Prediction: Bail provisions of the Safe -T Act will be found to be unconstitutional

On Nov. 9, 2022, a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed by the states’ attorneys from 66 of 102 Illinois counties. Their petition for summary judgment alleged that Public Act 101-652, and how it was enacted, were in flagrant violation of the Illinois Constitution, and the act should be stricken as void in its entirety.

In December 2022, a judge in Kankakee County declared certain portions of the “so-called” Illinois Safe-T Act unconstitutional. The ruling dealt with portions of the Act limiting the power of judges to impose “cash bail” on those arrested for various criminal offenses.

The state then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. The court issued a stay of the lower court ruling, and heard arguments from the opposing sides in March 2022.

The 62 prosecutors put forth six arguments. I will address only two; they should be dispositive.

First: Because the act is not limited in scope to the “criminal law” even under a generous reading, it violates the single-subject clause set forth in Article IV, Section 8(d) of the Illinois Constitution, and is void in its entirety.

The argument is that “reforming bail” is “criminal in nature.”

A state law pertaining to “whistleblowing,” applicable to 7,000 units of Illinois local government, isn’t “criminal in nature.” Nor is a law expanding the “Treatment Act” to other first responders. Nor is an act specifying how penitentiary prisoners must be counted for the purpose of determining representative districts. Nor is granting the attorney general increased powers to pursue civil actions, etc. for the court of claims.

The gist of the argument is this: “The “plain language of the act addresses multitudes of subjects with no natural or logical connection to criminal law. “

On this argument alone, the 62 prosecutors should win. Otherwise, the single-subject clause of the Illinois Constitution is a nullity. If they prevail on this argument, the court would not need consider the remaining arguments, because the Illinois Supreme Court has held that when the law violates the single subject clause, the entire law is struck down.

Second: By eliminating monetary bail and by creating a myriad of rules and strictures that severely restrict the exercise of judicial discretion to consider and assign appropriate weight to the most germane facts, the General Assembly encroached upon the inherent functions of the judiciary and violated the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution in Article II, Section 1.

Article II, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution provides: “The legislative, executive, and judicial branches are separate. No branch shall exercise powers properly belonging to another.” The Illinois Supreme Court has held that if “power is judicial in character, the legislature is expressly prohibited from exercising it. Judicial power is that which adjudicates upon the rights of citizens and to that end construes and applies the law.”

Legislative enactments undermining the “traditional and inherent” powers of the judicial branch, particularly, those restricting judicial discretion, violate the Separation of Powers Clause.

The Supreme Court has also recognized that “matters concerning court administration” fall within the inherent power of the judiciary, and the legislature is “without power to specify how the judicial power shall be exercised under a given circumstance.”

The Illinois Supreme Court has specifically held that bail is “administrative” in nature, and that the court has independent, inherent authority to deny or revoke bail to “preserve the orderly process of criminal procedure.”

The Supreme Court has held that the trial court had inherent discretion to hold the defendant in custody even though he was eligible for bail under the Illinois Constitution.

In Elrod, the Supreme Court expressly recognized that the court has the ultimate authority in determining the appropriateness of bail. The defendant in Elrod was charged with non-capital murder and held without bail, even though the Illinois Constitution at the time imparted a right to bail to “all persons ... except for capital offenses.” The court began its analysis by stating:

“In our opinion, the constitutional right to bail must be qualified by the authority of the courts, as an incident of their power to manage the conduct of the proceedings before them, to deny or revoke bail when such action is appropriate to preserve the orderly process of criminal procedure.”

Although Public Act 101-652 does grant very limited authority to the court to enforce its pretrial release orders through sanctions, this does not cure the legislative overreach into the inherent powers of the judiciary. 725 ILCS 5/110–6. The legislature is “without power to specify how the judicial power shall be exercised under a given circumstance.”

The Illinois Supreme Court held that even though the Juvenile Court Act made no provision for the bail of an allegedly delinquent minor, the court had inherent power to set bail.

Since its beginnings, (in medieval England) the concept of bail has always involved money – whether cash, collateral, credit, or the conditional promise of payment by a surety. Requiring a “bond with sufficient sureties is premised on the assumption that economic loss to the accused, his family or friends, will assure his appearance for trial.”

Acting as a surety must involve some threat of loss and, accordingly, bail bonds secured by cash deposit or stocks and bonds equal in value to the bail are constitutional. Determining appropriate surety to compel the appearance of a defendant is a judicial, not a legislative function.

Argument two standing alone should also be dispositive of the case. I can’t imagine any judiciary ceding its constitutional authority and discretion to control bail to any legislature.


My prediction is that the trial judge will be affirmed.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 30, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

Many owe Trump — and others damaged — a full, fair and very public apology.

“In short, the freedom and liberty of every American rests upon nothing more than a fragile understanding,” written on a 15-page scrap of paper” (the U.S. Constitution) John Donald O’Shea, Moline Dispatch, Dec. 1, 2014.

On May 12, 2023, John H. Durham, Special Council for the United States Department of Justice, submitted his report on matters related to intelligence activities and investigations arising out of the 2016 presidential campaigns to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland.

The 306-page report is a damning indictment of the conduct of the “top men” in our FBI and our intelligence agencies.

But will most Americans even consider reading its 13-page “Executive Summary?” Or is this a case of, “Don’t bother me with the facts; I already have made up my mind.”


In his Executive Summary, Durham writes:

“Based on the evidence gathered in multiple exhaustive and costly Federal investigations on the matter (including those of the U.S. House, the Inspector General, and Special Counsel Mueller), neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appear to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of Crossfire Hurricane investigation." 

 

“Our investigation also revealed that senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities. This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents. The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when, at about the same time, the Director of the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence.”

The bottom line is this: the “Trump Collusion Claim” was a hoax, an attempt to frame President Trump, and a fraud upon the American people, which was begun with no basis in evidentiary facts, fueled by perjury and slovenly practice in pleadings before the FISA court, and funded, directly or indirectly, by operatives of the Hilary Clinton campaign, based on a dossier, with no basis in truth, that it paid for.

As a result of the fraud, the lives of innocent Americans — George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, and Gen. Flynn — were financially wrecked and their reputations destroyed, as they were indicted, publicly arrested, jailed, convicted on false testimony while exculpatory evidence was purposefully withheld.

President Trump was falsely labeled a “traitor,” and his administration was enmeshed in a web of lies and two impeachments over the course of four years. And the campaign of lies probably cost him the 2020 election.

And as all this was going on, a Democratic Congress, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and major newspapers throughout the nation, political spokesmen like Adm. Kirby, Twitter and Facebook all eschewed their independence and integrity. And most continued to “peddle the hoax” even after the Mueller Report found their was ‘no Russian collusion.”

For me, the last sentence of Durham’s “Executive Summary” seems to “say it all.”

“The promulgation of additional rules and regulations (to govern the FBI handling of such investigations) to be learned in yet more training sessions would likely prove to be a fruitless exercise if the FBI’s guiding principles of “fidelity, bravery and integrity” are not engrained in the hearts and minds of those sworn to meet the FBI mission of “Protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution of the United States.”

(Note the similarity of my 2014 quote, above).

So, what’s my suggestion to put an end to this monumental hoax and fraud upon the American people? How are the reputations of Donald Trump, et al to be restored? How do the likes of the NY Times, NBC, CNN, et al, ever regain their integrity, self-respect and public respect?

They publicly and unequivocally must confess their errors. Next, they must fully and unequivocally apologize to the American people, the victims of the baseless prosecutions, and to now private-citizen Donald J. Trump. If newspapers, they do so, with banner headlines, perhaps for a week straight. If TV or cable media, they do so, so openly and repeatedly — perhaps for a solid week — so that none of the regular viewers could miss their apologies,

There is a passage in the Act of the Apostles where Paul and Silas are deprived of their rights as Roman citizens, beaten, jailed and put in chains by the magistrates of Philippi. Then when the magistrates were apprised of their error, they personally went to the jail, and publicly made their apologies. No less should happen here.

Nor should this ever happen again in America. 

Any bets?

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 21, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

If policy differences basis for termination, let voters know

On April 22, 2023, the Dispatch-Argus ran Olivia Allen’s article, “A ‘mutual’ separation for board, Lawrence,” on the paper’s front page. Perhaps, because I do not live within the Rock Island-Milan School District, I did not read the article.

I did not give the article a second-thought until a friend of mine at the golf course asked, “Why the school board got rid of the superintendent? And why did they agree to pay him $350,000?”

After having had to admit, that “I didn’t know,” and that “I hadn’t read the article,” I went back and read it.

In reading the article, I learned that Dr. Lawrence was the board’s superintendent, pursuant to a contract with the school board. Lawrence had served four years under his contract, and that his contract was not up for renewal until 2025.

I also learned that Dr. Lawrence’s performance as Superintendent had recently been evaluated, and that the Board discussed that with him at a closed meeting of the Board on March 21st. (A closed hearing for that purpose would be proper).

I further learned that Dr. Lawrence had not been “fired.” Rather, his contract had been terminated pursuant to the mutual agreement of Dr. Lawrence and the school board, with the board paying him $350,000 for Lawrence agreeing to the early termination. (I saw no problem with that, either).

In the words of Board President Terrell Williams, “The circumstances leading up to the contract termination were a “personnel matter, that the Board … will not comment on. …. (The goal was) always to do so amicably.”

But that was followed by the rather inexplicable comment by outgoing Board member, Tiffany Stoner-Harris: “(She) could see Lawrence being a great superintendent somewhere.”

So, why do you get rid of a superintendent who could be a “great superintendent somewhere?”

And why do you pay him $350,000 to go somewhere else, quickly?

Personally, I have no interest in whether Dr. Lawrence remains superintendent or not. I have never met the man, nor followed his handling of board’s affairs.

But the voters in the Rock Island-Milan School District do.

As an old Moline Corporation Council, before writing this, I spent four or five hours examining Illinois’ Open Meetings Law, in which the underlying “policy” is clearly stated:

“Policy. It is the public policy of this state that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business, and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business.

“In order that the people shall be informed, the General Assembly finds and declares that it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

“The General Assembly further declares it to be the public policy of this state that its citizens shall be given advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way.

“Exceptions to the public’s right to attend exist only in those limited circumstances where the General Assembly has specifically determined that the public interest would be clearly endangered or the personal privacy or guaranteed rights of individuals would be clearly in danger of invasion.

“To implement this policy, the General Assembly declares:

    (1) it is the intent of this act to protect the citizen’s right to know; and

    (2) the provision for exceptions to the open meetings requirements shall be strictly construed against closed meetings.”

The Board here appears to have properly closed the meeting under what is commonly called the “personnel exception:”

(a) Openness required. All meetings of public bodies shall be open to the public unless excepted in subsection (c) ….

(b) Construction of exceptions. The exceptions contained in subsection (c) are in derogation of the requirement that public bodies meet in the open, and therefore, the exceptions are to be strictly construed, extending only to subjects within their scope. The exceptions authorize but do not require the holding of a closed meeting to discuss a subject included within an enumerated exception.

(c) Exceptions: A public body may hold closed meetings to consider the following subjects: The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees ….

Here the meeting appears to have been properly closed to discuss “employment, compensation, … performance, and dismissal of a specific employee” — the superintendent.

Nobody, however, involved seemingly is making any claim that Dr. Lawrence’s “performance” was deficient in any substantial way that would justify his termination for cause. Rather as the board president indicated, it was a mutually agreed amicable termination. Indeed, Ms. Stoner-Harris states that she “Could see Lawrence being a great superintendent somewhere.”

Ms. Stoner-Harris' statement gives credence to Dr. Taylor’s comment that the termination came about because Dr. Lawrence did not see “eye to eye” with a majority of the Board members.

I think that my friend, and the school district's voters are entitled to know wherein the board and Dr. Lawrence did not see eye to eye. That is a matter of policy, and not within any exception to the Open Meetings Act. The voters are entitled to know where the board members stand on “policies” affecting the students of the district.

If issues of policy were in fact involved, it is difficult to see how, if a straight-forward joint statement was made setting out the differences between the Board Majority and Dr. Lawrence, “the public interest would be clearly endangered or the personal privacy or guaranteed fights of individuals would be clearly in danger of invasion.”

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 7, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

Failure to recuse in eyes of reasonable public

On April 18, 2023, The Dispatch ran a front-page story: “New justices won’t recuse themselves” (in a case challenging the state’s recently passed ban on assault weapons and high- capacity magazines).

The Justices involved are both Democrats: Mary Kay O’Brien and Elizabeth Rochford. (I have never met either).

The motion asking them to recuse themselves, or requiring that they be disqualified from hearing the case, alleges that during their 2022 campaigns for election to the Illinois Supreme Court, both newly elected justices received substantial “campaign donations” from Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Speaker of the Illinois House Emanuel ‘Chris” Welch — both Democrats —both of whom are named in the suit as defendants (in their official capacities).

While they were candidates, both judges received:

$500,000 from the ‘J.B’ for Governor campaign; and
$500,000 from the Jay Robert Pritzker Revocable Trust;

In addition, Justice O’Brien received $350,000, and Justice Rockford received $150,000 from the Welch Campaign Committee.

(Both received endorsements from two prominent gun-control lobby groups: The Gun Violence Prevention PAC, and The Gifford PAC. Because of word limitations, this op ed won’t address the problems, if any, that such endorsements might pose).

So, why would anybody donate $1 million to get a judge elected. I can only think of two reasons:

1. The candidate will be a brilliant, hard-working, impartial, independent judge, brimming with integrity. 

 

2. The donors believe that the judge, once elected, will be grateful, loyal, and inclined to repay “the favors.”

For purposes of this op ed, I am assuming here that both judges are “brimming with integrity, etc.”

But what does it look like to the public when a judge hears a case when a defendant in the case — the governor of Illinois — has just given the judge $1,000,000?

Does it appear any better because JB Pritzker is being sued only as governor, and not personally?

Does judging a case, after taking a $1,000,000 donation from one of the parties, “promote public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary?”

Judges are mandated to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Even if the judge is “brimming with integrity, etc.,” doesn’t it look improper for that judge to sit on a case where a litigant contributed $1 million to secure the judge’s election?


The first and most important rule governing the conduct of judges is this:

“A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”

In Illinois, once a person becomes a judge, the rules are strict. A judge shall not accept any gifts, … benefits, favors, or other things of value, except as follows:

(1) Items with little intrinsic value, such as plaques, certificates, trophies, and greeting cards; ….
(10) Gifts, loans, bequests, benefits, favors, or other things of value, only if the donor is not … likely to come before the judge ….

Is a $1,000,000 campaign contribution of little intrinsic value?


But can a candidate for judicial office accept any gifts, … benefits, favors, or other things of value? No and yes.

No, because a judicial candidate shall not personally solicit or accept campaign contributions.

Additionally, the candidate shall prohibit employees … from doing on the candidate’s behalf what the candidate is prohibited from doing under the provisions of this rule.

Yes, because a judicial candidate subject to public election may establish a campaign committee.

“A judicial candidate subject to public election shall direct the campaign committee: (1) to solicit and accept campaign contributions only as permitted by law;

The comments to these rules are explanatory.

“Judicial candidates are prohibited from personally soliciting campaign contributions or personally accepting campaign contributions. … This rule recognizes that, in many jurisdictions, judicial candidates must raise campaign funds to support their candidacies and permits candidates … to establish campaign committees to solicit and accept reasonable financial contributions or in-kind contributions.

 

“During the campaign, the candidate and the campaign committee should be aware that a contribution may affect the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judge and may create grounds for disqualification if the candidate is elected to office.”

Were I on the Judicial Inquiry Board — and I am not — I would read the preceding paragraph in conjunction with the first rule of Judicial Conduct (set out above).

“A judge must not take any campaign contribution that creates, in the eyes of reasonable members of the public, any “appearance of impropriety.”

And I would further read it to say that, 

”In any case coming before the judge, where one of the judge’s campaign contributors is a party, and where in the eyes of reasonable members of the public there would be an appearance of impropriety, to preserve the public trust in the impartiality of the judiciary, all doubts must be resolved in favor of recusal.”

Recusal here would leave the Supreme Court two short of its full seven judges. But the court has power to appoint two judges to fill those temporary vacancies.


There are plenty of judges — currently sitting or retired — who could be appointed to fill the two temporary vacancies to hear the case. Judges who would not carry with them the “appearance of impropriety.” This would promote public confidence.


By failing to recuse, Justices O’Brien and Rockford, put themselves and perhaps the entire Illinois Judiciary into a “no-win situation.” If they rule for the defendants, they will look like “the best judges money can buy” — even if their decision is impeccably correct. They cannot rule for the defendant without creating an “appearance of impropriety” or worse, a stench of corruption.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on April 30, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

Ideas should win or lose in “The marketplace of ideas.”

I have recently written and published two op eds questioning the wisdom of spending $400,000,000 to create high-speed rail service between Chicago and Moline (or Davenport or Iowa City).

My goal, as an opinion writer, is to take a position that forces my readers to think the issue through. I make every effort to take, what I believe to be, the sound position. I feel I have achieved my goal when my opinions provoke strong responses — expressing supporting and contrary opinions. As I have stated frequently, I believe the best ideas ultimately prevail in the “marketplace of ideas.” That is why I have no use for people and governments who would suppress opposition speech.

In response to my two Amtrak op eds, I have received two letters. The first utterly disagrees with me. The second, thanks me. I set both out in full below. You judge which one makes more sense — when you are being asked to expend 400 million taxpayer dollars. I have no recollection of ever having met or spoken to either man.

The first letter came in the form of a Letter to the Editor, from Tom Walsh of LeClaire:

“The Times recently printed former Judge O’Shea’s opinion that rather than expand Amtrak to Moline, his “best guess” is that Amtrak advocates should instead buy toy trains. That supercilious conclusion is followed by a litany of unanswered questions. Allow me.

“Cost of train vs. Airfare? Flying to Chicago coast $225 — $450. (Booking.com) vs. $16 — $26 for the Princeton — Chicago train, which extrapolates to $24 — $40 for Moline — Chicago.

“How many people would use Amtrak? A “best guess” is that people now squeezed into airplanes would gladly choose Amtrack comfort — and security — at one-tenth the cost.

“Additional travel costs getting to one’s ultimate destination, by taxi or Uber? Chicago has an excellent public transportation system for commuter and tourists alike, linked to O’Hare. By remarkable coincidence, many commuter trains operate from Union Station, just like Amtrak does. Who would have thought?

“Travelers headed to the Loop can walk. No need for Uber, your honor.

“Subsequently, O’Shea tried to justify his foregone conclusion with an article focused on Amtrak’s recent operating losses, which were magnified by COVID. He implies that Amtrak’s profitable Northeast Corridor is an anomaly. Instead, it is a model to be replicated — an efficient, environmentally superior system, unfettered by slow-moving freight trains.

"O’Shea questions whether Amtrak can recoup the $400,000,000 in track upgrades. Curiously, he omitted such analysis of another $1,200,000,000 infrastructure upgrade — the I-74 bridge.

“Thankfully, O’Shea merely fulminates here, no longer dispensing his foregone conclusions and double standards from the bench.”

The second comes from Ron Moore:

“I recently read your column titled “From Moline to Chicago: By Amtrak? Or by limousine?” and would like to share the service my company already offers.

“I own Burlington Trailways and we are a motorcoach company that is appropriately licensed, insured, and compliant with FMCSA regulations.

“I have owned the company since 1981 and currently run three motorcoaches from Davenport, Iowa, to Chicago, Illinois, every day. A passenger can take our motorcoach from Moline, Illinois, to Davenport, Iowa, to catch these schedules.

“Our motorcoaches are 45’ (long) vehicles with seating capacity for 54 passengers. Each motorcoach is also wheelchair lift equipped and can accommodate two wheelchairs onboard. There is a restroom onboard and plenty of storage underneath the cabin for luggage.

“Tickets for these schedules can be conveniently purchased from www.trailways.com or in-person at the Davenport or Moline depots.

“I am happy to answer any questions or provide more information if you desire. Thank you for bringing attention to transportation in the area!“

The essential question is how many people will “commute” on a daily basis between Chicago and Moline (or beyond) using Amtrak? 100? 200? 1,000? (It is the “commuters” who make the NE Corridor profitable).

It is suggested that since $1.2B was spent to build the new I-74 bridge, that spending a mere $400M on high-speed rail, is money well-spent. But more than 80,000 vehicles cross the I-74 bridge daily — 29.2 million yearly! Even were Amtrack to carry 1,000 per day, that’s 1/80th of what the bridge carries. So, which is the better bargain?

It is opined is that most “commuters” who now fly, will switch to Amtrak. How many “air commuters” are there?

It is easy to spend money when it isn’t yours — especially when the government spreads it around like manure. But if the $400M must be spent, is spending it on high-speed rail the best transportation option?

Can anybody point to a single Amtrak route outside the “NE Corridor” that has ever turned a profit? If not, then, in addition to the $400M “start-up costs,” expect additional substantial annual losses. Just look at any Amtrak P & L.

The new Amtrak cars look terrific. They should for $400M! But how much of a subsidy would it take to allow the extant limo or motor coach (bus) services operating between Chicago and Moline to up-grade their equipment? If it were to take $4M a year, they could operate for 100 years on $400M. And busses and limos run on roads and bridges that already exist. And if they ran at annual losses, they’d be out of business.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on April 23, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

Rock Island County Courthouse, R.I.P. (1895 — 2023)

As I write, the Rock Island County Courthouse, built in 1895, is being demolished. The building “died” at the age of 128 years. The cause of death was obsolescence, aggravated by the neglect of the county’s voters.

When I first came to Rock Island, in September of 1966, the courthouse was already a victim of voter neglect. A post card, in the collection of the Rock Island Preservation Society shows the courthouse with at least six beautiful domes and a copper roof. By the time I first set foot in Rock Island County, that copper roof and all six domes were long-gone. The spectacular main dome had been replaced by an ugly box covering the air conditioning unit.

But it is really not fair to blithely blame the voters. By the building’s 35th birthday, America was in the throes of the Great Depression. Most voters could barely support their own families; they didn’t have an extra dime for courthouse repairs and maintenance. And that Great Depression dragged on for a decade — and for many folks, until the end of World War II in 1945. Even after the war had ended, there were still people living on the Rock Island City Dump, feeding their families on the garbage discarded by others.

I can still remember my first full day in Rock Island County. Before my job interview with the then State’s Attorney Richard Stengel, I walked over to the federal courthouse to see if I might also interview with the U.S. Attorney. What I remember clearly from that morning, was how forbidding the Federal Courthouse seemed with all its office doors shut, and how friendly the Rock Island County Courthouse seemed with all its doors wide open.

After that interview and job offer, Dick Stengel took me on a tour of the courthouse. Over the years, I explored it myself when I had free time. When I explored the basement, it was like going down into a coal mine. By that time, the tunnel under 15th Street, from the old jail to the courthouse, originally constructed to allow the sheriff to safely convey prisoners to court, had been converted into a tunnel to accommodate the pipes that provided heat to the courthouse.

On the first floor was a large unattractive men’s room, a small unattractive sheriff’s office, and a very plain probate court and probate chambers. They had all the charm of an old bowling alley. There was also an ancient, tiny elevator.

The recorder of deeds office sat at the south end of the 2nd floor. An old, utterly unattractive county court occupied the north end. In the middle front, was the small, plain, cluttered clerk’s office.

The third floor had already been “remodeled.” The old two-story circuit courtroom, had been “remodeled” out of existence. It was replaced by a new courtroom with a jury box, a hearing room and three judges’ chambers in back. Above, a law library was created. None of the changes were in keeping with the design of the courthouse as originally constructed, or worthy, in the least, of historical preservation.

By the time I retired in 2000, the only portion of the building that bore any similarity to the original design, was the exterior brick work. In the interior, even the great double staircase had been halved — to allow for installation of a modern elevator. I can still recall our female court reporters complaining about the women’s facilities. Even the circuit clerk’s office, which when I arrived in 1966 had been so open and friendly, had been chopped up into a warren of cubicles.

Of course, like any building, the courthouse could have been restored to its original condition.

If that would have been a wise expenditure of money, a private investor would have bought the building and undertaken that restoration. The fact that the cost of restoration made the project unfeasible for a private investor, rather clearly demonstrates that it would have been a waste of taxpayer dollars.

I’m a guy that loves old buildings. While on the bench, while assigned to Mercer, Henry and Whiteside counties, I explored all the old courthouses. In Whiteside County, I walked across the boards laying atop the rafter above the old circuit courtroom, and upstairs explored the rooms where the judge and jurors slept over when the cases continued into the next day.

Of the four courthouses, I explored, during my years on the bench, only one — The Henry County Courthouse — was worth saving. To this day, it remains an architectural masterpiece and thing of beauty. The people of Henry County deserve high praise for their preservation of it.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on April 16, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea

Plan to use high-potency marijuana? Buyer Beware!

On March 27, 2023, five members of the Moline City Council voted to approve Moline’s second marijuana dispensary. Two Aldermen, Mike Waldron and Scott Williams, voted “NO.” Waldron quoted as saying, “I don’t believe we need one; we certainly don’t need two!” Those who voted affirmatively, justified their votes saying, that they “appreciated the extra tax revenue.” (3% of revenues will go into the city’s general fund.)

While use and possession still remains illegal under federal law, as of September 2022, 37 states and the District of Columbia allow the medical use of marijuana; 19 states and the DC have legalized recreational use.

But whether the use of marijuana is legal or not in Moline, or whether Moline will receive extra tax dollars, really misses the point.

In a long article in the Frontiers of Psychiatry, dated Jan. 5, captured U.S. trends in the association of suicide ideation/behaviors with marijuana use among adolescents ages 12–17 and differences by gender and race/ethnicity, by Flores, Granados and Lê Cook, issues of far greater consequence are discussed.

Their paper is written against this background: “In the U.S. over the past decade, there has been a steady increase in marijuana use rates among adolescents, in part due to marijuana legalization laws. It is unknown whether these greater marijuana use rates are associated with rising rates of adolescent suicide ideation and behaviors (plan and attempt) or whether these associations differ by gender or race/ethnicity.”

The object of their study was “To determine whether marijuana use is associated with suicide ideation/behaviors among adolescents and if differences exist by gender and race/ethnicity.”

The discussion and conclusions of the paper strongly suggest great caution is in order.

“Using nationally representative data, our findings demonstrated that past-year marijuana use is a significant risk factor for suicide ideation/behavior among adolescents.

“This finding was consistent among males and females, as well as adolescents identifying as white, Black, Latinx, and NA/AN.

“We also found that rates of suicide ideation/behavior increased as the frequency (number of days) of marijuana use increased.

"While prior literature has found gender, race/ethnicity, and marijuana use to be independent factors associated with suicide ideation/behavior among adolescents, our study is one of the first to use a nationally representative sample of adolescents to examine associations between suicide ideation/behavior and marijuana use and how these associations differ by gender and race/ethnicity.

"Marijuana use, which we found to be associated with higher rates of suicide ideation/behavior, is influenced by a multitude of factors, including supply side factors such as availability, price and potency. Marijuana has become more widely available via recreational use legislation.

“Increased marijuana availability may result in adolescents initiating or increasing their recreational use.

"In an analysis of a national, annually administrated cross-sectional survey, “Cerda and (his) colleagues found marijuana prevalence rates among eighth and 10th graders in the state of Washington increased when comparing marijuana use rates before and after legalization.

“The state (Washington) saw an increase in the prevalence of habitual marijuana users and a decrease in the prevalence of non-users.

“With legalization, the stigma of marijuana use may dissipate and elevate the social acceptability, which can lower the perceived risks associated with marijuana use.

“As such, adolescents living in states with legalized recreational marijuana legislation for adults may initiate or increase their use without fully considering consequences (e.g., elevated risk of psychosis and impacts of brain development associated with adolescent marijuana use).

“The decreasing price of marijuana may also contribute to increasing use among adolescents and help to further explain our research findings.

“As markets, both legal and illegal, compete for customers, there has been a proliferation of potent marijuana products, which may have severe consequences for adolescents.

“The levels of 19-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the content that gives marijuana its euphoric effects, have significantly increased over the past several decades.

“THC is associated with acute increases in heart rate, various types of arrhythmias, coronary vasospasm, and acute myocardial infarction.

“As marijuana potency has increased, there may be a parallel escalation in mental health-related events. Work by Di Forti and (his) colleagues found daily adult (18–64) use of high potency marijuana, defined as THC 10% or greater, was associated with five-times the odds of having a psychotic disorder, relative to no use.

"Researchers determined that eliminating high potency marijuana would contribute to a 12% decrease in the number of first-episode psychosis cases. This is of critical importance as psychosis is a predictor of suicidal behavior.

“A systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 general population cohort studies found individuals with a psychotic experience had higher odds of suicidal ideation, plan, attempt, and suicidal death.

While not yet conclusive, the studies to date clearly suggest that daily adult use of high potency marijuana increases fivefold the chances of having a psychotic disorder, and that psychosis is a predictor of suicidal behavior.

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on April 2, 2023. 

Copyright 2023, John Donald O'Shea