'Punching Down' - Bob O'Dekirk, Victor Williams and James Glasgow - WILL COUNTY
Updated: Jun 29
How does a white mayor get away with attacking an innocent black youth during a George Floyd protest in the year 2020?
Joliet, IL - Mayor Bob O'Dekirk was cleared of any wrongdoing after attacking an unarmed black youth mourning the death of George Floyd at a protest, of all places, in May of 2020. The pursuit of injustice that followed was not just an example of 'the dog ate my homework' (and I will turn in my assignment tomorrow), but the following day trying to claim that 'sorry teacher, I still have not completed my assignment because we had to take the dog to the vet...because he got sick after he ate my homework.'
'I cannot show you the video of my dog at the veterinarian's office because the veterinarian tampered with the video.'
The video clearly shows O'Dekirk as the aggressor when he grabs, drags and then slams a young man to the ground for no reason. No weapons, no drugs, no charges to file against the young black victim called Victor Williams. The video as well as many witnesses describe O'Dekirk as hostile.
I tweeted the link to this video to Black Lives Matter Chicago after I learned of it and they blocked me. That should give you an idea of the level of corruption we are dealing with here. This video has been 'stuck' at 97,417 views since right after it came out and is difficult to find via standard YouTube search.
The mayor claimed he was acting in self-defense, which would mean that he went on official record stating as much. However, no charges of any kind were brought against Victor Williams and his brother Jamal Smith who rushed to the aid of his brother during the attack by mayor O'Dekirk. Still unnamed Joliet police officers are seen illegally restraining Victor Williams after he was attacked by the mayor and are also included (although not named) in a federal lawsuit against O'Dekirk.
After one year there are more questions than answers for the family of Victor Williams. During that same time period, prosecutors in Minnesota produced a guilty verdict for Derek Chauvin and also a $27 Million payout for the family of George Floyd. Minnesota AG Keith Ellison is far more 'down with the cause' than Illinois AG Kwame Raoul.
If the mayor went on record stating that he acted in self-defense and no charges were filed against Victor Williams, then that would mean the mayor filed a false police report which is a 'very serious crime' - according to O'Dekirk's own words when he described the 'false' allegations against him late last year by Duck Dickinson. Step down or we will charge you with a crime. But it is illegal to use threats of a criminal matter to 'lean on' someone to get what you want in a civil matter. But of course O'Dekirk knows that because he is a lawyer. This is considered a disbarable offense if you present it in a court, unless the judge goes along with it and the files are sealed all in the name of transparency, of course.
O'Dekirk said about that matter: "These accusations are false, and they were made in an official document, the police report, and in Illinois, that's a crime," said O'Dekirk, a former Joliet police officer who now practices law in Joliet.
Dickinson filed a police report against the mayor. O'Dekirk said he may be filing a police report of his own accusing Dickinson of filing a false police report surrounding the matter.
Now when a civilian tries to file a police report saying that cops, prosecutors and lawyers assisted in manufacturing a false police report against that civilian, that civilian is told they cannot do that. But remember, Joliet mayor Bob O'Dekirk can do whatever he wants (see image above).
BACK TO VICTOR WILLIAMS
The lawyers for Victor Williams claim they were denied access to the files relating to their own client. 'Sealed for transparency' and other perfectly incorrect abstract musings from the office of the prosecutor followed.
This is like walking into a police station and stating that you have been robbed and then having the police officer taking the report say, 'You were not robbed. You robbed somebody and now we are charging you with robbery.'
Since when does the defense dictate what the prosecutor does? Felix Sarver reported that Glasgow stated 'transparency' as the reason for referring the case to the ISP. Of course this is perfectly incorrect. The statement should have read 'conflict of interest.' The prosecutor should have maintained possession of the case if he thought O'Dekirk was guilty. That would have demonstrated the fair and unbiased transparent pursuit of justice and the absence of a conflict of interest. The only reason you would remove yourself under the guise of transparency is if you think you are not capable of being transparent, which is a whole other issue altogether.
There is a connection between Bob O'Dekirk, his friend and lawyer, Tomczak, the office of prosecutor Glasgow and Mady Perez - the woman who was a staunch critic of O'Dekirk but now a staunch supporter after she hired Tomczak to get charges against her son dropped.
Follow the bouncing ball all the way from dropped charges against a young man for a serious crime to the office of the prosecutor who dropped the charges via Bob O'Dekirk's attorney - Tomczak... and just like that Mady Perez goes from a staunch critic to a staunch supporter of Bob O'Dekirk aka mayor Thumper.
Thick as thieves. What does this mean? They are all friends. Transparency and conflict of interest. So the 'we referred the case to the ISP for transparency' really means 'to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest' which we know exists and then we will later muddy the waters further by pretending that: Glasgow, the office of the prosecutor, claims he thought the video might have been tampered with (which is nonsense - although O'Dekirk is now singing that same song) and then a fake disagreement between Glasgow and Tomczak ensued to create the illusion that a public disagreement between the prosecution and defense must signify fair and impartial objectivity, when in fact there was no 'burden of proof' established with regard to proving 'tampering' (a red herring) when the actual matter at hand was exculpatory vs. inculpatory. The evidence that exhonerates Bob O'Dekirk is nowhere to be found, therefore the video was tampered with. Prove you didn't do it. Pack one lie inside of another lie and add red herring and then roll it up in a tortilla of half wits in the press corp who just print whatever you say without asking any questions and you have the famous Will County burrito - totally full of shit.
The video was tampered with - isn't that the same thing that happened when the whistleblower police officer exposed the Eric Lurry video? He exposed internal tampering with evidence and then gets charged with a crime.
O'Dekirk was aware of the what was going on with the investigation the entire time. Is this legal? The 'sealed' files as well as details of the investigation were apparently made available to O'Dekirk who bragged he had learned of his exoneration well before that information was made available to the public, but more importantly before it was made available to the attorneys representing Victor Williams.
Bob O’Dekirk appointed one of three black leaders who backed him during a news conference, after the mayor’s beating of an innocent black man, to the city’s police board later that same day. Nobody had ever heard of this black leader before and nonetheless he received a unanimous vote from the mayor's puppets. That article WAS at the following link but has now been moved or deleted, just like many of the other articles related to this matter.
These articles are disappearing like a frightened Trump supporter's social media posts - afraid that the FBI is going to show up at his house looking for Nancy Pelosi's laptop or arrest his for being at the Capitol building on Jan 6th.
The payoffs. Black man appointed to police board (Bob O'Dekirk does a lot for the black community), Mady Perez, Duck Dickinson who was replaced with someone who votes more along the lines of what the mayor wants and a Will County Board member named Joel Brown who ran unopposed after the incident with Nicki Serbin. Was that a payoff? If so, what for? That lawyer ran unopposed after the sordid details of that event during the #MeToo era with the blessing of someone.
O'Dekirk frothing at the mouth...
It is very difficult to preserve these articles because they are moved and the links no longer direct a reader to the article, so it is best to take screenshots, however, here is the current link to the story that somehow didn't prevent Joel Brown from joining this seedy little group:
From the article:
The article claims Brown, from Romeoville, who is running for a seat on the Will County Board in District 3 as a Democrat – “flashed and groped me when I was alone in an office with him in 2016 is now running for Will County Board with the support of the local party. Gross. I need to go manage my anger. #metoo,” Serbin wrote.
Although, his name does not appear here under Dist 3 on the official website. So maybe somebody decided that was one loose string they could not afford to have handing out there. I have the pieces of that string. Board Members by District
But more on Joel Brown later. "I'm calling you about something else." Not to discuss attorney client privilege apparently.
The way in which police officers, lawyers, prosecutors and judges in Will County, IL treat the rule of law and the legal process is absolutely abhorrent. Like when you take your car to a mechanic and try to describe the problem and they ignore you and say - "Yea, we are just going to plug the diagnostic machine into it to find out what is wrong with it." They do not really care what you have to say. And, of course, that diagnostic machine is the office of the prosecutor. The mechanic being the lawyer. The mechanics in Will County all work for the same shop, if you will.
The low IQ shills that make up the corrupt cesspool of Illinois government and the press corp who back them up is like watching a bunch of 3rd graders play cops and robbers.
The resources spent controlling the narrative as well as monitoring and threatening their dissenters should be spent pursuing justice. After all, that is what they are supposed to be doing. However, gross incompetence and corruption go hand in hand. Meaning, you must have corruption to cover up your own mistakes during your faulty pursuit of justice. The lines between gross incompetence and willful fraud are often blurred.
monitoring their dissenters - I know for a fact that at least some of the assholes mentioned in this article are watching what I am writing about them. Most recently I commented about how WGN in Chicago conveniently 'cut off' the portion of the video that clearly showed O'Dekirk initiating the attack on Victor Williams last year by starting the video just a little bit past the point where he clearly grabs him. It was right after this that the 'video had been tampered with' narrative started. Yea, edited for broadcast time in O'Dekirk's favor. Not edited to remove exculpatory evidence. NOT THIS TIME.
Why would a bunch of people who seem to think that they can do whatever they want and get away with it bother to waste time monitoring a low-level dissenter of injustice such as myself. Well, maybe they are paranoid because they think that transparency might ultimately be achieved.
Why do I get a notification from Google blocking the search for 'Joliet mayor Bob O'Dekirk' stating 'our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network?' Why does my phone just 'shut off' sometimes while I am recording a video and I use a combination of certain keywords like 'Glasgow, O'Dekirk and Joel Brown?'
If you assholes spent as much time, effort and resources doing your jobs as you spend trying to cover your tracks, your dissenters would be grossly outnumbered and overshadowed by your various mountains of successes. However, you are nothing but a bunch of street punks.
'Punching down' is a phrase that is heard often lately when attempting to describe not just the injustice of the 'pursuit of justice,' but how the people in power pick targets that are an unworthy match like a bully on grade school playground. In this case 'justice' for O'Dekirk is a gross injustice for Victor Williams. And this all took place at an event calling for 'justice' for George Floyd.
O"Dekirk claims the video has been tampered with. It has not been tampered with. O'Dekirk is relying on the narrative that 99% of the time when a COP (NOT A MAYOR) is accused of 'escalating the situation at a routine traffic stop' that the exculpatory portion of the video is redacted. THIS IS THE 1% of the time that this WAS NOT the case. O'Dekirk attacked a black kid for no reason.
Time-out guys, let me go beat up this black guy real quick. I'll be right back. It is my white rage kicking in. My inherent white bias.
Felix Sarver has an interesting string of tweets relating to this matter: https://twitter.com/fsarver/status/1405893503931064323
Mady Perez - Joliet Resident Comes To The Defense Of Mayor Bob O’Dekirk_WJOL