Stefanie Smith For U.S. Congress

image

Stefanie Smith is a political novice running for the 13th District of U.S. Congress against Democratic establishment favored Betsy Dirksen Londrigan. Londrigan won the 2018 Democratic nomination, but lost the general election by a razor thin margin of 1.4%. Londrigan and Smith will face off against each other in the primary election on March 17th. The winner will go on to face incumbent Republican Rodney Davis.

I sat down with Stefanie in Decatur at a local pub where she was holding a campaign event with the public.

Zachary Gittrich: You’re running against Betsy Dirksen Londrigan? What are the reasons you think you’d be a better representative of the 13th district than Betsy Dirksen Londrigan? What are the specific differences you have with her?

Stefanie Smith: I am more representative of the district – as a person. Because of my financial situation: having medical debt, having student loan debt, understanding poverty. Those are issues that are widespread in our district that Betsy doesn’t really have to add or any knowledge of that. Betsy said at the forum when asked how she would deal with poverty, she said, “I support the Middle Class.” So, she’s willing to leave behind the majority of the district in my opinion.

I am also a champion of human rights and civil rights. I’m against war. Betsy is pro-ICE, and I’m against ICE. I’m for single-payer healthcare and Betsy is not. I’m for the Green New Deal, because I really like having a world to live on; Betsy does not. Those are some specific differences.

ZG: Do you have any pets?

SS: I do; I have a Cat, and I have a Rabbit.

ZG: You participated in one forum with Londrigan. You seemed particularly reticent at that event. Can you explain why?

SS: Absolutely. So, we were denied a debate. Betsy would not agree to a debate. The public forum was the only public event with the two of us she was willing to do. The conditions for the forum were I wasn’t allowed to reference or criticize any of her policies. So, they basically silenced me from criticism. I decided because it was the only type of forum and there were a lot of questions, I was going to give very terse very direct answers so we could cycle through as many as possible and get Betsy on the record on these issues. So, that’s why it looked the way it did, out of respect to the questioners.

ZG: Do you want more debates with your opponent?

SS: She’s still refusing as far as I know. We’re not going to get a debate; I’d do a debate and have said so since the beginning. I think debates contribute to a healthy democracy to have these ideas discussed, criticized and expounded on. That is a democratic tactic Betsy is abandoning. And, I find that really disappointing.

ZG: Do you think you could defeat Rodney Davis in a debate and the election?

SS: Oh, yeah I do. I think that people really respond to authenticity, even if you don’t necessarily agree with everything you say, they at least appreciate that you’re not bullshitting them. Rodney has really misled the voters in an enormous sort of way and has not provided any resources for the district; our district has fallen further into poverty. I think that his incompetence alone – its a challenge cause he’s heavily supported by Trump, so he’ll get a lot of support from Trump country. I think it will be a grueling nasty campaign, but I don’t think Rodney has the integrity to keep up.

ZG: You’ve noted in the past friction between you and the local democratic parties. Can you elaborate the details?

SS: We have a lot of people trying to get involved to disrupt, suppress, and get rid of me from the start. They’ve made it a point to show that meetings were very hostile to us. They’re very dishonest. Like, I would go to a meeting and talk, then they’d say I refused to talk to them. That was the Macon County Democrats.

Emily Rodriguiz of Champaign County Democrats has been around our campaign trying to disorganize the campaign. Just really needling things trying to undercut the work we’ve done in the community. They’ve tried to block us from using LGBTQ venues.

Laurie Bell of Mclean County has been spreading lies and disinformation about a protest that wasn’t a campaign action. Just a lot of backstabbing and childish behavior all around. We’re here to work. We said we were going to be transparent about what we want to do.

ZG: You’ve said that we as citizens need to organize a coup against the current administration. Can you elaborate what you mean by that?

SS: No, I’m not saying we need a coup against the administration. I’m saying the administration has already successfully pulled off a coup. We need a network community response. It is very clear that the Federal government has fallen: its fractured. Legislation isn’t getting through. People vote on legislation in the house, they sits in the Senate, or the president doesn’t sign them. So we aren’t going to get our needs met through those avenues. We’re going to have to create the networks to survive. We have to start making mutual aid avenues. How do we get resources to people who are isolated at the margins. No one is coming to save us. We have to organize. That’s what I mean.

ZG: You have stated you support Medicare 4 All single-payer and that anything less is eugenics. If enacted, how would the transition from private to public healthcare work for the 160 million people who currently have private insurers?

SS: Hopefully swiftly because I would actually like to be able to afford my doctors. I have insurance through my husbands employer. If that insurance ended today, and Medicare 4 All was immediately implemented, I’d finally be able to go to the doctor and I think that’s true for a lot of people.

It’s something that has to be implemented quickly. I don’t have tears for the insurance industry. They’ve exploited us for so long. I’m not worried about their profits or opinions on it, I’m worried about getting people healthcare.

I would like to see it as an immediate option for the completely uninsured as its passed. From there I feel like having a window for people to be able to transfer over to government insurance. I see that as an important step. I’d like to see all that completed within a year. But, we should definitely immediately get healthcare to those without.

ZG: What kind of assistance would be available to private insurance company employees who may lose their job?

SS: I do think by switching there will still be a need behind the scenes to make this happen. So, I see merit for including those people in the process. For those jobs that are going to be created by Medicare 4 All, to go firstly to those who were in the for-profit system.

If we get to the point where we’re able to pass Medicare 4 All, we’ll likely be able to pass other bills that are for workers rights and unionization. My hope is that it’ll be less of a blow because other jobs are going to provide living wages. When we’re talking about the Green New Deal, housing, infrastructure. We really need people to get into the trades and health care. We have shortages of nurses and teachers. There are lots of jobs that are very important that people aren’t doing cause they don’t pay enough. We don’t need a ton of administrators working on medical bills for insurance. We need teachers, we need nurses, and they need to be able to live. We make those jobs a living wage; we support training to be a CNA and other union jobs like electricians and plumbers. We’re always going to need those people. So, I feel like there are a lot of ways to offset that issue.

ZG: How would you rate the Democrats efforts to impeach the president? Do you think there were other issues they should have focused on when it came to impeachment?

SS: Yeah. The Democrats are like its a technicality: Trump went after Joe Biden’s son and now were really mad about it. They didn’t go after Trump for any of his crimes against humanity or war crimes. They went after him cause he went after one of their own. So it looked petty cause it was petty, especially in the context of crimes against humanity! It looks terrible; it looks weak; it’s ineffective governing. All it does is disorganize and upset people. It alienates even more people. The Democratic party doesn’t look like the moral champion in this: they just look like petulant children. I honestly think it was misguided. I’ve been asked a lot if I support impeaching the president. And I said if I was in the House and the vote came up I would vote yes to impeach him. But, I don’t think people understood how impeachment works. People were like, “Oh yea, he’s impeached.” But then there’s the senate and all these procedures. I feel like the Democrats exploited the fact that we have low civic education to make a spectacle of the impeachment to try and get votes.

ZG: Government is regularly viewed as criminally inefficient. Conservatives automatically say everything government is bad; and Liberals argue its better than the private sector and it’s the duty of the government to do these things, but even they seem to acquiesce to the seemingly natural fact that government is inefficient. How would you address inefficiency in government services?

SS: We have wild redundancies. Terrible service, terrible filing. But, when it comes to money the fact that the Pentagon pays thousands of dollars for a fucking screw: that’s ridiculous. And, those are my tax dollars. So, I don’t disagree that the government is inefficient and ineffective. But if they’re taking my money anyway I don’t want it to go to a $1500 bolt. I want that money going into services that are going to hurt people. I want that money going into SNAP and into disability. If you take money from the people then that money should be used to support the people not murder other people.

ZG: So, basically allocating funds more towards social services so they aren’t as inefficient?

SS: Exactly, you have to invest in these things if you want them to work. They’re not investing in them, but purposely sabotaging it by under funding them and under staffing them. That’s why its inefficient; that’s why the government sucks.

ZG: You have stated you support the Green New Deal. Do you support a complete ban on all new oil drilling and fracking?

SS: Yes

ZG: How do we continue to manufacture all the things that require oil, especially plastic?

SS: There are… a lot of things we don’t need, right? I’m open to talking about these things but there are a lot of things we would need to prioritize production on, e.g., medical equipment. We’re supposed to be finding alternatives. We have brilliant scientists; there are people working on the stuff. I feel like we should be focusing on the worst offenders first. We should stop fracking immediately because earthquakes and brown water is really terrifying. I definitely understand that some things are higher priority than others. But, we have to move away from that source very soon if we are to survive. Like, if it’s between survival and making more action figures, I’m going to go with survival. I know it sucks, but we don’t live in a way that is sustainable to the planet and our population. We have to figure out other ways. We either figure it out or we die.

ZG: Do you support court-packing to readjust the politics of the Federal judiciary?

SS: I’m really freaked out with the federal judiciary and the way the judges have been stacked. Honestly, I try to be open when I don’t have solutions; I don’t know the best way to address that issue right now. I’m interested in that path and learning more about it. But I don’t have a good handle on how that works. My work has been predominately in human trafficking policy. This is a very new area for me. I’m a working-class person. I don’t know a lot of judges. I need to meet more people who have a robust experience and get a better view of the short term and long term goals of restructuring the judiciary would be. I’m just not qualified to strategize on that right now.

ZG: Are there any current federal judges you would support impeaching and removing?

SS: Brett Kavanaugh is springing to mind for obvious reasons. As somebody that believes in survivor-centered politics, his rise in the judiciary is rather suspect. I would also like to reexamine anyone who didn’t get a bar association recommendation.

ZG: Do you support a constitutional amendment creating term limits for Federal judges? If so, what should be the limit?

SS: Again, I feel like I don’t quite have a grasp on the repercussions of that sort of decision. Given the way we have seen the Trump administration manipulate the judiciary, I see a massive benefit to that. I’m not clear what the criticism of that would be. I don’t see why a term limit would be bad, even for myself.

ZG: Do you support granting statehood to Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Washington D.C., Guam, Mariana Islands, and America Somoa?

SS: Yes.

ZG: Do you support a constitutional Amendment creating term limits for members of congress? If so, how long?

SS: Yes. But I don’t think that’s a question for me but for the voters. I think things get stale if you have the same voices in politics all the time. I don’t think anyone should be able to make a career out of being a government representative. The idea of a career politician is horrifying to me because it says to me this is someone who seeks power, who wants to rule not govern. I’m very supportive of term limits but again its important to figure out what the voters want cause they may want a representative multiple times in a row and they should have that chance. Obviously when were talking about the DCCC blacklisting progressive challenges, that’s not healthy democracy. I think there are a lot of areas we could improve and I think it should be driven by the will of the people.

ZG: Housing is increasingly unaffordable, and most people on waiting lists for public housing wait years. What policies would you propose to address this issue?

SS: I endorsed the homes guarantee from Peoples action that covers affordable housing, public housing, it addresses environmental racism infrastructure disaster response reparation. There’s a Green New Deal public housing policy as well that looks very promising. I think we’d have a few policies that would address that issue. But, also the way that crisis intersect with other issues. For example, the homes guarantee updates appliances for energy savings to help with utilities which is a huge housing cost. I really prefer looking at policies that view issues as holistic that work to address everything. I also support lifting bans on rent control. We want rent control. We’ve been canvassing for Lift the Ban.

ZG: Do you support a maximum wage?

SS: I would support something like that, absolutely.

ZG: What type of taxes do you expect to support?

SS: That is a really interesting question because I don’t see any benefit in taxing lower income people. I see a great deal of benefit in taxing companies, billionaires; for me taxes need to be heavily applied to the rich, and the people who are suffering the most need tax relief. So, any sort of tax that I would support would be directed towards the wealthy; it’s time they give back to our society.

ZG: We have been in a state of perpetual warfare since our childhood. We are currently in military conflicts with 7 different nations. Do you support these wars? Would you end any of the wars?

SS: I am staunchly anti-imperialist and anti-war. I don’t believe in violating the human rights of others.

ZG: How do we deal with the Geo-political consequences of this?

SS: I mean, honestly, these sort of things need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Because the ways that our bases are used in support are different around the world. I don’t think a blanket solution would be appropriate right now.

There are countries that we have been meddling that have wanted us out for a very long time. We should respect those wishes and remove ourselves immediately. In other nations where we have a good strategic working relationship that has proved fruitful and not mortally dangerous for people – that’s a different circumstance.

The way that Trump handled the Kurds was very upsetting. That was an alliance that was really important for their safety. That was an inappropriate removal [of military force]. A lot of these issues have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. It should be the people who live there, their will should affect our policy when we are talking about staying or leaving.

ZG: What do you see as the military’s responsibility on the world-stage?

SS: At this point, our military needs to stop doing war actions. Those costs a ton of money and are an environmental blight. The military should at this point be redirected towards focusing on national crisis such as disaster relief. We have wildfires – we are using prison labor to fight wildfires in California and these people can’t even become firefighters after they are released [from prison]. I think it would be a better use of the military to have them support resiliency of our communities in the face of natural disasters. On the global stage, I think that is where we should be talking about [using the military]: towards support, not war.

ZG: There are some very serious issues happening regarding immigration, especially with regard to ICE & CPB. You have called for abolishing ICE. How would you regulate immigration?

SS: We need to have a robust system that allows for people to get citizenship. One of the things that is really important to me is this notion of immigrants having a right to a civil attorney so we don’t have toddlers representing themselves in immigration court. That is inappropriate. For me, a fundamental component is making sure these people have representation. Having materials for them in their language, which sometimes is not just Spanish but includes indigenous languages. We need to have those components in place so people are able to navigate the system successfully. We need more advocates for people seeking asylum, refugee status, immigrating for work. We need to stop banning people from entering our company on the basis of… Trump has changed so many laws on visas regulation, that it’s really complicated and a lot to figure out, but another component is undoing the things Trump has done.

I think a lot of people don’t realize that ICE and Border Patrol are fairly new; they came about post-9/11. They were built to be authoritarian surveillance nightmares. The way they question citizens and journalists. So many backwards things are happening: ties to corruption and human trafficking. It’s such a corrupt system that I don’t think it can be overhauled. I don’t think you can fix ICE.

ZG: What about situations like what recently happened in Illinois where an undocumented person with a violent criminal record was released from prison? Do you think undocumented people with violent criminal records should be deported?

SS: Again, its not an area to make a blanket statement cause we know how corrupt our criminal justice system is. When we say violent crimes, what do we mean? Whether we’re deporting them or imprisoning people, neither of those solve the problem in my mind. We have restorative justice practices we can use in these scenarios. I think just cause someone is undocumented that they don’t have less of a right to humane systems of justice.

ZG: Do you think serious crimes have been committed regarding immigration and the border by these institutions and this administration?

SS: Crimes against humanity, definitely.

ZG: What kind of border policy do you envision?

SS: A border is kind of a fake idea.

ZG: So, is money, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

SS: Agreed. But the border as a concept doesn’t mean what you think. I do not believe that a wall is a solution at all. Its going to be an environmental blight and waste of money and its not going to be particularly effective. This notion that a border zone should be expected to be a war zone or combat zone, that’s not how the border has worked when I’ve gone into Canada. So whats the difference? How can people move freely in Europe? The way Americans think about borders is really toxic. They view them as impenetrable force fields that we’re supposed to defend. I don’t think that’s how you should go about it. I think you should reasonably be able to cross borders safely and quickly. When I’ve gone through Canada its a fairly easy process.

ZG: I will point out there are a lot more cartels in Mexico than Canada. Maybe that’s why there is some distinction between the two borders.

SS: Right. And, the cartels are moving their products through the border not like people think they are. They’re moving them across check points and in underground tunnels.

ZG: But, it’s still moving product from one country into another.

SS: Yes. But even in terms of the border security we have now is not adequate to deal with the problem. It’s not addressing the actual criminal activity that is occurring.

ZG: But you do think some kind of border security is required to deal with underground tunnels bringing in drugs?

SS: Yes. Absolutely. But I think a wall and these overly militarized check points haven’t actually fixed the problems at all. So we need to find new solutions. I don’t think these things are helpful to international relations. Right now, if you shoot across the Mexican border and murder someone, you’re not responsible cause you’re on American soil. That’s not good for anyone. If we’re talking about widespread cartels & human trafficking those are things that require lots of investigation, resources, and time. But your average border patrol agent isn’t checking a car and saying, “Oh, I found a cartel member.” That’s not happening. I don’t see cartels or human trafficking as even related to the border. Cause when we’re talking about human trafficking were talking about migrant laborers. Companies exploit that they get these people here, get them to work, and when the migrants complain about their working conditions, the corporations get them deported. That’s human trafficking and corporations are doing it and our government is not going after those corporations. That has nothing to do with a border wall or militarized borders. That is capitalist exploitation. So I think if we’re going to talk about human trafficking and drug trade, we need to actually look into those problems instead of acting like it is connected to this disparate thing.

ZG: The country is obviously in a perpetual state of gridlock, political crisis, and general decline. Do you think parts of the constitution need to be changed in order to guarantee more political stability? If so, what constitutional amendments you propose?

SS: I think that nobody really knows what is going to happen. Nobody knows if Donald Trump wins what’s going to happen, if he loses is he going to give up power. These people obviously don’t respect the constitution cause they’ve been violating our constitutional rights. I don’t think amending a document they don’t respect is going to give us any more rights or powers than we do. The Trump administration and all of his buddies don’t care about morals or the constitution. It’s really bleak, but the federal government has fallen. That is a reality. We’re in uncharted territory. How do you recover democracy after fascism? Can you just go in and make a few tweaks?

ZG: What are ways you would address issues of voter suppression?

SS: We need more polling stations. I believe it should be a national holiday. I believe you should be able to leave work and leave school. We should make it easier to vote by mail especially for people with disabilities. I think abolishing the electoral college and moving towards rank-choiced voting to help chip away of this binary party fold so people don’t think if their candidate loses they’ve wasted their votes. There’s people who have already voted and then their candidate dropped out. That’s not fair.

ZG: You’ve stated you support abolishing prisons. Can you further articulate just exactly what that means?

SS: We have a prison industrial complex. The school to prison pipeline. This is just institutionalized slavery for the most part. That’s what it is. We have so many people incarcerated for nonviolent crimes. I would like to move towards restorative justice. There are prison models based in places like Norway that are built around rehabilitation that aren’t abound in imprisoning and dehumanizing them. Its about engaging them and bolstering them to become whole people. Our system is the opposite. We just strip the humanity from people through abuse. That’s just state-sanctioned violence.

ZG: How do you go about articulating prison abolition to the average person who can’t conceive of such a thing?

SS: I think it comes down to showing that there are alternatives that have been really really successful throughout the course of human history. Most people think this is the only option. And that’s just not true, I think its about bringing in a diversity of ideas to the floor. We need to be using the same strategies as Medicare 4 All and referencing its success in other countries.

ZG: Do you think there is any class of crime that necessitates incapacitation in prison? Like, if you’re a serial killer lets just lock you up forever.

SS: I think even if we’re talking about serial killers that doesn’t mean that we should have institutionalized torture chambers for them. That’s not humane. Do I believe that you could have someone who needed life-long incarceration because they didn’t respond to rehabilitative methods, yes that could absolutely happen. But those people could still stay in an environment that is not abusive or dehumanizing. That’s not a requirement for prison. I think that’s the thing most people don’t understand? You don’t have to beat, rape, and abuse people and cage them and starve them and put them in solitary: that is all optional. That’s a choice and a poor one at that.

ZG: What are specific policies you have to address mass incarceration?

SS: I think just decriminalizing drugs and sex work would get a lot of people out of prison and keep them out. We need to direct these people to resources that are actually supportive and actually cause people to be rehabilitative instead of being sucked up in a cycle of fines, fees, incarceration, and poverty.

ZG: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

SS: We’ve covered a lot. The most important thing to me is to remind everyone that nobody is coming to save us. That hoping & praying for federal legislation that wouldn’t even be able to be enacted immediately doesn’t solve the problem that we actually need organizing and networking now. We mutual aid; we need harm reduction; we need crisis intervention. And we can’t rely on government to fund these things because we have to create these networks ourselves if were going to survive. I hate this idea of politicians making all these promises, like “if you elect me ill get you all of this stuff.” That’s not how it works, especially now. Not for the House of Representatives cause we can’t get things through the Senate. So I cant make any promises in that regard, except that ill fight like hell for you.

Honestly, its local politics. People need to get involved in city council and county boards. City politics controls law enforcement. County boards are stuff related to affordable housing, public health, disaster response. We need more people in working in those areas to bolster our safety services.

Stefanie Smith will be running against opponent Betsy Dirksen Londrigan in the Tuesday, March 17th, 2020 Democratic primary.

Spanky Edwards for U.S. Congress

image

Spanky Edwards is currently running for the U.S. Congress for the 17th district of Illinois. He is running against incumbent Cheri Bustos in the democratic primary. Bustos has represented the district since she first won election in 2012. She is also the head of the DCCC which is supposed to work to reelect incumbent democrats.

Edwards was kicked off the ballot when a number of his signatures were rejected because the people who signed it did not live at the address they were registered. He is currently a write-in candidate in the Democratic Primary on March 17th against Bustos. Bustos has refused to debate Mr. Edwards.

WMBD Interview

Zachary Gittrich: How many valid signatures does it require to get on the ballot and how many signatures did you file?

Spanky Edwards: The requirement is 833 signatures. I filed 996. But the issue as far as the electoral policy in Illinois is ass backwards. The qualifications switch by district, and it gives the 2 party system a huge advantage over 3rd party and independent. To get on the ballot if you’re a democrat is 833 signatures. For a republican is 5-600 signatures. For an independent its over 11,000 for the same position in the same district. That creates this gridlock in congress cause districts are red or blue. We have 700,000 people a district, if you have 1000 signatures you should be on the ballot, it shouldn’t matter what party you’re from. We talk about Russia cheating in an election when we disenfranchise ourselves.

ZG: You’re running against an incumbent Democrat. What are the reasons you think you’d be a better representative of the 17th district than Cheri Bustos? What are the specific differences you have with her representation?

SE:
1. She is afraid of Medicare 4 All. Healthcare is an essential service and a human right. So Medicare 4 All right now would save 70,000 lives a year, and it will provide a higher quality of life where people don’t have to take out loans, file bankrupt, or sell their houses to pay for medical bills. We have one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world. Too much of our money is spent on insurance, not healthcare.

2. Bustos has no plan or ideas for poor. She talks about Farmers when 12 farmers have lost their farms since she’s been in office. She champions veterans; we have a high homeless veteran rate in 17th district. She talks about her support for middle class, to be middle class in America is to make $150,000 a year; to have a high quality of life to afford cost of living. So when Bustos talks about the middle class: teachers, police officers, firefighters, nurses, public defenders don’t make that much. My proposal is we create a middle class salary for public service. They should be making $150,000 because they provide an essential service that we can’t live without; they maintain order: it would be complete chaos without them. The federal government, and hospitals, democratic enterprise, free enterprise, taxes on luxury items can go to coffers to raise money for those type of programs.

ZG: Do you have any pets?

SE: No

ZG: You have stated you support M4A. Is that single-payer?

SE: Single-payer. No cost at Point of Sale. No middleman between you and your provider. People like their health care provider not their insurer. Doing this would create a cultural shift.

ZG: If enacted, how would the transition from private to public healthcare work for the 160 million people who currently have private insurers?

SE: Bernie’s plan, which I support calls for 5-10 year transition from private to single-payer.

ZG: What kind of assistance would be available to private insurance company employees who may lose their job?

SE: I worked in insurance. So I know these are transferable skills. There are other types of insurance that they could transfer to: car, life, etc. We are going to reinstate the Freedman’s bureau. Hire MBAs, county agents, and retired veterans, in order to build homes.

ZG: Cheri Bustos voted in favor of both articles of impeachment against the President. Would you have agreed with those votes?

SE: Yes.

ZG: How would you rate the democrats efforts to impeach the president? Do you think there were other issues they should have focused on when it came to impeachment?

SE: So, Cheri voted at least twice to delay impeachment. The only reason she voted for those articles was because it was politically expedient. Trump should have been impeached cause he never cut ties with any of his private businesses which he benefits. And that wasn’t even one of the articles. So I think the Democrats did a piss-poor job at going after him; They only brought up two out of the–I would have thrown ten charges at his ass. The Russia investigation wasn’t even brought up in impeachment. So with regards to Russia, either the Democrats used it as political propaganda and Russia did not interfere; or they didn’t care enough to add it to the articles of impeachment. Either they’re bullshitting us with propoganda and it didnt happen-

ZG: … which I wouldn’t be surprised.

SE: Yea it wouldn’t! And, we’re used to the kind of political propaganda: the Willie Horton type propaganda, they’ll say anything to get elected.

ZG: It also obfuscates the fact that billionaires regularly influence our elections, Israel regularly influences our elections.

SE: Absolutely. Absolutely… Israel in particular, we have been prevented from even critiquing Israel in any form or way. That’s problematic when it comes to holding another foreign government accountable when I can’t tell the truth about them. What we have to understand is that Jewish life and Palestine life are equal. So, if I can critique Palestine, I can critique Israel, I can critique Russia and Germany and America as well. We all can be critiqued, no one is above that and it produces a terrible and unfair dynamic when it becomes illegal or there are severe consequences for just giving an honest political critique.

To your original question, Cheri Bustos did not want to go for impeachment, because she feels she lives in a Trump District and she’ll get voted out by Trump people. Lane Evans had this seat for 24 years; 12 terms in 17th district and he ran as a progressive. I would say it one of the most progressive districts in Illinois. So she’s lying. She knows people aren’t going to check her on that, because she was not expecting me to challenge her.

The democrats collectively got schooled, they got their ass kicked by a political novice who is a bully and a thug; they got thugged; they got punked. If this was a high school football game we’d say they got pancaked. That’s exactly what happened.

ZG: Government is regularly viewed as criminally inefficient. Conservatives automatically say everything government is bad; and Liberals argue its better than the private sector and it’s the duty of the government to do these things, but even they seem to acquiesce to the seemingly natural fact that government is inefficient. How would you address inefficiency in government services?

SE: That sounds like another job for people from insurance companies they can transfer over and provide those particular expertise. But in regards to job training. I have a certificate from the University of Rhode Island in nonviolent conflict resolution, so I understand how to resolve that type of gridlock. I’ve been in those offices, too. And the way they treat you, they look down on you; or, they know there’s absolutely nothing you can do cause you need them. You’re probably at your worst moments when you’re in those lines. You’re probably at your worst when your in government offices. They know that and they know you have to be nice to them but they don’t have to be nice to you, and there’s this particular power dynamic over you, and the whole experience is terrible. I would propose legislation to train government workers who work with the public to be trained on conflict resolution, and to be able to understand that they are providing a ministry. That they are providing resources for poor peoples, and it is benevolent. I want people to work in those office who are benevolent and nice and love, and feel like their job is fulfilling not just a check. That’s going to be some of the type of things I’m looking for. And if you have a terrible experience in government lines, blast them on social media! I think that’s how you get anything done in 2020, blast them on social media.

ZG: You have stated you support the Green New Deal. Do you support a complete ban on all new oil drilling and fracking?

SE: Yes on fracking. Case by case for oil. Until we are completely solar, I think that’s the point of the Green New Deal is to transfer our dependency on fossil fuels to renewable energy.

ZG: How do we continue to manufacture all the things that require oil, especially plastic?

SE: There are biodegradable products like hemp. Hemp can replace plastics, clothes; its very strong, its easy to grow, so investing in hemp would be better for the environment and oceans replacing plastics.

ZG: Currently, all products sold do not have to have clear instructions on recycling, would you support a regulation requiring some type of instruction for all products?

SE: I don’t know if regulation as far as mandatory is the best thing cause that leads to going to jail for littering and not recycling. That’s a slippery slope the regulation side. We should do litter campaigns and recycling campaigns. I think all forms of government need to do better jobs at recycling. We need to teach in our schools how to do this.

ZG: Would you support regulation requiring all goods sold be recyclable?

SE: In order to do that, regulations on small business tend to effect them worse. So, again, we could use hemp so you can throw it away.

ZG: Would you support regulations or tax incentives to encourage businesses to take more responsibility in recycling?

SE: I would want the government to work in concert with the free market to change the types of ways we shop and buy things and operate collectively, so it’s not just the federal government mandating stuff, but us seeing what your experience is in your store, so we notice you have these materials, here are other products that are cheaper and more green. I think that’s a win-win for everyone.

ZG: Do you support court-packing to readjust the politics of the Federal judiciary?

SE: I haven’t thought about it. I think it should be done in a non-partisan way. The Democrats let that happen. And the Democrats often work in tandem with Republicans. Obama and congress didn’t put up a fight.

ZG: Are there any current federal judges you would support impeaching and removing? (Both Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh committed perjury at their nomination hearings.)

SE: I would support an inquiry to investigate it. As long as its done in a fair and just way… see I’m a referee by trade, so as long these are the rules and the rules are just and don’t provide an unequal advantage. If you violated the law then you have to suffer some sort of consequences.

ZG: Do you support a constitutional amendment creating term limits for Federal judges?

SE: Yes.

ZG: Do you support granting statehood to Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Washington D.C., Guam, Mariana Islands, and America Somoa?

SE: Absolutely. If North and South Dakota can be there own states than all these can be their own states. Either give them statehood or free them from being American territories. How we treat them is like 3rd class citizens.

ZG: Do you support a constitutional Amendment creating term limits for members of congress?

SE: Yes.

ZG: Housing is increasingly unaffordable, and most people on waiting lists for public housing wait years. What policies would you propose to address this issue?

SE: The Green New Deal has a housing component, and economic reconstruction. In America, your wealth is connected to your home. I support bills creates 100% housing. Completely reconstructing how we do housing.

ZG: Do you support a maximum wage?

SE: No. A maximum wage is unamerican. I want people to make as much money as they can. That competitiveness–I love to see billionaires compete, to see whose going to be on top. That’s what makes America. The problem I have is that they don’t pay their employees $100,000. So anyone who has a billion dollars but has minimum wage workers, you aren’t a true billionaire your a thief!

ZG: What type of taxes do you expect to support?

SE: I support fair tax.

ZG: You recently posted on your FB of your strong support for people benefiting from government programs. Predictably many conservative voices quickly brought up objections that it creates a ‘culture or behavior of dependency.’ How do you counter this argument?

SE: People should have a basic standard of life because we are so wealthy. Many of the people that are poor have been exploited or their ancestors have been exploited. Realistically, there aren’t many opportunities to make living wage. Even teachers don’t make a living wage. That type of ideology is rooted in racism, white supremacists propaganda that they use to break up poor white people and black people coalitions during reconstruction. That’s rooted in Jim Crowism.

ZG: How do you counter this argument in the black community where there is still a strong conservative tradition?

My answer is similar to Dr. King. We talking about two types of people: people that have platinum gold boots, their shoes automatically tie themselves, silver spoon in their month, those people platinum diamond plated platform shoe people are telling people who don’t have boots at all to pull themselves – that’s immoral. To say that everyone is on the same plateau – that’s not the case. America was intentional when engineering this type of disadvantage. So to say everyone pulls themselves up by their bootstraps when the system is intentionally taking your boots. America created this problem. Many poor families have to give up a family member to live in public housing, and that’s bullshit. This has negatively effected Black Lives. So the government says “we’ll take care of you, you don’t need that man. We’ll take care of you; if you have a baby you’re gonna get healthcare, a house, food, you don’t need a man.” So why wouldn’t a poor person take advantage of that, so they’re not homeless and starving.

ZG: We have been in a state of perpetual warfare since both of us were in 6th grade. We are currently in military conflicts with 7 different nations. Do you support these wars? Would you end any of the wars?

SE: We’re in more than 7 countries. I don’t support these. As a proponent of conflict resolution, I think that in 2020 there is enough resources for everyone to have all their needs met. Many of this is rooted in racism and militarism, again, militarism is like 50% of every tax dollar goes to the military. So its a multi-trillion dollar industry. I feel like if we take the money out of it, we’ll end all those wars tomorrow.

ZG: How do we deal with the geo-political consequences of this?

SE: So its about working out a non-violent peaceful resolution so there is a win-win situation for all parties involved.

ZG: We spend more money of discretionary spending on military than anything else and have by far the largest and most powerful military on the planet. Are there cuts you would suggest to reduce this? We currently have hundreds of military bases all over the world, if you could pick certain bases to close, which ones?

SE: Absolutely. America is in about 20 different countries. Why? If we’re there to help and empower them then great, lets do that. But it should sunset. We should be able to be self-sufficient and sustainable in cutting back on our military. A lot of the military budget is waste. There’s a trillion dollars at the pentagon that no one knows where it is. Just to be efficient I’ve talked to military people all the time they have an unlimited amount of money. They literally have an endless supply of it. Our budget is way more than China, and they have a billion people. The question is the types of things the America does to the whole world. Our military should be to protect America and build alliances. We don’t have to do imperialism anymore. We don’t have to be police of the world; lets support them without the military.

ZG: There are some very serious issues happening regarding immigration, especially with regard to ICE & CPB. Some have even called for abolishing these institutions. What would you do?

SE: Were spending multi-billions of dollars on something that is non-violent… I’m not even gonna say its a crime. I don’t understand why America is treating Mexico like that. The entire Southwest used to be Mexico. We annexed that. They have ancestors there before America was even a thought. So for us to treat our friends to the South as 3rd class people or are not just as valuable as us is a problem. Again, ICE is racist, this is a racists system. I disagree with the way we deport and destroy families.

ZG: So you do support abolishing ICE?

SE: Yes, abolish ICE. The idea of deporting people whose ancestors were native to this land is absurd. Since America is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, I would support legislation for a more humane immigration system.

ZG: What about situations where there is a known, credible threat from a terrorist. Would we still not deport them?

SE: That’s a whole different story. That has nothing to do with ICE. The overwhelming majority of immigrants being deported have no criminal record and are not terrorists. If we wanna deport terrorists lets deport KKK members and white supremacists. We wanna deport terrorists, then those are our number 1 terrorists in the country.

ZG: Do you think serious crimes have been committed regarding immigration and the border by these institutions and this administration?

SE: Absolutely. Its putting people in cages. Not creating a humane system or even a plan. They had no plans for the children or for the families. They just rounded them up, sent them to the South and had them waiting. The kids are being raped, dying, sick; they have no plan; that’s a piss-poor plan. And its causing detriment to thousands of lives. So, I would prosecute all of them. Someone needs to go to jail for creating this type of violence on people.

ZG: There are many black conservatives that are extremely skeptical of loose immigration laws? What do you think are the best methods for convincing them otherwise?

SE: I don’t think they have a serious understanding of whats going on. So, as an educator, I would be open to starting an educational program that explains what is going on, these are the conditions in the country these migrants are in, so they are running escaping their country as refugees to save their lives. I think most Americans have a heart, and I feel like if we will be more open to accepting immigrants because they’re refugees.

ZG: The country is obviously in a perpetual state of gridlock, political crisis, and general decline. Do you think parts of the constitution need to be changed in order to guarantee more political stability? If so, what constitutional amendments you propose?

SE: I think every 40 years we need to have a constitutional convention. We live in a completely different America than our forefathers. I don’t think they should be able to dictate to us 200 years ago later how we should operate; we’re just as smart as they are and people living should be able to create our own constitution.

I would also abolish the electoral college. I would abolish slave labor in prisons, remove that from the 13th amendment. How we elect candidates. Abolish the use of private for-profit prisons.

ZG: What are ways would you address issues of voter suppression?

SE: Automatic voter registration at 18. I was kicked off the ballot. That’s a form of voter suppression. The people that signed my petition pay taxes on houses they live in and were not allowed to elect me. All men are created equal, all opportunities for representation must be equal.

ZG: As a prison abolitionist, you think that prison should only be for violent criminals who pose a threat to our society. Mass incarceration is obviously an enormous problem. You offered a number of innovative ideas to punish criminals including: Lower their credit, fine them, beat they ass periodically, public shame them, make them work a minimal wage job, in the projects, take their houses, and cars and wealth away for 10 years. How would you go about rehabilitating criminals?

SE: So, I being very facetious when I said that. But, I think everyone who is in prison for a non-violent offense, 90% of them would take alternatives on that rehabilitation list. Hell, I’ll takes some licks if its five years for a nonviolent offense or lashes for something I actually did. Rehabilitation: non-violent training. This is one of the most effective ways to create a harmonizing society. Again also, creating more opportunities to live in the middles class, that would remove a lot of petty crimes and non-violent crimes, cause people are really stealing to survive. But, you have millionaires on wall street who steal your car, your house, and everything you own. Make them pay a fine, force them to live in special housing, lower their credit, take their stuff away. But I don’t want to spend the tax money to keep those type of nonviolent crimes in prison. Prison should be for people who pose a violent threat to society. That’s what its there for; that’s why the fences, barbed wires are created. With prisons we create supercriminals, so someone who committed tax fraud are in their with murderers. So the tax cheat gets mentored by a professional criminal, and doesn’t get caught again.

ZG: How do you go about articulating prison abolition to the average person who can’t conceive of such a thing?

SE: I didn’t say that I was a prison abolitionist, I said I’m a modern day abolitionist. So, I don’t think non-violent people should go to prison. If you’re a violent threat, then I understand prison. But there are a lot of people in prison who aren’t violent. They just made a mistake. Those are the type of people I would emancipate.

ZG: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

SE: The 2 party system is not working for poor people. Hell, I’ve been poor under a Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump administration. Even after getting a Masters degree, I’m still poor. Neither party has resolved issues concerning me.

If you vote for me, I’m the best candidate if you’re making under $200,000 a year. My opponent, Cheri Bustos has no plans to deal with poverty. And she’s our representative because of nepotism (she babysat the right man’s kids), she feels entitled to represent us. Shes not the best candidate. My resume is ten times better than her; I’m more qualified then her, I have more connections than her; she just has more money than me. Nepotism shouldn’t be right in a democracy. Dick Durbin is not a lord, he’s a senator; he represents us. We don’t represent him. She is one of the most powerful position because she is beholden to him. The DCCC ban on backing progressive causes is not right. She is supporting candidates who support overturning Roe v. Wade: that’s not right. She is refusing to support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Who even is she supporting for president? She is a moral coward. She is doing everything that is politically and financially expedient to her. Shes going to sell us out every chance she gets. To her its just money and whatever the powerful people tell her to do. I’m not that type of person. I can’t be sold I cant be bought. You can hold me accountable. I’m connected with NAACP, Women voters, ACLU, many churches in Peoria. I was the president of the ACLU but I stepped down to run for office. I work with Jehan Gordon, I was one of her first volunteers. I’ve worked for PPS, I’m a Moorehouse candidate, I’m an ICC graduate so I have that experience along with private school, I’m more diverse, I’m a professional dancer, I own my own business, I’m a referee by trade, I do conflict resolution so my thinking is completely different than Bustos. I’m a better candidate than her and my republican opponent. For poor people, I have better solutions than Bustos.

The Illinois primary is Tuesday, March 17th, 2020. Those in the 17th district wishing to vote for Spanky Edwards must select the write-in option and correctly spell his name: S-P-A-N-K-Y E-D-W-A-R-D-S. You can reach out to Edward’s campaign on Facebook.

Chris Mccall for States Attorney Interview

image

I got to talk with private attorney Chris McCall, who is currently running in next years election for States Attorney. On the Democratic side, Chris McCall will take on recently appointed Peoria States Attorney Judi Hoos. This will actually be the second time the two have faced off against each other. McCall also applied for the States Attorney position left vacant by the demise of Jerry Brady in June 2019.

Shortly after her appointment, Hoos commented she had no plans to change any of the prosecution teams she will overseas, continuing a long pattern of mass incarceration & racial inequity at the Peoria States attorney that goes back before Kevin Lyons tenure as Peoria’s top prosecutor. Hoos worked for many years as a prosecutor in Peoria County.

Sherry Cannon is the local NAACP chapter’s secretary. She said the state’s attorney’s office is resistant to expunging criminal records. She also holds them responsible for disproportionately high rates of African-American incarceration in Peoria County, and high rates of black children taken into foster care in Peoria County. She also said Peoria County has a low number of black employees and officeholders.

Chris McCall presents himself as a break from the status-quo of mass incarceration from the States Attorney office. “McCall has worked for 15 years as both a prosecutor and defense attorney. He founded his private practice in 2005. Most of his work is in family law and criminal defense. He has also served as a hearing officer for Peoria Public Schools District 150.

He says he has big plans on correcting many of the errors in the criminal justice system.

“At current levels, it costs $180,000 in our county to incarcerate a child for a year,” McCall said. “The programs I am proposing to redirect would-be criminals, to offer parenting classes prior to foster care and to protect victims from further victimization would cost a faction of that cost, while making our communities safer places for all of us to live.” He says his policies will help sever the bonds of generational poverty.

“McCall said he would hire a bilingual social worker focused on redirecting juvenile and non-violent, first-time offenders. He also plans to start a once-a-month evening court for petty offenses, so people don’t have to take time off from work to attend court during the day.

Another top priority: creating an Advisory Committee on Police Shootings to make recommendations about the legal response to such events.”

I spoke with Chris McCall over the phone about his project for criminal justice in Peoria.

Zach Gittrich: You’ve heard about the decision to try 14-year old Zaveon Marks as an adult for the murder of 16-year old Zarious Fair. What are the circumstances where you would be willing to try juveniles as adults?

Chris McCall: As a candidate for States Attorney, I shouldn’t comment on specific cases. When it comes to trying juveniles as adults, there’s a couple of things that have to be kept in mind. For 16 & 17-year olds, certain extremely serious crimes are statutorily required to be tried in adult courts. However, juveniles from 13 to 15-year olds are left up to the prosecutor’s discretion. I think it is very important to take into consideration the crime itself and the circumstances surrounding it (was it a random or pre-planned offense). I would also examine the minor’s history of delinquency and consult the teachers and educators. Finally, I would make sure I consult the victim’s family.

ZG: What are some of the things you’d like to do as State’s Attorney to address racial inequities in Peoria County?

CM: First, I would hire more minorities to the SA office. There are currently very few people of color working there; and, many people of color have left the office because they have not received the same opportunities as white attorneys.

Second, I would assemble a taskforce to review all incidents of police involved shootings. Currently, when deciding to charge officers the SA office only has senior staff review these cases, and I think the current process lacks confidence among the people. Some people see this process and think it’s blue supporting blue.

ZG: Who would you appoint to this task force?

CM: I would include retired judges, senior staff, and retired, diverse police officers to advise on whether to prosecute or not. I believe this would give the community more confidence in the system.

ZG: What about appointing members from various civil rights groups?

CM: I’m open to that; however, I don’t want to be in the process of teaching the law to laypeople. So, whoever is appointed to the task force needs to have a familiarity with the law so as to get to the task at hand.

ZG: What is your position on the use of money bail for those arrested? Are you willing to ban money bail for all nonviolent offenders who are arrested?

CM: I want to work towards banning that. I am supportive of legislative efforts to ban money bond for nonviolent offenses (with the exception of stalking, harassment, and trespassing). Myself, I would likely begin by looking at nonviolent traffic offenses and misdemeanors.

ZG: What are some of the problems you’ve seen from PPD in the way they enforce the law?

CM: It seems that some officers–younger officers–are sent to some areas where they don’t have relationship. There needs to be a more diverse police force. The PPD needs to focus more on relationship building and communication with neighborhoods that may distrust them. Furthermore, anyone who is stopped in a high-crime area, I won’t prosecute just because they look “nervous”.

At the same time, police officers need to understand that as long as they do the right things, McCall will support them. The job can certainly be difficult and involves lots of split-second judgment decisions, but at the end of the day, it’s still a job they chose. I also think most officers are doing good and want to do good.

ZG: What are your thoughts on Peoria’s use of nuisance abatements as a way to remove “problem” tenants from their homes?

CM: That’s more of a city issue than a SA issue. I would have to defer to the city attorney.

ZG: Even though it is not the job of the SA would you be willing to work with school Districts to teach students about the law and the penalties that go with committing a crime? I ask because while most kids know that certain actions are crimes, they often don’t understand the full consequences and penalties that go with committing certain crimes.

CM: Yes, I would, and it’s something I already do as a private attorney. Its something I’ve been doing since 2005. I go to local schools, from grade schools to college. I talk about what happens in court, basic things that can get them in trouble, I talk about trauma, how to interact with police that is respectful but within their rights. I want to continue to do that at a greater scale. I would also send traffic prosecutors into drivers ed to discuss the penalties of driving without a license or insurance.

ZG: Back in April, a black woman was almost murdered by a racist white man who threatened to kill her. He was not charged with a Federal hate crime and was eventually put into veterans court where he received 15 months court supervision and 200 hours of community service. The victim feels she was railroaded. How would you have handled this case differently?

CM: I cant speak about this specific case. But, in general, we must support victims. Talk to victims every point of case, that is what is needed.

ZG: Do you think more should be done to hold the police accountable to the general public? What things would you support to make this happen?

CM: That’s more of a city issue. But, if an officer has a reputation of bias or unfair treatment or has a habit of turning their body camera off, the best way to punish those officers is to make it clear we wont prosecute cases involving those officers.

ZG: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

CM: The primary election is March 17th, and I would love peoples’ support. I want to focus on more intervention programs, help victims of crimes, and do more to treat victims of recent trauma. I believe all defendants should be treated the same under the law.

UPDATE: 14-year old found guilty of murder

image

14-year old Zaveon Marks was found guilty by a jury in Peoria County for the murder of 16-year old Zarious Fair. Predictably, there were no other 14-year olds on this jury of his peers. In July, both Marks and 18-year old Doyle E. Nelson were arrested for the murder. Zarious Fair was Peoria’s 11th homicide of 2019.

Because Zaveon was charged as an adult, he faces between 20-40 years in prison. If Judge Katherine Gorman finds the 14-year-old is particularly depraved and beyond the possibility of rehabilitation–which is a very high barrier to meet–Zaveon could be sentenced as long as 60 years in prison. Zaveon would be imprisoned at JDC until he turns 21, then transferred to an adult prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. According to local attorney Susan O’Neil, “They rarely keep juveniles until their 21st birthday, even if the judge in JD court sentences them to a ‘full commitment.”

During the three-day trial, prosecutors hammered home that Marks and another man, Doyle Nelson, 18, came up behind Fair and another girl as they were walking in the 700 block of East Frye Avenue shortly after 4 p.m. The girl testified that Marks indicated he wanted to rob Fair, though she told jurors that it appeared the two boys would start fighting. Nelson rooted through Fair’s pockets, finding nothing. Then, the girl said, Marks fired four times, striking Fair three times.1 

Zaveon’s defense team, Yolanda Riley & William Loeffel, argued Marks was under the influence of the older and more wordly Nelson (whose trial will not begin until November 18th). The defense said Nelson was a bad influence and had a habit of hanging out with young boys urging them to carry weapons. 15-year old girl who testified against Marks stated the shooter was wearing a black hoodie. However, it was Nelson who wore a black hoodie that day. The defense team used this to say Nelson was the actual shooter, not Zaveon.

Zaveon is the youngest person convicted of murder in over 20 years.

I’ve written extensively on this case in my article To Adult or Not To Adult.

#OylerGate Update II

image

Rob Hanauer, defense attorney for embattled City Council member Zach Oyler, is trying to get polygraph evidence admitted to court. Councilman Oyler is facing misdemeanor charges of domestic battery and interfering with a report of domestic abuse in Peoria County. The alleged servant-leader took the polygraph under the direction of veteran polygraph examiner Steve Woody. Oyler was asked whether he physically struck or hit his wife in the July 30th incident. Oyler said no. Oyler will be in court November 15th on the motion to include the polygraph test into judicial evidence.

Rob Hanauer

It’s hard to believe such evidence would be admitted into the court. Polygraphs are widely considered scientifically dubious at best. They are generally inadmissable in almost all court settings. This is because there’s no one specific physical sign that an individual is telling a lie or otherwise being deceitful. Dr. Leonard Saxe, a clinical psychologist and professor at Brandeis University near Boston, says virtually the entire scientific community rebukes the efficacy of so-called lie-detectors. “A polygraph test measures anxiety — and anxiety is sometimes associated with lying, but other times is associated with trying really hard to tell the truth… In some cases, there may not be alternatives [to prove truth or innocence], but that doesn’t mean you use unreliable science as evidence.” In fact, the inventor of the Polygraph, John Augustus Larson, eventually came to the conclusion his device was being misused and abused. Larson wrote shortly before his death in 1965, “Beyond my expectation, thru uncontrollable factors, this scientific investigation became for practical purposes a Frankenstein’s monster, which I have spent over 40 years in combating.”

So, why is Rob Hanauer trying so hard to have unscientific evidence included in a judicial system that almost never allows such evidence? Likely to effect the general public’s opinion about this case. People are used to seeing polygraph examinations on police dramas or on tabloid talk shows like the Maury Povich Show or the Jerry Springer Show. It’s going to be hard to find a jury who hasn’t at least read in the news that Oyler passed a polygraph examination.

. . .

Heather Oyler

Zach Oyler’s survivor, wife Heather Oyler, has now come forward with a full recantation of events. She says she wants charges dropped against her husband and the July 30th incident was a complete misunderstanding that grew out of proportions. In an interview with Chris Kaergard of the Peoria Journal Star, Heather had this to say:

While there was a dispute between the two, her perspective on the specific matters where Zach Oyler is charged are that they were misunderstandings rather than malevolent action.

“Zach and I did get in an argument. To be frankly honest with you, a lot of people get in arguments,” she said. “The problem was something that was said within this argument triggered me to completely get more upset than I needed to.”

Heather Oyler says she’s long grappled with issues of mental health, and she’d had issues with changes in her treatment at the time which might’ve affected how she reacted that night. She had talked through her recollections of that night with therapists and a psychiatrist before speaking to the Journal Star.

“Zach was trying to calm me down,” Heather Oyler says. After having had a couple drinks earlier in the night, “he knew he couldn’t drive, and he knows that if I take my medication I take before I go to sleep for my diagnosis that I can’t drive either,” she says. “I can be walking and talking and not even realize it after I take some of this medication. And it was the time of night where I would’ve taken it by that point. I hadn’t taken anything — I told the police that. But Zach didn’t know that because he’d been in and out of the room for the majority of the night.”

As to another allegation, made in reports after the arrest but not formally part of the charges against him, Heather Oyler said this: “He did not put his hands around my neck.”

“I reached out … because I was tired of waiting for this to get better. And I reached out … because I feel people deserve to know what happened,” Heather Oyler said. “They’ve been screaming at Zach during public comments that he owes an explanation.2 He legally can’t give one right now, but the thing is, I can.”3

“We’re living under the same roof. We’re trying to get back to life as normal,” she says. “If anything, this has brought us closer together because we trust each other more now.

“It’s given us the opportunity to look into some of my challenges a little bit more and I’ve seen that he’s been there for me throughout all of this, and that’s been one of the most amazing things,” she added.

Heather Oyler is critical of the way she feels she’s been treated by state’s attorney’s office, and says she has told officials there that she’d testify “that this is not how it seems, that I was upset.”

She says that she called prosecutors’ offices to ask that charges not be filed, and that she had no warning when they eventually were.

Last week, Heather Oyler said, she spoke with an assistant state’s attorney working on the case, detailing her recollections of the night and her other struggles.

“They didn’t take a single note when I spoke to them the other day,” Heather Oyler said. ”… (The assistant state’s attorney) just said again it’s their job to file charges and she just had a feeling. I asked her, if you just have a feeling that someone’s driving down the street impaired, you can’t pull them over unless you have probable cause. I gave the police probable cause that night because of the case I was in, but I’m telling you that’s not what happened.

″… I explained to them that this was making things with my job difficult, it was making things with Zach’s job difficult, it was making our public life difficult,” she added.

“I know there’s going to be people that say that I was coaxed into this, and I wasn’t. Zach can’t tell me what to do at this point anymore,” Heather Oyler said. “I feel like no one can tell me what I can or can’t do any more, because I’ve been spending a majority of my life listening to what everybody else wants, and at this point all I want is for our life to be better and normal, and I want to help make other people’s lives better.” That includes, she says, being forthright about mental health struggles. “There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s the same thing as having diabetes or high blood pressure or cancer. It’s something that you have to treat and you have to work with,” Heather Oyler said. “And it’s something that you’re going to live with for a long time — those are things that don’t go away, those disorders. Instead of being afraid of it, treat it like it’s a normal person.”4

State’s Attorney Jodi Hoos said that prosecutors would continue to review the case.

Peoria States Attorney Judy Hoos

Sadly, victims of domestic violence often are not able to help themselves. They look for reasons to stay, rather than leave, blame themselves and rarely cooperate with the prosecution of the abuser,” Hoos said. “As State’s Attorney I represent the public as a whole, and sometimes, that means going forward on a case where there is sufficient evidence to prove it, even if the victim does not want to.”

“In this matter, we will continue to evaluate the victim’s statements along with other evidence, such as the 911 call, body camera footage, photographs taken at the scene, etc.,” she added. 4

If the Peoria County State’s Attorney refuses to drop the charges, Zach Oyler is scheduled for a January 2019 jury trial.

This is an ongoing story and will be updated accordingly. Zach Oyler is innocent until proven guilty under the law. For more info on #OylerGate, see here.

For more Fragments on Playing in Peoria, see here.

The Doorbell Bunch

image

Ring, ring…! Doorbells abound at Peoria City Council. On July 23rd, 2019, Peoria City Council entered into a contract with Ring Security (purchased by Amazon in early 2018) to provide discounted Ring security cameras to Peoria residents. City Council shelled out $50,000 to bring the cost down. Peoria residents will receive a $50 discount from the City and another $50 off from Ring, bringing the price down from $200 to about $100. The doorbells come with a A/V recorder which uploads the recording to a digital server for storage. The recording is active when the doorbell is rung or there is movement in front of the sensor. Along for the ride is Ring’s own personal app call Neighbor. Neighbor allows you to share your security recordings with those in your neighborhood and also receive updates from both the local police and Ring.

Peoria Police Department already has an agreement with Ring Inc. in order to get access to the videos. Ring users may opt-in to sharing videos with law enforcement. According to Councilman Montelongo and Amazon.com’s own policy, neither Ring Inc. nor law enforcement may access the videos. “However, the language in Ring’s privacy policy states otherwise, and specifies that the company may also supply customer footage without notice based on ‘requests by government agencies’ and ‘reasonable government request.‘”5 Ultimately, only Amazon.com is responsible for keeping its word not to pry into personal videos. Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, Mohammad Tajsar says these loopholes benefit Amazon.com. “The only thing that can bind them, in theory, is either their privacy policies, which are often changing on us, and/or some other regulatory schemes that can prevent the kind of concerns that we have.6 Privacy concerns were only briefly mentioned at City Council and most members seemed more than willing to accept Amazon’s word.

Nor was their any critical analysis from City Council on the effects of forcing residents to engage in the Neighbors app. In order to use the Ring system, users must download the Neighbors app. The app keeps up-to-date crime reports and encourages all its users to post any and all suspicious videos. It’s in Amazon’s best interest to keep communities in continual fear of crime in order to sell more Ring products, regardless if crime is actually higher or lower in an area. This social-media app encourages residents to fear the worst about their own neighbors.

Finally, there was no analysis on the effect these social-media crime fighting tools have on racial disparities. “In Amazon’s version of a ‘new neighborhood watch,’ petty crimes are policed heavily, and racism is common. Video posts on Neighbors disproportionately depict people of color, and descriptions often use racist language or make racist assumptions about the people shown. In many ways, the Neighbors/Ring ecosystem is like a virtual gated community: people can opt themselves in by downloading the Neighbors app, and with a Ring camera, users can frame neighbors as a threat.7 Not a single councilmember even brought up these issues.

Basically, Peoria City Council unanimously approved a $50,000 subsidy to a mega-corporation that has a vested interest in, not making communities safer, but in selling as many security tools as they can. Peoria will essentially be paying for a giant ad for Amazon. Instead of that $50,000 going towards education, infrastructure, or mental health in high-crime areas, the City just assisted Amazon in it’s own marketing scheme. Stay classy Peoria.

For more Fragments on Playing in Peoria, see here.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

RSS