Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Reader comments closed for the holiday weekend
Next Post: Another anti-Dunkin mailer hits, but criticized as “political lynching”
Posted in:
[UPDATED: Comments are now open on this post.]
* Myself and several others tried to reach out to Rep. Ken Dunkin yesterday about the mug-shot attack mailer launched by the 42nd Ward, but he wouldn’t talk to anyone else except ABC 7’s Charles Thomas…
The return address on the cards is the Northside’s 42nd Ward Democratic Organization. It is headed by Chicago Alderman Brendan Reilly. Reilly is a former aide and most-of-the-time loyalist of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan.
“If the speaker’s successful with me, he’ll have every member intimidated for the next 10 years,” Dunkin says. […]
According to documents provided by Alderman Reilly, Dunkin was convicted of violating orders of protection battery and sentenced to probation. But the victim in the 1996 case, who wished to remain anonymous, said the charges were exaggerated.
“He is not violent. He is not an abuser,” she said. “He has done an amazing job in the community. It’s unfortunate that something that happened 20 years ago would service to tarnish his character and who he is today.”
* But not mentioned in the story is that in April of 1998 another woman named Anita Harris alleged this, according to the 42nd Ward’s oppo file and accompanying documentation…
Yikes.
Keep in mind that Dunkin was never actually convicted of those allegations. The orders of protection were based on the words of two people on two occasions - although judges apparently found those words credible enough to issue the orders.
* And the man whom Dunkin was convicted of punching isn’t in a forgiving mood…
The April 1996 incident began when Dunkin approached a woman — the mother of his child — and the two began arguing. A man tried to intervene and was punched, the records show. […]
Some 20 years later, victim Matt Hawkins, now a 48-year-old community activist in East St. Louis, said he vividly remembers the altercation, which left him with a scar, a broken nose and dental plate. He also recalls that Dunkin bragged that he had political connections.
* Even so, the lawyer who represented the child’s mother says all’s well that ends well…
The Sun-Times was unable to reach the complainant, but her lawyer, Lester Barclay, said that the case was amicably resolved and that Dunkin remained a “stand-up guy.”
“All I know is he met his obligations, and he has been a standup guy and a great father,” Barclay said. “Once we worked everything out, it was fine … he provided for his child.
That’s very good to know.
* However, keep in mind that the cold political reality here is these news stories are one-offs and were aired/published on a Friday night/Saturday morning, when most people aren’t paying attention. But that negative direct mail is gonna keep pounding Rep. Dunkin through March 15th.
On the other hand, if you actually watch Charles Thomas’ report, he’s got plenty of stuff that Dunkin can use in a response TV ad with Dan Proft’s $500K, especially the mother’s voice. She sounds extremely sincere. That’d be a killer response piece if they decide to address the issue.
Although, as subscribers know, Dunkin’s Rauner connection polls very badly.
* By the way, Rep. Dunkin’s 50th birthday party looked well-attended last night, although his friends and supporters woke up to this today…
Oof.
posted by Rich Miller
Saturday, Feb 13, 16 @ 12:39 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Reader comments closed for the holiday weekend
Next Post: Another anti-Dunkin mailer hits, but criticized as “political lynching”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Dunkin’s birthday party looked like a senior citizens lunch. I guess he needed to bus them in and feed them to attend. Lol.
Now that he’s eligible for AARP, maybe that’s appropriate.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 8:53 am
That last paragraph certainly bolsters the credibility of Dunkin’s accuser.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 8:56 am
One of the more detailed takedowns of an elected officials I’ve seen since Aaron Schock.
You have a stranger in your house, you use the tools you have to move the stranger out.
I feel awful for the victims.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 8:58 am
“The orders of protection were based on the words of two people on two occasions - although judges apparently found those words credible enough to issue the orders.”
Don’t forget, though, that emergency orders of protection are issued in one-sided proceedings. The respondent is not present, nor is any attorney for that person. It’s only after the emergency order is issued that the respondent is served.
So the judge only hears the petitioner’s side of things at that point.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:02 am
- JoanP -
I’m confused…
Were OrderS Of Protection issues against Ken Dunkin?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:06 am
No one actually recanted anything the fellow got punched in the head. He does not deny the incident. Guessin’ anyone can look o.k. from 300 miles away
Comment by Annonn'' Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:19 am
Pushing, sure. Grabbing an arm, I can see that. But choking someone with a phone cord is over the top.
Comment by A Jack Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:21 am
@Osego Willy -
From the post, it appears that the order was an emergency order of protecture. The procedure for obtaining an EOP is that the person seeking it appears before the court with a petition setting forth the reasons they are asking for the order. The person against whom the order is requested is not given notice or opportunity to appear at that point.
An emergency order is limited in time. Once it is issued, the respondent is served with a summons to appear and at that point has an opportunity to contest it.
It’s not clear to me from the quoted section what happened at that second hearing, whether the EOP was extended. I assumed that if it had been, the story would have said so.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:27 am
I disagree with the suggestion that one of the accusers recanted. She didn’t deny that the event occurred, just that she thought it was overblown and old news that didn’t reflect on who he is today. Nowhere did she say it didn’t happen.
Comment by ILPundit Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:42 am
Reach out and touch someone, two out of three ain’t bad
Comment by Rabid Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 9:57 am
===It’s not clear to me from the quoted section what happened at that second hearing, whether the EOP was extended. I assumed that if it had been, the story would have said so.===
It’s not clear to me if the OrderS of Protection were extended or not, but I know that Maze had a FB statement not clarifying it when he had the chance, and Dunkin hasn’t done anything but one recanting to stop the speculation.
No one is stopping Dunkin or Maze…
The OrderS Of Protection are just that, parsing them, that’s at Dunkin’s own risk.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Feb 16, 16 @ 10:04 am