2016) Rock Island County real estate tax bill. Mine shows a total tax rate of 9.3085, with a school tax rate of 5.1120.

That means 54.9 percent of my real estate taxes already go to Moline schools! District 40 already gets more of my real estate taxes than Moline, Rock Island County, and Black Hawk College -- indeed, everybody else combined! And whatever tax we pay to support the schools is never enough.

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, District 40 spent $97,748,395 on “Instruction, Support Services, Tuition Paid to Other Districts, and Debt Service,” to educate 7,370 students. That’s $13,263 per student. And that doesn’t include pensions.

We are told by school officials proceeds from the 1 percent sales tax will be “used exclusively for school facility purposes.” So why are they short of money for facility purposes? Is it possible that Moline District 40 is short of money because they just spent $17 million to “upgrade” Hamilton School (and closed Garfield and Ericsson)?

Mr. Boeye gives an alternative answer: “By and large, money is going to salaries, benefits, pensions. If facilities are a priority, they need to make that a point in labor negotiations. ... I think unions might be open to that.” Really? Good luck!

If you think, you are undertaxed, this is what the Huffington Post wrote on Feb. 25:

“Illinoisans pay a lot in property taxes compared to the rest of the nation -- the state has the second-highest property taxes in the country, almost double the national average. But what you pay depends on where you live, and some residents are spending a lot more than others ... “Rock Island County, IL: Median Home Value: $113,800; Median Annual Property Tax Payment: $2,455.”

As previously stated, 54.9 percent of our real estate taxes already go to the schools.

So, the schools want a 1 percent sales tax increase. The county wants a half cent. Speaker Madigan, D-Chicago, wants to raise the Illinois income tax from 3.75 percent to at least 5 percent.

Rock Island County has already increased real estate taxes 16 percent. Sewer and water rates are up in the cities.

It’s like dealing with spoiled children!


Posted: QCOline.com October 7, 2016


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Presidential Election - the Ultimate Jury Trial

I recently received and watched a 16.6 minute YouTube video featuring Dr. Ted Noel, the former director of NovaMed Surgery Center in Orlando, Fla.


Dr. Noel states up front that he is not Hillary Clinton's medical doctor, has not examined her, and that he is not a Hillary Clinton supporter. Based on videos of Hillary Clinton since 2005, he concludes that she suffers from Parkinson's Disease, and for that reason, that she is unfit to serve as president.


Snopes writes to debunk what Dr. Noel has said; they could be correct. But watch Dr. Noel's video yourself: You judge: youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1IDQ2V1eM



Hillary Clinton is 68 years of age. In her Sept. 26 debate with Donald Trump she looked healthy. She evidenced none of the problems shown in Dr. Noel's video. Her own doctor, who treated her after the 9/11 incident, states that her stumble/collapse into the limo on that date was caused by pneumonia.


But Hillary Clinton's health is not just a private matter. She wants to be our president. Mrs. Clinton correctly argues that the American people need to see Mr. Trump's tax returns. Given the history of Mrs. Clinton's health issues detailed in Dr. Noel's video, full disclosure of Mrs. Clinton's medical records from and after her fall in 2005 is as much or more important as disclosure of Mr. Trump's tax returns.


The bottom line is this: Every American has a right to draw his own conclusions as to Mrs. Clinton's physical ability to execute the office of the presidency. Those conclusions can be reasonable conclusions, only if the voters have all the relevant facts; not merely those Mrs. Clinton chooses to dribble out.


Jurors in civil and criminal cases are "judges of the facts." They make the ultimate medical conclusions, e.g., "diagnoses," every day in our courts. Observable facts of the plaintiff's condition are set before them: e.g., Mr. Jones fell, was hospitalized; had no history of seizures before the fall, and has seizured since, etc. The doctors ("expert witnesses") give their opinions as to those facts. (Note: those doctors need not be the "treating physician." They can be any doctor whose training or experience enables him to assist the jurors in their determination.) But in the end, it is the "12 plumbers" who decide if the plaintiff seizures and why the plaintiff seizures. And the nature and extent of plaintiff's disability.


When It comes to electing a president, the voters are the "jurors." It is the duty of the candidates to make full disclosure of their falls, stumbles, collapses, strokes, blood clots, periods of convalescence and disability, etc. Once they do, the "experts" can voice their opinions. But the ultimate decision on the candidates mental and physical fitness is for the voters.


Dr. Noel's video documents Mrs. Clinton falling on three different occasions, beginning in 2005; the worst/last occurred in December 2012 when she suffered a concussion, followed by a blood clot. It took her six months to recover. A still photo shows her having great difficulty climbing six typical porch steps. Another shows staff having to assist her as she attempts to enter the back seat of a limo. More recently, on Sept. 11, 2016, she stumbled/collapsed again. Other videos have emerged showing her suffering prolonged coughing spasms. She travels with a physician at her side.


The above events were all photographed or caught on tape. They cannot be denied. But were there others? If so, how serious were they?



Hillary has previously told the FBI that after her 2012 fall/concussion she had memory loss, a blood clot and could only work part-time. Why?


In January 2013, Huma Abedin, Hillary's closest adviser, wrote in an email that Hillary is "often confused." Julian Assange ("Wikileaks") has released emails in which Mrs. Clinton directed her staff to research drugs to treat Parkinson's. Why?


It is critically important that Hillary Clinton be examined by a group of impartial doctors -- not including her own personal doctor. Donald Trump should do the same.


Being president is the most grueling job in the world. Every military recruit gets a physical; why not the commander-in-chief?


(Note: In a longer 31.5 minute video interview (at: youtube.com/watch?v=8XtIzH9HoC8), Dr. Noel lists numerous symptoms on which he bases his medical conclusions.)




Posted: QCOline.com September 30, 2016


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Nothing Wise, Safe about What Clinton Calls 'Smart Power'

On December 3, 2014, Hillary Clinton spoke at Georgetown University, saying:

“This is what we call smart power. Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change -- change the prospects for peace.”

When I first heard this speech, my first reaction was, this is inane; did she really say those things?

Twenty months later, I feel the same.

What she said was inane. Banal blather.

In the 20 months that have passed, America has seen its enemies in action.

We have watched North Korea develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

We have been trying to “empathize” with the North Korean dictators since the days of Bill Clinton to convince North Korea to give up its goal of having nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. We have provided them with bribes galore in the form of food and energy. In return, they have covertly built their WMDs and missiles, and most recently have fired three off -- sticking them up the noses of President Obama and the other gathered world leaders.

Has empathizing with their point of view induced them to forego their weapon’s programs? Has showing respect for the pot-bellied dictator advanced peace and security? Provided solutions?

Just this last week we have seen an Afghan immigrant who we brought to America and gave citizenship to, plant a number of bombs designed to kill and maim innocent American men, women and children. Earlier we saw two brothers plant pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon which killed and tore of the legs off nearby children.

How did we fail to show respect for them?

How does one understand the perspective and point of view of someone who sneaks around and plants bombs on street corners designed to slaughter women and children? Why would anyone in their right mind empathize with such miscreants?

In Africa, Boko Haran kidnaps 300 young teenage girls, and either forces them into marriages or sells them off as slaves. Do you really feel showing respect for these barbarians will advance 21st century peace?

Change the prospects for peace?

Would you empathize with someone who did this to your 11-year-old daughter?

Do you really believe we should try, so far as possible, to empathize with Boko Haran’s perspective and point of view?


In recent months we have employed “smart power” in our negotiations with Iran.

We have ended sanctions, paid them billions of dollars and paid ransom. And to what effect?

They make mock runs at our naval vessels, threaten to shoot down our airplanes, take more hostages, and provide support to terrorist groups around the world.

Negotiations make sense.

Real peace is better than war. But when your enemy uses negotiations to prepare for war, or to take steps that make America far less secure (such as N. Korea building WMDs and ballistic missile), then Mrs. Clinton’s “smart power” is delusion.

Or do you really believe that negotiating with ISIS will deter them from beheading captives, burning captured pilots in cages, or inducing ISIS wannabees in our country from killing Americans in our shopping malls?

We are told that Mrs. Clinton is the most qualified person ever to run for president.

That is not what her “smart power speech” indicates to me.

By John Donald O'Shea
Sep 23, 2016

It’s Killers, not Jurors who Inflict Cruel, Unusual Punishment

An op-ed writer, unlike a sitting judge, can assume that a defendant will be found guilty.

I am doing precisely that to make my points.

Two nurse practitioners, Sister Margaret Held and Sister Paula Merrill, “the sweetest, most gentle women you can imagine” were found knifed to death in their rural Holmes County Mississippi home on Aug. 25.

Their life’s work was to provide flu shots, insulin and other medical care for children and adults who couldn’t afford it. Sister Paula had served the poor of the county for 30 years. Their Lexington clinic provided about 25 percent of all the medical care in the county of 18,000. “They’d help anybody they could help. They’d give you the shirt off their backs.”

The stark reality is this: These two nuns were deprived of life and liberty without due process of law. Their murderer arrogated unto himself the offices of prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. The nuns were provided no attorneys. They were not allowed to confront nor cross-examine their accuser in open court. They received no trial consistent with the law of the land. They were executed in a summary fashion. For them: no fair trial; no appeal; no constitutional rights.

Now Rodney Earl Sanders has been arrested and charged with two counts of capital murder. It appears Sanders was released from prison in December 2015 after serving nine months for a felony driving under the influence conviction -- as per the Mississippi DOC. Their records are said to show that he also did prison time from the mid 1980s to early 1990s for armed robbery.

If Sanders is indeed prosecuted, all the rights he denied to Sisters Margaret and Paula will be lavished upon him. And if the prosecutor seeks the death penalty, and if Sanders is convicted and sentenced to death, a phalanx of lawyers and other “enlightened individuals” will trip over themselves to ensure that Sanders escapes the death penalty.

They’ll argue the death penalty is “too random.” That one murderer escapes the death sentence while the next murderer gets it. They will call any method of execution, “cruel and unusual punishment!”

When his case gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be heard by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonja Sotomayer and Elana Kagen -- “progressive” judges who are certain that their own notions of “cruel and unusual punishment” are superior to those of the men who wrote and adopted our Constitution.

Sander’s appeal would afford them one more opportunity to abolish the death penalty -- not withstanding the fact that the men who wrote the Constitution specifically acknowledged that the state could impose the death penalty, as long as trial was pursuant to indictment, and due process was accorded the defendant.

Do not misunderstand me. I do not believe that the death penalty is appropriate in every murder case, or even in this case. But in some cases, the FACTS of the case justify imposition of the death penalty.

And because whether the death penalty should be imposed is preeminently a “fact question,” and since juries (not judges) determine questions of fact under our Constitution, the question of whether the death penalty is appropriate in light of all the facts of the case is a question for ordinary citizens and not judges (government functionaries).

A 12-man jury brings 12 different judgments to all the great issues: Can the murderer be rehabilitated? Will imprisonment adequately protect the public? Is death proportionate to defendant’s offense? Will life deprecate the enormity of the murder? Considering the facts, Is death deserved?

The people of the U.S., of course, can amend the Constitution to abolish the death penalty. But the notion that judges can effectively declare two express provisions of the Constitution unconstitutional, is nothing more than judicial fiat, judicial usurpation, and judicial misconduct.

If the facts are as alleged, it seems to me Sanders is an excellent candidate for any usual form of execution. His sentence will be far less “random” than the death penalties he imposed upon his victims. And perhaps because I presided over so many jury trials, I’ve come to trust juries more than I trust judges.


Posted: QCOline.com September 9, 2016

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

It’s Killers, not Jurors who Inflict Cruel, Unusual Punishment

An op-ed writer, unlike a sitting judge, can assume that a defendant will be found guilty.

I am doing precisely that to make my points.

Two nurse practitioners, Sister Margaret Held and Sister Paula Merrill, “the sweetest, most gentle women you can imagine” were found knifed to death in their rural Holmes County Mississippi home on Aug. 25.

Their life’s work was to provide flu shots, insulin and other medical care for children and adults who couldn’t afford it. Sister Paula had served the poor of the county for 30 years. Their Lexington clinic provided about 25 percent of all the medical care in the county of 18,000. “They’d help anybody they could help. They’d give you the shirt off their backs.”

The stark reality is this: These two nuns were deprived of life and liberty without due process of law. Their murderer arrogated unto himself the offices of prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. The nuns were provided no attorneys. They were not allowed to confront nor cross-examine their accuser in open court. They received no trial consistent with the law of the land. They were executed in a summary fashion. For them: no fair trial; no appeal; no constitutional rights.

Now Rodney Earl Sanders has been arrested and charged with two counts of capital murder. It appears Sanders was released from prison in December 2015 after serving nine months for a felony driving under the influence conviction -- as per the Mississippi DOC. Their records are said to show that he also did prison time from the mid 1980s to early 1990s for armed robbery.

If Sanders is indeed prosecuted, all the rights he denied to Sisters Margaret and Paula will be lavished upon him. And if the prosecutor seeks the death penalty, and if Sanders is convicted and sentenced to death, a phalanx of lawyers and other “enlightened individuals” will trip over themselves to ensure that Sanders escapes the death penalty.

They’ll argue the death penalty is “too random.” That one murderer escapes the death sentence while the next murderer gets it. They will call any method of execution, “cruel and unusual punishment!”

When his case gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be heard by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonja Sotomayer and Elana Kagen -- “progressive” judges who are certain that their own notions of “cruel and unusual punishment” are superior to those of the men who wrote and adopted our Constitution.

Sander’s appeal would afford them one more opportunity to abolish the death penalty -- not withstanding the fact that the men who wrote the Constitution specifically acknowledged that the state could impose the death penalty, as long as trial was pursuant to indictment, and due process was accorded the defendant.

Do not misunderstand me. I do not believe that the death penalty is appropriate in every murder case, or even in this case. But in some cases, the FACTS of the case justify imposition of the death penalty.

And because whether the death penalty should be imposed is preeminently a “fact question,” and since juries (not judges) determine questions of fact under our Constitution, the question of whether the death penalty is appropriate in light of all the facts of the case is a question for ordinary citizens and not judges (government functionaries).

A 12-man jury brings 12 different judgments to all the great issues: Can the murderer be rehabilitated? Will imprisonment adequately protect the public? Is death proportionate to defendant’s offense? Will life deprecate the enormity of the murder? Considering the facts, Is death deserved?

The people of the U.S., of course, can amend the Constitution to abolish the death penalty. But the notion that judges can effectively declare two express provisions of the Constitution unconstitutional, is nothing more than judicial fiat, judicial usurpation, and judicial misconduct.

If the facts are as alleged, it seems to me Sanders is an excellent candidate for any usual form of execution. His sentence will be far less “random” than the death penalties he imposed upon his victims. And perhaps because I presided over so many jury trials, I’ve come to trust juries more than I trust judges.


QCOline.com September 9, 2016

Copyright, John Donald O'Shea

Lessons for US in Venezuelan Socialist "Utopia"

In 1999, the Venezuelan people elected socialist/Marxist Hugo Chavez as president. He promised a socialist paradise. Chavez clung to office until his death in 2013.

During his "term," Chavez expropriated property from the rich and redistributed it to the poor, giving them new homes and appliances. Chavez was succeeded by hand-picked Vice President Nicolas Maduro.

Now, three years later, 1.85 million Venezuelans signed petitions to remove Maduro from office. (Nine times the number needed to begin the process!) Maduro's electoral commission refuses to hold the election, claiming fraud! Maduro's approval rating stands at 24.3 percent.

So, what went wrong with the Venezuelan socialist experiment? Its Marxist economy? In short, the money ran out.

The problems did not begin with Maduro. Even in the halcyon Chavez days, when Venezuelan oil sold for $100 a barrel, the nation's debt was rising, and there were food shortages.

Oil accounts for 98 percent of the country's exports; 59 percent of its revenues. When oil dropped to $30 a barrel (it's now about $49), the country's economy tanked.

In 2016, government spending is expected to exceed revenues by 25 percent. The International Monetary Fund projects inflation will reach 4,505 percent by 2021.

The nation's capital, Caracas, has become the world's most violent city. In socialist utopian Venezuela, equality has been achieved; everybody's without hope!

Recently, a plastic bag stuffed with toilet paper rolls sold for 9,000 Bolivars. A bag of fruit and vegetables that could be purchased for 430 Bolivars in April of 2015, now costs 14,000 Bolivars. A Venezuela worker's average monthly salary is 15,000 Bolivars.

To offset the plunge in oil revenues, the government drastically cut imports to 2004 levels.

The result? Across-the-board shortages of milk, razors, cough syrup, toothpaste, toilet paper and baby wipes -- things you now get only on the black market. Hospitals and pharmacies are desperately short of even the most basic medicines, such as amoxycillin. In markets where prices are government controlled, shelves are half-empty.

To make things worse, a prolonged drought has reduced to oversized puddles the Venezuelan lakes which provide water to the country's hydroelectric dams. Less water means less electricity. The government's response? Rolling blackouts, two-day work weeks for public sector workers, and Friday school closings.

Venezuela nationalized profitable private businesses. Managers were replaced to provide jobs for the poor. But because appointees lacked management skills, once-profitable businesses went bankrupt.

-- On Jan. 15, President Maduro declared a 60-day state of economic emergency, allowing the government to seize assets of private companies to obtain essential food and goods.

-- On Feb. 18, Maduro raised the price of gasoline -- frozen for the past 20 years at $0.01 per liter, to $0.60 -- while devaluing the Bolivar and increasing the minimum wage.

-- On April 21, Maduro imposed electricity blackouts to last four hours per day for 40 days in several states.

-- On April 27, Maduro cut the working week for public-sector employees to two days to save electricity.

-- On May 15, the government said their will be no recall vote due to "fraud."

-- On May 18, Venezuelans took to the street, and Maduro responded that he is prepared to escalate the state of emergency.

-- On July 22, President Maduro, issued a presidential decree: "people working in public and private companies can be called upon to join state-sponsored organizations specialized in the production of food. They will be made to work in the new companies temporarily for a minimum of 60 days after which their 'contracts' will be automatically renewed for an extra 60-day period or they will be allowed to go back to their original jobs."
Amnesty International said that "new decree establishing that any employee in Venezuela can be effectively made to work in the country’s fields as a way to fight the current food crisis is unlawful, and effectively amounts to forced labour -- even if paid their old wages."

Forced labor equals slavery.

It has taken Chavez and Maduro 17 years to transition from capitalism to socialism to slavery. President Obama has started a similar process here. Hillary proposes to serve his "third term."


Posted: Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2016 - QCOline.com

Copyright 2016

John Donald O'Shea

Remember LBJ When You Vote in November

A prominent Rock Island attorney once told me that “if a man lacks integrity, he is unfit to be a judge -- even if he possesses the wisdom of Solomon, all the legal ability in the world, a God-like temperament, and passion for work.”

If you are a woman, would you marry a man who you know to be an habitual liar? Who lies in matters large and small? Why? For wealth? Security?

Would you hire an attorney who lies as the means to achieve his ends? A compulsive liar? A man without integrity who lies to you?

Would you employ a doctor who lies? A doctor who you knew would recommend hip replacement surgery, even if he knew you didn’t need it? Simply to get rich?

In just over three months, we will elect a president of the United States. Are you willing to elect a liar?

The next president will have power to send your children to death. If you elect a known liar, how could you ever trust him when he or she tells the nation, “War is necessary?” When you know he will use lies to achieve his ends? Think it couldn’t happen? Just remember LBJ!

I can distinctly recall President Johnson and his secretary of defense telling us that our warships were attacked without provocation in “international waters” by North Vietnamese patrol boats. I can recall his secretary of defense telling Congress that our destroyers played no part in covert South Vietnamese commando operations against North Vietnamese military installations, when in fact our people had planned the commando operations and provided intelligence to the South Vietnamese.

As a result of these lies/half-truths, Congress gave LBJ a blank check to retaliate, and by the time our “retaliation” had ended, 50,000 American boys died in a god-forsaken jungle war, half way around the globe.

I want to know that when the president tells us, “We must go to war,” he is telling us the truth -- the whole truth -- and nothing but the truth.

This November, we have the option of electing the first female president -- a woman who rarely if ever tells the truth. A woman who believes the ends justify the means. A woman who lies when there’s no reason to lie: e.g., My daughter and I came under sniper fire on a tarmac in Bosnia. A woman who lies in bigger things: the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was precipitated by an Internet movie, while contemporaneously telling her daughter, Chelsea, that it was a terrorist attack. A woman who lies in big things, such as, there no classified emails on her personal server, when according to FBI Director Comey there were not only classified emails, but even top secret emails.

This fall a great many Americans will cast their presidential vote for a woman who lies whenever she perceives it to be in her best interest. And a hypocrite who accepts $250,000-plus per speech from the same Wall Street “fat-cats” she denounces on the hustings.

I can only explain this phenomenon by looking at the promises she has made to the American people -- to provide free goodies. She understands that no one votes against Santa. When she promises free college education, forgiveness of student loans and “universal quality affordable health care for everyone (which would include illegal aliens) in America,” she becomes a living, breathing Santa.

LBJ promised us a “War on Poverty.” Instead we got a different war. His lies got us into Vietnam and 50,000 American boys died. Whatever the goodies promised, voting for a known liar isn’t worth the risk.

P.S. Unfortunately, Hillary’s opponent is Trump. But he has, at least, promised to appoint Supreme Court judges who will construe the Constitution consistently with the intent of the “men who wrote it.” The Founding Fathers understood from experience that liberty could not coexist with an “all-powerful central government.”

Washington and Madison’s construction of the Constitution, or the “more-enlightened” construction of whichever judge happens to be sitting on the bench. That is your choice.


Posted: Wednesday, August 12, 2016 - QCOline.com

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Why Can't Obama See, Drug Dealers Deal Death?

As fast as U.S. attorneys and federal judges imprison cocaine and heroin dealers, President Obama seemingly commutes their sentences, and puts them back on the street, naively or disingenuously describing them as "non-violent offenders."




On July 24, The Dispatch ran an article captioned "RICo sees rise in fatal heroin overdoses."

Justin Gengler is dead; his grandmother believes the cause of his death was heroin. According to the Rock Island County coroner, "Since 2011 there have been 39 fatal heroin overdoses in Rock Island County, with victims ... ranging in age from 19 to 59."

The article adds, "State and federal prosecutors are increasingly filing homicide-related charges against people accused of providing heroin that led to an overdose death" for wantonly providing drugs that kill.

But while prosecutors more and more may be filing homicide-related charges, Whitehouse.gov boasts, in some detail, of President Obama's drug-dealer sentence commutations.

On March 30, the administration announced sentence commutations for 61 drug offenders. Twelve of those "non-violent" 61, had also been convicted of related firearm offenses. These March 30 commutations brought the total of Obama drug-offense commutations to 248 -- more than the six prior presidents combined!

Those commutations include:


1. Carmel Bretous, Miami, Fla. Conspiracy to import at least five kilograms of cocaine; importation of five kilograms of cocaine; conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine; possession with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine; Sentence: 235 months' imprisonment; five years' supervised release (Nov. 6, 2001) Commuted to: Prison sentence commuted to expire on July 28, 2016.

2. Dexter Lanoyd Dickens, Panama City, Fla. Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine; distribution of a mixture or substance containing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (four counts); principal to distribution and possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing cocaine; distribution and possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing cocaine; possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine; Sentence: Life imprisonment; 10 years' supervised release (Dec. 17, 2004). Commuted to: Sentence expired on July 28, 2016.

3. Bernard Beard, Compton, Calif. Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, heroin, and phencyclidine (PCP); felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; Sentence: 240 months' imprisonment; five years' supervised release (May 22, 2009). Commuted to: Sentence expired on July 28, 2016.

4. Ernest Spiller, East St. Louis. Distribution of crack cocaine (two counts); maintaining a crack house; possession of a firearm in further of a drug trafficking crime; felon in possession of a firearm. Sentence: 352 months' imprisonment; three years' supervised release; $1,000 fine (Aug. 3, 2000). Commuted to: Sentence expired on July 28.

Later, President Obama commuted the sentences of 58 more drug dealers, including Wade Cutchen, Newport News, Va. Offense: Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine; possession with intent to distribute heroin; Sentence 324 months imprisonment; five years supervised release (Sept. 15, 2000); amended to 262 months imprisonment (May 19, 2015). Commuted to: Sentence expires in February 2017.

To speak of these defendants whose sentences have been commuted by Mr. Obama as "non-violent" is utterly disingenuous. These White House summaries clearly do not disclose the defendants' prior convictions. Were these scumbags really first-time offenders? Do you really believe federal judges were imposing sentences of 235 months to life on first-time offenders? Or did they have prior convictions for armed robbery? Distribution of heroin?

Thirty-nine Quad-Cities-area drug users have died from heroin overdoses during the last five years. Every time one of Mr. Obama's "non-violent drug dealers" deals drugs, he deals potential death. And with drug sales, drug wars and gun violence: 340 shot dead; 1,979 shot and wounded in Chicago this year alone.


Posted: Wednesday, August 4, 2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Concealed Carry Prophets of Doom Guessed Wrong

Those who favor stricter gun control in Illinois have operated on the premise -- I believe in good faith -- that allowing the concealed carry of firearms will result in greater gun violence because those with "concealed carry permits" (CCPs) will misuse their weapons.

On July 9, 2013, Illinois became the last state to permit concealed carry -- only after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declared unconstitutional Illinois law prohibiting concealed carry as violation of the Second Amendment. The court gave the legislature 180 days to craft a bill permitting individuals to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense.

Three years have now passed since concealed carry became Illinois law. Because I could recall no news accounts of Illinois CCPs being convicted of firearm violence, I went to the internet to see if there were accounts I might have missed.


The first article I found was a Chicago Tribune piece captioned "In Illinois, concealed carry of guns has quiet first year; expansion sought." To my surprise, the article did not list a single incident of criminal misuse of a firearm by a CCP. The worst "problem" cited involved an incident wherein a CCP lawfully tried to foil an armed robbery by shooting at the fleeing robber in Crestwood, forcing a responding police officer to duck for cover.

As of May 31, 2016, IllinoisCarry states that about 178,000 CCPs are in effect in Illinois. ( illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=61841) So how many of those 178,000 CCPs have been convicted of gun violence or murder?

In checking the internet, I can find only one episode of gun violence by an Illinois CCP -- a murder/suicide. Given the lockstep predisposition of the liberal press to lobby for "stricter gun control," it is inconceivable that if CCPs were using their weapons for murder and violent crimes, that the internet would not be awash with such reports.

Corroborating my research, Chuck Goudie of the ABC-7 Chicago I-Team wrote on Aug. 14, 2015,

"There are now more than 120,000 CCPs in Illinois and it is extremely rare to hear about a permit holder being involved in any violent crime, much less a murder. Friday's (murder/suicide) was the first of 2015 according to police officials, if not the first at all here since Illinois passed concealed carry."

That translates to 1 violent crime per 120,000 CCPs. This is consistent with a July 16, 2015 Report from the Crime Prevention Research Center, entitled "Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States," which concludes, "Permit Holders are Extremely Law-abiding."

"Permit holders on rare occasion violate the law. But in order to truly appreciate how incredibly rare those problems are, one needs to remember that there are over 12.8 million CCPs in the US. Indeed, it is impossible to think of any other group in the US who is anywhere near as law-abiding ...

"Firearms violations among police occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Combining the data for CCPs, in Florida and Texas, it is only 2.4 per 100,000. That is only 1/7th the rate for police officers. The data are similar in other states." (crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015-Report-from-the-Crime-Prevention-Research-Center-Final.pdf)

In Illinois the standards for CCP are rigorous. The applicant, among other things, must have no felony or misdemeanor convictions for crimes of violence, no pending warrants, a full background check, 16 hours of firearms training by a state police-approved instructor, and local law enforcement officers must have no objection.

Additionally, the new law clarifies and expands the reporting requirements relating to individuals who have severe mental health problems. Physicians, clinical psychologists, and qualified examiners must report when they determine that someone poses a clear and present danger, is developmentally disabled, or may be otherwise disqualified from possessing a FOID Card. (For a good summary of the requirements, see: chicagotribune.com/news/ct-obama-gun-control-illinois-impact-met-20160105-9-story.html)


Posted: Wednesday, July 9, 2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Why America Needs Another Harry Truman

This November, we will elect our next president. In November of 1948, I cast my first presidential ballot. I was 7 at the time. I was in second grade.

That "election" was conducted by Sister Mary Margaret at Our Lady of Mercy. I "voted" for Harry S. Truman, Democrat. I was one of only two kids that did. The other thirty-some kids voted for Thomas E. Dewey, Republican.

Like a great many Americans who will vote this fall, I had no clue what either President Truman or Gov. Thomas Dewey stood for. My best recollection is that I voted for Harry Truman "because he was president.”

My vote for Truman, was a vote I have never regretted. And with the passage of years, historians have come to realize that Mr. Truman may well have been one of our greatest presidents.

Truman wasn't always right. But he had the guts to do what he believed was right, regardless of polls, party politics or personal gain.

To end World War II in the Pacific, Harry Truman dropped two atom bombs. It is estimated that those bombs killed 246,000 Japanese. In his memoirs, Mr. Truman estimated that 500,000 Americans would have died had we invaded Japan -- had the bombs not been dropped. Secretary of War Stimson and Winston Churchill estimated 1 million American deaths. Those figures did not include estimates of Japanese deaths.

In February 1948, the president submitted a civil rights agenda to Congress in furtherance of voting rights and fair employment practices for blacks.

This provoked a storm of criticism from Southern Democrats and the split of the Democratic Party. Mr. Truman refused to back down. "My forebears were Confederates ... but my very stomach turned over when I had learned that Negro soldiers, just back from overseas, were being dumped out of Army trucks in Mississippi and beaten."

Tales of the abuse, violence, and persecution against African-American veterans upon their return from World War II infuriated Truman. His response was Executive Order 9981 (July 1948), desegregating and requiring equal opportunity and racial integration in the Armed Forces.

Another executive order made it illegal to discriminate against persons applying for civil service positions based on race.

In 1943, while still a senator, Mr. Truman called for a homeland for Jews who survived Hitler's Holocaust. State Department officials, however, were reluctant to offend the Arabs. Secretary of Defense Forrestal warned Truman of the importance of Saudi oil in the event of war. Truman replied that he would decide his policy on the basis of justice, not oil. Truman recognized Israel over the objections of Secretary of State George Marshall on May 14, 1948.

In 1950, the Senate, led by Estes Kefauver, investigated charges of corruption among internal Revenue officials, and 166 employees either resigned or were fired in 1950. With many soon facing indictment, Attorney General McGrath fired the special prosecutor for being too zealous. Truman fired McGrath. Truman’s plan to reform Internal Revenue was passed by Congress.

In 1952, Mr. Truman, citing his authority as commander-in-chief and the need to maintain an uninterrupted supply of steel for munitions to be used in the Korean War, instructed his secretary of commerce to take control of a number of the nation's steel mills. The Supreme Court found that, without prior Congressional authorization, his actions were unconstitutional.

Mr. Truman supported the creation of the U.N. He established the Berlin Airlift to save Berlin when the Soviets cut-off access. He enunciated the Truman Doctrine to contain the Soviets He won bi-partisan support for the Marshall Plan to rebuild war-torn Europe. He fired Gen. McArthur for insubordination.

And what I like best about him, was that he told the truth.

Harry Truman retired to Missouri a poor man. He had only his WWI army pension. He refused to use the office of the presidency to enrich himself.

Before voting this fall, I recommend you watch the movie "Truman." (It is available on amazon.com.)

Measure how our 2016 candidates measure up against a great president.

Posted: Wednesday, July 16,  2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

First Right Is the Right to Defend Ourselves

As I write, 49 bodies have now been removed from the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla.

Fifty-three more patrons suffered wounds, in the deadliest shooting rampage perpetrated in modern American history. The gunman, Omar Mateen, took a timeout during his shooting spree to call 911 and profess allegiance to the Islamic State.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the shooter first opened fire outside the nightclub, exchanged fire with a uniformed Orlando police officer working security for the nightclub, and entered the club where he began his mass murder spree. By the time additional officers arrived, it was too late for 102 of his victims.


At the time of Mateen's entry, there were 300 unarmed patrons in the club.

The Pulse was a "gun free zone" under Florida law. A number of things are evident from the early news accounts:

1. Mateen ignored the "gun free zone" signs on the doors.

2. The Pulse's "gun free zone" status did not prevent gun violence or save lives. The fact that patrons were unarmed facilitated the slaughter.

3. The fact that an armed officer was working security outside the club did not protect the patrons. The armed terrorist was in the club before the officer could stop him.

4. The police officers responding to the call for help arrived too late to prevent 102 patrons from being shot.

5. Stricter gun laws would probably not have prevented the massacre. France had stricter gun laws, yet the Paris shooters still found a way to get guns.

If Mateen had been unable to acquire a semi-automatic rifle, could he not have achieved the same result using one or more semi-automatic pistols? Or a hand grenades? Is there no black market for these things?

6. Attorney General Loretta Lynch's dicta that the “most effective” weapon at America’s disposal against Islamic terrorism is “love” is absurd. Six million Jews found prayer inadequate against Hitler's Holocaust.

But what if some of the patrons at the Pulse had been armed? What if only 1 percent had been carrying concealed? What if one of them was behind Mateen as he started to shoot? What if one of them was off to his side? What if one was in another portion of the building, and had time to take cover and return fire?

Of course, it is all speculation. But I am guessing that while Mateen would have killed and wounded a number of those present, he would not have had enough time to kill and wound 102. And if 2 percent of the patrons were carrying concealed, he would have had to face six people able to defend themselves and others about them.

Admittedly, they could have hit other patrons by mistake. The police could have, too. Admitting that, I doubt that 49 people would be dead and 53 wounded had six patrons been carrying.

Experience teaches that gun free zones have proved to be superb killing fields for the Dylan Klebolds and radical Islamic terrorists who believe their religion justifies/mandates slaughter of unarmed civilians -- women, children, etc.

There is a partial list of Islamist terrorists attacks since 1980, lest you have forgotten, at                 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks.

The simple fact is, the terrorists are winning. There are not (and never can be) enough police in America to stop the San Bernardinos and Orlandos. There will never be enough police to protect every bar, nightclub, school, amusement park, airport, bus station, wedding, funeral, and every other soft target in the U.S. And when the government is unable (or unwilling) to protect us, we have the most basic of all rights -- the right to defend ourselves.

For many years, when I was a judge, I favored gun control. Wanton Islamic terror has caused me to reconsider. Experience (e.g., Ft. Hood, San Bernardino, Paris, Orlando) teaches that the only way to stop the terrorism is via concealed carry by screened and trained citizens.

So, do we have more to fear from citizens permitted to carry concealed than from terrorists? See my next op ed.


Posted July 1, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016
John Donald O'Shea

To Obama, Whatever You Think You Are, You Are

On May 13 President Obama's Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education issued a directive providing "significant guidance" to schools receiving federal funding.

The directive threatens, "As a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits to, or otherwise treat differently on the basis of sex any person in its educational programs or activities unless expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or its implementing regulations. The Departments treat a student's gender identity as the student's sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity."One activity specifically dealt with in the directive is use of school bath and locker rooms:

"A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity. A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so. A school may, however, make individual-user options available to all students who voluntarily seek additional privacy."

Simply put, if a boy suddenly identifies himself as a girl, he ipso facto becomes a "she" and must not be denied access to female restrooms or locker rooms.

According to the directive, neither birth, genitalia nor DNA determine whether a child is male or female. Every boy can now choose to be a girl, and vice versa. Now, all that matters is how the child self-identifies.

For the Obama's bureaucrats, gender is not something with which one is born; it is merely something "assigned at birth" and recorded on one's birth certificate. As the directive explains:

"Gender identity refers to an individual's internal sense of gender. A person's gender identity may be different from or the same as the person's sex assigned at birth.

"Sex assigned at birth refers to the sex designation recorded on an infant's birth certificate should such a record be provided at birth.

"'Transgender' describes those individuals whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. A transgender male is someone who identifies as male but was assigned the sex of female at birth; a transgender female is someone who identifies as female but was assigned the sex of male at birth."

In Obama's mind, genitals do not determine one's sex. Sex is originally determined by the accident of what a registrar writes on one's birth certificate. A transgender female is no more than a person who some recordkeeper arbitrarily designated at birth to be a "boy," who now -- without more -- identifies as a girl. The directive specifically explains:

"Gender transition refers to the process in which transgender individuals begin asserting the sex that corresponds to their gender identity instead of the sex they were assigned at birth. During gender transition, individuals begin to live and identify as the sex consistent with their gender identity and may dress differently, adopt a new name, and use pronouns consistent with their gender identity. Transgender individuals may undergo gender transition at any stage of their lives, and gender transition can happen swiftly or over a long duration of time."

No, a sex-change operation is not required; nor is a medical diagnosis. All that's required is self-identification. If a boy standing outside a girls' locker room suddenly "identifies" himself as a girl, he she would have the right to enter.

According to the directive:

" ... there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity. Because transgender students often are unable to obtain identification documents that reflect their gender identity ... requiring students to produce such identification documents in order to treat them consistent with their gender identity may violate Title IX.

No, today is not April Fools' Day.


 Posted, May 17, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Why Rock Island County Making Itself the Target of a Lawsuit

Certain Rock Island County Board members and the Public Building Commission are playing a dangerous game.

Their actions could well result in all complicit members being sued for $28 million and millions in attorneys' fees (perhaps non-dischargeable in bankruptcy) for civil rights violations.

Every taxpayer forced to pay an unauthorized tax has standing to sue -- both for himself, and those "similarly situated."


The 14th Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process. Due process means "in accordance with the law of the land" (i.e., Illinois).

A county, if authorized by Illinois law, may impose and collect a tax. But unless a particular tax is authorized by the Constitution or laws of Illinois, a county is without power to impose it. For example, if the Constitution provides that no city can impose an income tax, then no city can impose an income tax.

The same is true when a county board is by law authorized to impose a tax only after a referendum. Against that, consider the following facts, most of which have been lifted from the "friendly" little lawsuit recently brought against the Public Building Commission.

(By "friendly" I mean, why no motion for an outside judge? Why no appeal?)

The Public Building Commission was created for the sole purpose of providing "a good and sufficient jail." When a building commission is created for a sole purpose it is created for that purpose only -- for a limited purpose.

Now that commission and the county board want to use the commission to build a Justice Center Annex containing courtrooms. No additional jail cells, (other than possible temporary holding cells for prisoners who are brought to court) are part of the planned Justice Center proposal.

There is a statutory procedure for a county to expand the purpose of a public building Commission:

"The purpose of a public building commission created by the county board ... may not be expanded until the question of expanding the purpose of the ... commission has been submitted to the electors ... at a regular election and approved by a majority of the electors voting on the question."

Illinois law unambiguously states that the county board may not expand the purposes of a public building commission without a referendum.


When the board charges ahead, claiming no referendum is needed, and levies a tax to pay for the Public Building Commission's new jail annex project, it clearly purports to be acting "under color of (some) law," and in imposing their tax, it clearly will be taking "property" from persons.

It justifies its actions claiming the courthouse annex is really just a part of the jail. Really? A jail is a place where you put prisoners. A courthouse, in essence, is a place where judges and juries try lawsuits. (A courthouse need not include a recorder of deeds, or a county clerk's office; but it always includes courtrooms).

Jails, controlled by the sheriff, are part of the executive department. A jail doesn't become a courthouse simply because clever county board members say so.

People freely enter and leave a courthouse. Except for prisoners being brought to court, people entering the courthouse are not in handcuffs, are not under guard, and wear no orange suits,

A courthouse essentially consists of courtrooms, and facilities for judges and jurors. Judges and juries work in courtrooms; not in jail cells. Courtrooms, run by judges, are part of the judicial department. Courthouses are not places of imprisonment.

When the present county jail was built, everybody knew what the resolution meant when it said: For the "sole purpose" of providing "a good and sufficient jail." The original intent was clear. It was sold as a jail. A jail was authorized. A jail was built. Not a courthouse!

Now that resolution is seen by the judges and many members of the county board as a "living document," meaning, "anything they want it to mean."


Posted: May 10, 2016, QCOnline.com

Copyright 2016
John Donald O'Shea

Great Chicago to Moline Train Boondoggle

If rail passenger service between Moline and Chicago is a money-making proposition, why was service dropped in 1978? Why hasn't some railroad or entrepreneur re-instituted service during the last 38 years?

A May 12 Dispatch/Argus editorial endorsed the project.

"The overall project cost is $222 million with $177 million coming from the federal government. The state's commitment is $45 million. The Moline ... station is also being funded by the state."

It is claimed that the new Amtrak route will bring "businessmen, families and tourists to and from the Quad-Cities, and provide jobs."

"It has been estimated the Q-C route would produce as many as 200,000 (548 per day) passengers per year."

Sound good? Here's what an April 14, 2008 Amtrak feasibility study projected:


1. One-way trip from Moline to Chicago:

a) 4 hours using existing tracks; b) 3 hours, 35 minutes on hours improved 60 mph tracks; c) or 3 

hours 20 minutes on improved 79 mph tracks.

2. Estimated the annual ridership (round trip):


a) 90,000 on existing tracks; b) 102,000 on 60 mph tracks; c) 110,000 on 79 mph tracks.


3. Projected route revenues:


a) $2.1 million on existing tracks; b) $2.4 million on 60 mph tracks; c) $2.6 million on 79 mph tracks.


4. Estimated annual operating expenses:


a) $8.4 million on unimproved tracks; b) $8.4 on 60 mph tracks; c) $8.5 million on 79 mph tracks. (amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Content_C/1241267400916/1241245669129).


In short, as per the Amtrak feasibility study on unimproved, or on 60 mph tracks, the train to Chicago will lose $6 million annually; on 79 mph tracks, it will lose a mere $5.9 million.


What if the losses are understated? Rail and Reason, in an April 13, 2013 piece captioned, "Seat mile and passenger mile costs for Amtrak," says they are.


The Hoosier State Route (Chicago to Indianapolis) computes:


-- Cost per passenger mile: $0.835;


-- Ticket yield per mile: $0.153. (A loss of $0.682 per mile).


The Kansas City, Mo., to St. Louis Route seat mile and passenger totals were:



-- Cost per passenger mile: $0.427;


-- Ticket yield per mile: $0.138. (A loss of $0.289 per mile).


Assuming 79 mph tracks (best scenario) from Moline to Chicago, a round trip would take 6 hours and 40 minutes, excluding time going to the Moline station, going from the Chicago station to the ultimate Chicago destination, returning to the Chicago station, and getting home after disembarking at Moline.


The one-way adult fare for the 280 mile trip from St. Louis to Kansas City, Mo., is $72. For the 80 mile trip from Chicago to Milwaukee, $28. Fares, therefore, are roughly 25 cents a mile. Extrapolating, the cost of a 180-mile one-way trip from Moline to Chicago: $45 -- exclusive of bus or cab fare to get to and from the ultimate Chicago destination.


Based on these Amtrak figures, the Moline to Chicago route figures to lose $6 million annually. Assuming 100,000 round-trips per year, that means each round-trip loses $60. Each one-way trip, $30. If actual ridership is less than 200,000 one-way trips per year, the losses are proportionally greater.


There are but two ways for the proposed Moline/Chicago route to break even: set one-way prices at about $75 (and assume no ridership decrease), or subsidize the route -- indefinitely.


In her 2014 report, "Illinois Unfunded Debt 2014," Illinois Comptroller Leslie Munger painted a bleak picture of Illinois finances. The state owes $43.2 billion on its bonds, and $26.5 billion on other liabilities. This does not include the $111 billion in unfunded pension benefits, and $46 billion owed in unfunded retiree health care benefits.


Illinois is broke. To waste $45 million as capital to get a passenger train running that is projected to lose $6 million a year is nuts. In my opinion, this smells of crony capitalism.


So, who really is pushing for the train? Who's going to get the $177 million federal and $45 million state investments? The owners of the historic O'Rourke building? Construction companies upgrading the track? Who?


And the taxpayers get to make up the annual $6 million losses!





Posted: Wednesday, May 1, 2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016


John Donald O'Shea